Details of Coronation for Charles III "Leaked"

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] Elizabeth III

Sorry, one too many "III" there, and cannot edit.

Ignore extra "I" and carry on....

Lounge suits????

The only reason Elizabeth's coronation took 2+ hours is that everyone participating moved around the church at a glacial pace in the name of "solemnity". I watched it the other day and thought "Oh my god, archbishop -- could you possibly walk that crown over to her any fucking slower?!"

If Charles and the gang move a little faster than 0.25 mph, maybe they can gaslight the UK into believing the ceremony's been "streamlined".

Will there be sugar cubes presented to Camila?

And when they were crowning and anointing boy kings like Edward VI or unhealthy fats like Queen Anne did they take 3 hours?

The article linked at R1 says he will be anointed. That's not done in public. He'll get crowned and that's all folks.

I call that very feeble....

I call this very boring...

Don't think things moved too slowly at all for Elizabeth II's coronation.

It is a solemn event, and more to point everyone is wearing garments that are quite long, heavy and cumbersome. You try moving about swiftly with a dozen or more yards of velvet or heavy embroidered cloth training behind or hanging off shoulders.

The coronation ceremony became really bloated in the early 20th century with Edward VII and George V. It had been less pomp-heavy during the time of the Hanovers and Victoria.

[quote] It is a solemn event, and more to point everyone is wearing garments that are quite long, heavy and cumbersome. You try moving about swiftly with a dozen or more yards of velvet or heavy embroidered cloth training behind or hanging off shoulders.

They don't have to do that. If they wanted, they could wear much lighter outfits.

In fact, they could do away with the coronation ceremony altogether like the Netherlands did. Nothing in law insists the monarch of the UK must have a formal coronation.

My guess is since peerage is overwhelming white and straight, sidelining that lot will do much for "inclusion' and "equality" far as HM and the Prince of Wales are concerned. Lowering number of hereditary peers leaves room to slot in a number of life peers who are a very mixed bunch.

Since Queen Camilla is not appointing ladies-in-waiting, just who will attend HM during coronation will be interesting. One or more ladies (or persons) must be in attendance to assist the Queen with her robes and so forth.

The Edward VII, Geo V and Geo VI coronations were imperial coronations. EIIR's carried on the tradition even though she was not an empress.

They'll have a lot to do in an hour: Camilla will be crowned queen at the same time.

The anointing takes place in the middle of the ceremony before the crowning r8. It only takes about a minute; for Elizabeth's anointing, they simply put a tent over her (for the spectators in the church) and moved the cameras away (for the viewers at home). Formally crowning the king is literally the last thing done. It's followed by the "crowned heads" one-by-one swearing allegiance to the new monarch. Now that shit they can probably get away with omitting.

Well that's a bummer. The ceremonies for the Queen's funeral were incredible and rich with history.

Maybe Charles doesn't understand the assignment. THIS is what the royal family and royal tradition is all about. Ceremony and ritual unite a people.

He should rethink this.

He will be anointed with the Holy Oils!!!

[quote] They'll have a lot to do in an hour: Camilla will be crowned queen at the same time

That doesn't take much time. She doesn't have to swear nearly as many oaths nor have anyone else swear fealty to her.

If HM thinks he's going to sideline C of E or get them to share much of their status or role at his coronation with "other faiths", there's going to be a battle I shouldn't wonder.

Can’t wait to watch Camilla get crowned

I hope they show them applying the magic oil to his breasts.

Can Cammie have a cigarette break half way through?

R18, Ceremony and ritual can still be achieved without taking hours. I think HM understands the assignment perfectly.

Good. People are tightening their belts all over, and bitching about the cost of the royals to the taxpayer. Better to keep it spare and simple. Better to be accused of an austere ceremony than an overblown expense.

Optics.

R22

If for nothing else want Camilla to be crowned as it will drive Dianamanics up the wall.

The Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Sussex will have to swallow it best they can; even if Diana, Princess of Wales had lived she wouldn't be in Camilla's place anyway.

The taxpayer is a net recipient.

