Coronation Chicken

[Old Grumpy]

I think Charles regarded this taking of other names on accession as archaic.

Unlike the Oath of Allegiance...


...which is ultra modern!

[RichardB]

I think Charles regarded this taking of other names on accession as archaic.

I dunno, he could be a little more up-to-date and call himself The (fill in the blank) Formerly Known as Prince.

[kernelbogey]

British comedian, active mid '80s whose name I can't remember, perhaps never knew...
'king this, 'king that....
playing Charles while his mother continued hale and hearty...
'I just want to be 'king King'...

Always rememberd, as so spot on and smart.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think Charles regarded this taking of other names on accession as archaic.

Our cake??

[vinteuil]

.

... a sane and balanced piece in The Guardian, I thought -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/04/the-guardian-view-on-the-coronation-of-charles-iii-a-dated-pageant-that-should-be-rethought

.

[Sir Velo]

.

... I see that Camilla is a "Her Majesty". Poor old Prince Philip (or "Nambawan Bigfela Belong Missus Kwin" as we we called him in Pidgin when in Vanuatu) was only ever a "His Royal Highness". Curious gendered asymmetry...

.

.

Presumably because if the male consort were to be granted the tile of "HM" he would then "outrank" the female sovereign by virtue of his gender. King trumps Queen etc.

[kernelbogey]

Also this piece by Martin Kettle in the same paper today:

At the heart of the coronation of Charles III on Saturday is a very deliberate national deception about religion. In some ways, the deception hides in plain sight, not attracting attention. Pre-coronation speculation has focused instead on more trivial things – Camilla, Harry, Meghan – or on monarchy’s general popularity in the post-Elizabeth era. But when you watch and listen to the coronation itself, the religious deception will be hard to miss – and harder to believe.

I repeatedly wonder about the shadowy 'Courtiers' who seem to be behind so much of what the Royal family do and say.

[Pulcinella]

I think Charles regarded this taking of other names on accession as archaic.

After 70 years of writing his name (rather elegantly, I think) it might be hard to suddenly have to use George instead of Charles. He'd have more to worry about than a leaky pen when he'd be signing the visitors' book!

En passant, that must be a problem for Anglican bishops who move diocese: Fred Ebor becomes Fred Cantuar, for example.

[oddoneout]

Presumably because if the male consort were to be granted the tile of "HM" he would then "outrank" the female sovereign by virtue of his gender. King trumps Queen etc.

That is my understanding too. Also, I believe he was only "Prince" because the Queen gave him that title. He was a prince in his own right(twice over - Greece and Denmark) but had to give that up(and his birth faith) on marriage, so presumably it was a form of restoration of the status quo.

[oddoneout]

This might amuse

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/05/atteeeention-let-us-take-the-royal-gewgaws-coronation-homage-of-allegiance

A somewhat more gentle, but nonetheless pointed dig at the goings on.
Also, I don't know about anyone else but there is something that doesn't quite add up here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...athan-dimbleby
If HM didn't like the idea(as DD suggests would be the case), why not veto it; if he hasn't does that suggest he doesn't have a problem with it?

[smittims]

This reinforces my view that this absurd thing has been wished on him. It's interesting that no-one, so far as I have seen, has owned up to it. All we have is a spokesman fro Lambeth palace who said it was 'exciting'.

I suppose the king could veto aspects of the ceremony he didn't want, but once he begins, where to stop? I suspect that at 75 he's fed up with all the extra things that have been loaded onto it, but doesn't want to be labelled grumpy. It would probably cause a tabloid rumpus if he openly objected to anything they've heaped into this overloaded farrago.

All I can say is that, as an admirer of the King and someone who's looked forward to this day for 40 years., I'm not sure I want to see it. I think I'll go for a long walk in the country tomorrow.

[Bryn]

This reinforces my view that this absurd thing has been wished on him. It's interesting that no-one, so far as I have seen, has owned up to it. All we have is a spokesman fro Lambeth palace who said it was 'exciting'.

I suppose the king could veto aspects of the ceremony he didn't want, but once he begins, where to stop? I suspect that at 75 he's fed up with all the extra things that have been loaded onto it, but doesn't want to be labelled grumpy. It would probably cause a tabloid rumpus if he openly objected to anything they've heaped into this overloaded farrago.

All I can say is that, as an admirer of the King and someone who's looked forward to this day for 40 years., I'm not sure I want to see it. I think I'll go for a long walk in the country tomorrow.

Small point, I am 75, but Charles Windsor will still be 74 until November 14th.

[JasonPalmer]

Looking forward to coronation special mix tape and concert this evening.

[Pulcinella]

Well, they've chickened out on paying homage:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jonathan-dimbleby-my-friend-charles-would-not-want-homage-6hhdkx7s0?shareToken=9710aa58825b0c4096eab14f520594b4

[smittims]

I'd be interested to see what forumites think of the TV or radio coverage of this event.

Watching the opening of the BBC1 live coverage (with the sound off, as is usual when I'm channel-hopping as I don't like noise or chit-chat) it occurred to me that I'd prefer simply an uninterrupted view of the abbey and the various events; I don't even want a commentary. And I certainly don't want Kirsty Young, on her own or asking Gyles Brandreth and Craig Revel Horwood (yes, I admit I do know who they are) how excited they are.

I accept that this puts me in a very small minority, but I ddi think the 1953 coverage was better in this respect: when nothing was happening the camera was allowed to rest on an appropriate object (e.g. a flag fluttering) and with only the ambient street sound; this conveyed the impression of being there more than this frequent cutting away to studio guests.

I'd also be interested to know if there are local celebrations where you are. Saturday is usually a dead day around here. Yesterday I took a walk and saw two large Union flags in a front garden, but that's all so far.