I wanna see William, Kate, Harry (? -- will he even be invited?) put on their coronets the moment Charles is crowned. Will George and Charlotte have their own little coronets a la princesses Elizabeth and Margaret?

It sound like Charles is following the spirit of William IV, who until Charles III, was the oldest person to accede to the throne.

William IV had a real dislike of ceremony and pared down the event to such an extent that it became known as the “half-crown coronation”.

I think Charles is trying to find a balance, as the UK enters into a new age of austerity. However, I’m not sure he is right to do so. Those prone to complain about the coronation will do so regardless of how much it will cost, and there is a risk to the prestige of the monarchy if it looks cheap. The funeral of his mother should show him the value of ceremony. Britain does it well, and we shouldn’t give it up entirely.

[quote] Can Cammie have a cigarette break half way through?

No, but she can sip gin from a bejeweled chalice.

Apparently they've re-tooled the Queen Consort's crown so she can hide some ciggies behind the Koh-i-Noor if she needs to take a break during the ceremony.

Huh? I thought the coronation ceremony already happened. Well I'm not really a follower but everybody knows he's already the new king.

The whole thing with redacting a user’s OP when they link to the Globe is so childish. Just block the damn post if you don’t want links from the Globe. It’s like the site is run by a 12 year old or something.

He pouted after they wouldn't let him wear a 20 ft. train.

R33, Chuck 3 became King the minute Betty 2 died. The coronation usually takes place about a year after the death of the previous monarch.

[quote] Ceremony and ritual can still be achieved without taking hours.

You're confusing a coronation that has happened in 70 years with some drunk priest speed saying the Laton Mass in 9 minutes.

Pomp and circumstances require a leisurely time period. The people need and want to be entertained.

So do tourists.

Will the allow the anointment with the holy oil to be viewed and broadcast this time or will it still be private I wonder. That's the moment when he becomes Head of the CoE.

The article said they'd bring out the gaudy gold Coronation coach for Charles, so there's that bit of pomp to look forward to.

R24 Cammie! I roared with laughter.

I should think they're glad to have another chance to use the Coronation Coach. They spent hundreds of thousands of pounds retrofitting it so it would no longer be uncomfortable for the Platinum Jubilee, but the Queen couldn't get in it anymore anyway, so they had to fit a holograph inside of it.

Supposedly every single monarch complained abut how miserably uncomfortable it is since it was built in the 18th century. I'm sure they want to see if they've finally made it tolerable.

[quote]R14 One or more ladies (or persons) must be in attendance to assist the Queen with her robes and so forth.

They also have to put on Camilla’s saddle and bridle, etc.

Camilla will cause a sensation by being the first queen consort to herself pull the Coronation Coach through the streets of London.

Charles wants the carriage ride. IMO if they want to streamline they ought to start with that. Because that means a nother fucking parade. Fine the Household Cavalry, and a contingent from all the armed forces, and that's it. They go t o church, there's a ceremony, an anointing and the coronation itself. Now. I think they need to keep the nobles in their red robes. It is visually exciting. And all those peers wearing their little crowns. I also want to see the nobles pledging their fealty. Having Andrew, Edward, and William bow down to him AND Camilla is something Charles will never pass up. So lose the carriage and keep the rest. And it'll be a bank holiday so they will want neighborhood parties all over the place.

I think it would be fun to have all the peers show up in their coronation robes, I think the spectacle would be worth the expense.

Mistake. The ritual is the product. What’s the point of a streamlined, accessible monarchy? We want pomp. Pomp sells.

Pomp is the last thing that's selling at the moment. When you have people struggling to pay their Mortgage do you think they want to see a Gold bedazzled Carriage and splendiforous robes.

IMHO cutting down number of peers of realm (and by extension their wives), HM, The Queen having no ladies in attendance and rest of this plot just cheapens whole coronation.

The maids and ladies in particular lend such beauty to the proceedings. Their gowns, robes, jewels.....

Bit from HM, Elizabeth II's coronation regarding her ladies.

From memoir of Deborah Mitford, Duchess of Devonshire

Will the Dumbartons be invited?

Hole will be presented.

There will be no room for the Duke and Duchess of Overseas.

[quote]R47 The maids and ladies in particular lend such beauty to the proceedings. Their gowns, robes, jewels.....

MARY!

Will Trump be invited?

[quote]Will Trump be invited? [/quote]

N!

As long as Kate wears a knockout gown and a bunch of fabulous jewels and George and Charlotte look cute, the public will be happy.

[quote]Operation Golden Orb

Oooh! I want one of those.

EII left Charles as King of the UK and head of the Commonwealth.

CIII is going to leave William King of England and Wales.

Brexit was a disaster for the Monarchy in slow motion.

[quote] Better to keep it spare and simple. Better to be accused of an austere ceremony than an overblown expense.

[quote] Optics.

This right here by r26, and I write this as a lover of all the over-the-top, superfluous, ceremony that I got coming as a spectator.

It's a shame, but the correct approach.

The thinking here is a variation on why media/TV weather reporters routinely overstate what the dire snowfall amount and winds speeds will be of a coming blizzard.

If their computer models show potential conditions, but probably will be less, they're going to report the potential conditions because they'd rather be wrong in a good way than a bad way.

Here's thebthing. The coronation is considered a solemn and sacred ritual. So it is weighted with ceremony and tradition. Now, King George VI was loved by his people. He died. The Brits were just barely digging their way out of WW II. It was a tough time in the UK. Very tough. But Elizabeth's coronation provided a reminder of their collective, national identity, their history, and it literally filled the people with hope. It allowed them to come toas a community together.

Now there are definitely similarities with Elizabeth's coronation. But there is also a difference. Charles is accepted. They may even have a certain affection for him. But he is not loved as Elizabeth was loved when she died. People are genuinely grieving. By waiting until June, Charles is doing the smart thing. Because it gives people time. And by cutting back on some of the pomp he is smart. But I sincerely hope he doesn't cut much because pomp is what the Brits do better than anyone.

[quote]Charles III "Leaked"

Pics please.

A downsized coronation for a downsized nation.

Will Camilla shoot ping pong balls out of her pussy?

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

From above Independent linked article:

"The Mail on Sunday quoted a source as saying: “The King has stripped back a lot of the coronation in recognition that the world has changed in the past 70 years.”

The more modern coronation is also expected to be more religiously and culturally diverse, with plans reported to include a multi-faith congregation composed of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist figures."

Has Justin Portal Welby commented?

Some watery tart is going to throw a sword at him

I totally get that a great of the religious and imperial elements of the coronation have to be changed because the monarchy is treading in shallow water due the cultural changes over the past 70 years and the reanalysis of the legacy of the British Empire that is currently taking, but I think if there you're going to have a coronation, it should be full of pomp and tradition. If we're being real, a huge reason why the British Monarchy has survived and still commands global attention is because of the theatre of it all.

[quote]R63 Will Camilla shoot ping pong balls out of her pussy?

It’s generally believed the weather-beaten tunnel’s too loose to hold ‘em.

She will be held by Her Majesty's pall-bearers and aimed at the crowd. But they will be popcorn balls.

Big mistake, King Chuck. The major thing of interest in a Royal Coronation is the pomp and arcane ritual.

R4 a lounge suit is what we know as a regular business suit that a man wears to work. As opposed to a morning suit which has a coat with tails, a waistcoat and is worn with a top hat.

Can I wander in wearing a bathrobe carrying a bowl of cold cereal? Will Camilla’s hymen be tested for the virginal purity fit for his majesty?

r72, I believe that the horse is not returning to that barn.

Will Rose Hanbury be part of the horse show/coronation?

(It’s only fair to point out Charles has major horseface, too. It’s not just Camilla.)

Will Duke of York and his family participate or even attend?

What about Earl and Countess of Wessex and their family?

Will The Princess Royal wear a gown or trousers?

What about Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent and their wives/families?

Please tell me that they are at least keeping the farting contest.

Scoff at Kent and Gloucester as you will, but they to a shit ton of charity work and have dozens of patronages they are involved with. And. They were the Queen's first cousins. the children of her father's brothers. The only reason Andrew can be Duke of York is because his grand father the King was Duke of York before his ascension. They held the title and recreated it for Andrew. Now they have to make Edward Duke of Edinburgh because Gloucester and Kent still live, altho in the case of Gloucester, I believe he is of Charles' generation, not his mother's. Once Andrew is dead, Charles could create Harry as Duke of York altho I don't know if it would be much of a promotioin and of course it depends on how things are between them. If Harry comes home (I believe he will) Charles may consider it.

R77

What a load of twaddle...

Read and you may learn something:

"Duke of York is a title of nobility in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Since the 15th century, it has, when granted, usually been given to the second son of English (later British) monarchs. The equivalent title in the Scottish peerage was Duke of Albany. However, King George II and King George III granted the titles Duke of York and Albany."

Eldest male heir of monarch usually becomes Prince of Wales.

Second born son becomes (usually) the duke of York.

When a Prince of Wales becomes king that title along with all others held merge back to crown and are free to be given again. Just as Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge became "P of W" shortly after HM The KING inherited throne.

Long as a Duke of York has male heirs that title will pass along in order of primogeniture.

Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, the Duke of York (who became George VI after abdication of Edward VIII), had only daughters. Upon becoming monarch the dukedom of York merged back with crown , thus was free to be granted again. This happened in 1986 when HM, Elizabeth II made her second eldest son Prince Andrew, D of Y.

If Albert Frederick Arthur George, the Duke of York hadn't become monarch the title would have become extinct anyway since again he had no male heirs of his body. Either way Elizabeth II would have been free to give the dukedom to anyone she wished.

Certain royal dukedoms by custom or whatever are held by the monarch (such as duchy of Lancaster). Others by heir to throne/Prince of Wales (duchy of Cornwall), duchy of York by second eldest and so forth.

Otherwise there many dukedoms associated with BRF that could be granted to any male member.

Bear in mind there is nothing essentially "royal" about these dukedoms other than fact they are or have been linked historically to monarch and members of BRF.

He's going to fill the Abbey with a bunch of wogs.

Harry is the second born son of the monarch. Charles can't do a thing until Andrew is dead. He can't creat another Kent or Gloucester for Edward because those old farts are still alive, so Edward gets his father's title. It all works out.

Will Charles name Cammie, the Cuntess of Cunnilingus? Lord knows her tongue has been in more lady ponds than gynecologist’s finger.

The Duke of Gloucester is close to Charles's age; but he is actually a first cousin of the late Queen, just as is the Duke of Kent.

If George marries when his father is King, he won't need a temporary dukedom--he'll be Prince of Wales. And to simplify things William will probably make Louis Duke of Cambridge when he marries.

If George or Louis marries before William becomes king, they'll have to be given dukedoms that have never been used, or that have not been used in decades or even centuries, like Duke of Albemarle or Duke of Hertford.

We want a good show . We want our monies worth. If it's third rate what's the bloody point?

His new palace guard uniforms are already a hit!

R81

Prince Henry already has dukedom of Sussex; there's no need to gild the lily.

Maybe 100 or so years ago it was the thing to make sons of monarchs double barreled dukes, but that's largely all done with now.

Dukedom of York likely in due time will go to second son of the Prince of Wales, Prince Louis. Prince Andrew does not have male heirs so once HRH kicks the bucket that line will become extinct, and title free to be given out again.

Charles needs to tread carefully about his "modernizing the monarchy." BEcause one day the King will wake up to Parliament insisting on all those land holdings that "belong" to the Crown, like Cornwall and Lancaster be dissolved and there will be no more corwn holdings, just whatever they privately own. Al though maybe not. But something is definitely going to change because they don't pay enough taxes.

By Christmas this Scrooge will be toast.

[quote]r88 something is definitely going to change because they don't pay enough taxes.

Which is disgusting. They’re really not unlike dear Donald Trump in that way.

The coronation has to be modified anyways because so much of it totally out of date. For example, when the Queen came to the throne, the House of Lords was hereditary & and not it's mostly appointed. The monarch is no longer the head of an empire but the head of voluntary commonwealth of independent nations, having hereditary dukes in cornets pledging allegiance to Charles III would look ridiculous now. And a four hour coronation in this day and age would be ridiculous, but it still needs pomp and theatre because that's what the monarchy and the UK is known for. I don't think the Brits want a European suit coat and limo kind of event.

It only needs to be 30 seconds long.

[quote] Dukedom of York likely in due time will go to second son of the Prince of Wales, Prince Louis. Prince Andrew does not have male heirs so once HRH kicks the bucket that line will become extinct, and title free to be given out again.

That would necessitate Andrew dying before Louis marries.

Andrew is 62, and since both his parents lived past 95 we should be able to expect the same for him.

Prince Louis is 4.

Perhaps just a breakfast.

The magic of the monarchy died with Elizabeth II, i don;t care anymore

^^ Then vote Camilla OUT, for starters.

R93 He won’t live as long as his parents. Philip and Elizabeth were never amorphous, gelatinous blobs like him. He looks like his tiny todger is lost under the folds of his pannus.

I picture Georgie handing out Christmas coupons at McDonald's...

So Charles lll can't wear the crown rn because there has been no coronation? Why do the folks swear allegiance to him and not the constitution like in America?

R99, because the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, unlike America.

[quote]Then vote Camilla OUT, for starters.

It's going to be on May 6th, in a very slimmed down ceremony. If people don't get a bank Holiday for it they're going to be furious.

Guess since monarchy doesn't need the peerage much as in past, HM can afford to piss off many by shutting them out of one of few remaining big things they have remaining. Having largely been turfed out of the Lords, hereditary peers only had the coronation as their other big role.

My guess is Hugh Grosvenor, seventh Duke of Westminster will score an invite. Besides His Grace's immense wealth and importance there are his charitable actions. Also his thoughts on environment and other green issues fit in with the KING's.

“Operation Golden Orb”

It IS kind of funny and sad that while most western powers have likely formed and are now fine-tuning their own strategic “operational” plans in light of the global situation, “coronating” some sour, spoiled elitist with a fancy ceremony is what the British are focused on. And yes, the government there IS helping to plan. And NO, the monarchy isn’t something only Americans care about. Brits are obsessed with this shit whether they want to abmit it or not.

Update:

From the Guardian:

quote: "The coronation of King Charles III will take place on Saturday 6 May 2023 at Westminster Abbey, with the ceremony reflecting the modern-day role of the monarchy, it has been announced.

The King and Queen Consort will be crowned in a service that will retain some historical elements of past coronations but also recognise the spirit of the times.

Charles will be anointed with holy oil, receive the orb, coronation ring and sceptre, then be crowned with the majestic St Edward’s crown and blessed during the ceremony. Camilla will also be anointed with holy oil and crowned, as was the Queen Mother when she was crowned Queen in 1937.

/quote

Am guessing it took some effort to put CPB over in terms of being anointed. A divorced woman with one husband living, whose adulterous affair with then Prince of Wales is largely blamed for dissolution of his marriage is going to be anointed with holy oil in church.

Stiffer elements of C of E not to mention Dianamaniacs likely had something to say...

Just plop a crown on his head and then let everyone have a day off to get drunk. That will streamline it.

Out of gate first marketing of commemorative items should be special tins for tampons. Sort of what like one can find for Persil or Ariel detergent.

r105, it sounds like it is going to be a drive through coronation.

So what happened to June 3rd? Originally they were saying June 3, but now they're saying May 6.

My money is on Prince Louis pulling same face as his grandfather at Elizabeth II's coronation.

A Saturday? There goes our free bank holiday. Arseholes.

The other date that was reported would have been better. To me, the seventy year (and one day) gap between the two coronations would have brought home to people, for one last time, the length of the late Queen's reign and what an achievement that was on her part. That extra day would have drawn a line under her extraordinarily long reign and made clear that Charles' will be a reign of its own.

Charles' birthday being in November, they will presumably be keeping Trooping the Colour in June, so this might help explain why it's May.

May 6 is Archie’s birthday. This is a subtle F-you to Meghan.

[quote] It IS kind of funny and sad that while most western powers have likely formed and are now fine-tuning their own strategic “operational” plans in light of the global situation, “coronating” some sour, spoiled elitist with a fancy ceremony is what the British are focused on.

Yeah, because nations tend to just be able to deal with one issue at a time. Of course. That’s how the world works. Well done you for noticing!

[quote] Am guessing it took some effort to put CPB over in terms of being anointed. A divorced woman with one husband living, whose adulterous affair with then Prince of Wales is largely blamed for dissolution of his marriage is going to be anointed with holy oil in church.

R106, If the Church of England happily put a crown on King James I and VI (gay as a goose), Charles II (who died with both his mistress and wife at his bedside), most of the King Georges (mistresses galore), George IV (who actually had his wife locked out of the coronation) and Edward VII (habitué of the brothels of Paris and who had his own furniture made to best accommodate his preferred sexual practices), then Queen Camilla will hardly be the straw which breaks the camel’s back.

Of course, the 6th of May is actually dear Archie’s birthday! So nice of his darling grand-papa to honour him in this way. They are so close!

So hopefully Charles' staff will make sure anyone with political or financial clout will be invited and if they're peers they will be robed. Those people like that shit. Same with members of Parliament. They need to be well treated.

This is a clear message to Meghan and Harry from the Palace: Stay home with your kid on his birthday...you're not needed or wanted here.

[quote] Then vote Camilla OUT, for starters.

How would that work, exactly? Vote to force Charles to divorce her? It doesn't work that way.

[quote] Of course, the 6th of May is actually dear Archie’s birthday!

Who?

R120, an act of Parliament could designate her official title as King's Mistress.

I think the point about the importance of rituals is a valid one, on the other hand, everyone might also be considering that King Chuck's reign will likely be a relatively short one (10 years?) and that the big shebang will be when Wills & Kate are crowned. In the short term, between the recent Jubilee & the Funeral, everyone in the UK might be a bit over it

R103 - All of the Dukes will be invited. I don't think that is even available for discussion.

"recognize the spirit of the times."

Chuck is going to do the pomp and circumstance thing robes for everyone, because he wants the public to see him as the Legitimate King, not a place holder. He is going to reign, baby!

^ Not bloody likely

Liz Truss met with Queen Elizabeth II and 2 days later the Queen died.

Liz Truss cut taxes and 2 days later the pound died.

Charles had better not meet Liz on 4 May 2023.

R112

May Day (1 May) is an early bank holiday and falls Monday before coronation. How many days off per week do you want?

QEII will appear via hologram to remind Charles of his duty to the Crown. She will also remind Camilla that the tampons are in the bottom left hand drawer under the bathroom sink. No need to ask the King to plug up her bloody gash with his “golden orb” anymore.

Will Major Johnny be there??

Will he be strategically seated to keep petulant misbehaving children in check?

I desperately want Prince Louis to attend the whole show! He's our only hope of something fun happening during the ceremony, during which Charles and Camilla will probably look miserable!

They NEED to bring him. And since the Waleses can't bring a nanny, and Will and Kate are going to be too stiff to look after the kids... they need to put Charlotte in charge of keeping him quiet.

Apropos of nothing, I hadn't realized that Prince George was already as tall as Queen Elizabeth. Probably taller by the end.

I wonder if Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord James are going to wear the robes and coronets they are entitled to as grandchildren of a sovereign. I have a feeling that only Anne, Catherine, and Camilla will be in robes. Not the York girls, and not Meghan.

What will Andrew's excuse be for not attending? I am SO looking forward to hearing that one!

Unlike Meghan, he'll never admit he wasn't invited.

Had Diana lived, neither would Camilla r27.

"Had Diana lived, neither would Camilla"

Why on earth ever not?

At time of her death Diana, the Princess of Wales was divorced from the Prince of Wales, leaving him free to do whatever he wished marriage wise.

Instead of a two divorced persons each with a former spouse living, there only would have been the one; CPB.

Andrew will be there. It is one of the few occasions they will allow him to be in the church. I will love seeing the entire family in robes. I remember that photo of Elizabeth's coronation and there was Margaret and Mummy and even little Charles watching her.

The old lady was really the glue that held that crazy family together. It’s all going to fall to shit with Charles in charge.

The meltdown begins.

No one cares what those two think about the new King's plans r140. I don't believe it even factored in.

I wonder if Andrew Parkher-Bowels will be there?

[quote] Liz Truss met with Queen Elizabeth II and 2 days later the Queen died.

Liz Truss cut taxes and 2 days later the pound died.

“Liz, have you met my sister-in-law Meghan Thee Duchess?”

— The Prince Of Wales

It's got to be boring as shit to watch something like that.

"I wonder if Andrew Parkher-Bowels will be there?"

No, but he'll be at the afterparties, he's Princess Anne's "best friend", and father to the king's grown stepchildren. Camilla's children will undoubtedly be there, with no robes or coronets.

Do they get to sit in the royal box? Do they get peerages out of this? Do they want peerages or titles?

Camilla's kids will receive no peerages. Nothing. They might, however, get to sit in the Royal Box, as their mother is being crowned Queen Consort.

[quote]May 6 is Archie’s birthday. This is a subtle F-you to Meghan.

That would mean Charles would have to remember Archie even exists.

Because of the optics r137. Both divorced spouses still living? Especially after their behavior? No. Certainly not that soon, and she would never have been Queen.

Diana never would have been queen, there's no way she'd gave stuck it out for another 30 years! No, some divorces make everyone concerned happier, and that was one.

But of course if she were alive next May, she'd spend that day throwjng drinks at the TV. Sure, she was glad to be rid of Charles, but that doesn't mean she'd like to see some other woman crowned.

I'm still looking forward to his coronation. I've never seen one Live. Maybe I'll live long enough to see another coronation, but there's no guarantee. I don't know his expiration date or my own.

[quote] Am guessing it took some effort to put CPB over in terms of being anointed.

I don't think the consort gets anointed, does she? Just the new sovereign does.

[quote] But of course if she were alive next May, she'd spend that day throwjng drinks at the TV.

I think it's more likely she'd be clawing frantically at the top of her coffin until the air gave out.

Will Camilla wear THE kohinoor diamond? India wants it back.

R153, they can’t have it. It’s keeping the Queen Consort’s head warm.

R151, the consort gets her hooves filed.

Coronations have afterparties?

Why? To celebrate who won?

R155, in that case she may be using the Kohinoor for that purpose, in which case it still can’t be sent back to India.

Please, India? They drink and bathe in the feculent Ganga. I am sure they'd take back the Mountain of Light with a bit of Milla's toe jam.

Lord love a duck!

Why is it things always come down to being about Harry and Meghan?

Will they or won't they attend? What will Prince Harry wear? What will Meghan wear? It's their son's birthday.....

Let them stay in California and watch the coronation on telly like other Americans.

Charles will do anything to get out of going to Archie's party!

Harry + Meghan are the only interesting thing about the BRF at this point. (Well, and Andrew’s scandals.) The rest are rather a dull lot. So what else can writers put in the news?

Odes to Kate’s soccer mom style?

R156

Normally weeks or so preceding event there are various balls, parties, etc... Historically at least the nobility and upper classes gave parties either in town or at their country estates.

Lower down scale there are block parties or other local events at pubs or people's homes.

Street Party Celebrating Queen Elizabeth II Coronation, 1953

1950s Street Party, Celebrating Queen Elizabeth II Coronation

Not in aide of coronation; but Prince Charles and HM Elizabeth II and HM The Queen Mother cutting up the rug at Ghillies Ball.

[quote] Harry + Meghan are the only interesting thing about the BRF at this point.

But they are interesting only in the way that watching someone try to light his/her hair on fire is interesting. People watch the Harkles because they are self-destructive.

Are you American, r161?

R149, she wouldn't be watching it on TV. She would be in Westminster Abbey.

R106, do you have any idea why Henry VIII broke away from Rome, leading to the foundation of the Church of England?

R169 - no! What's the scoop?

The CofE was founded on adultery.

Edward VII died on 6 May 1910, so there's another RF tie in as well.

Do with that bit of information what you will...

Gosh, I'm going to be up all night now wondering what to do with that bit of information.

A grandchild on another continent that he isn’t allowed to see is hardly a factor when the powers that be are setting a coronation date.

It’s not a factor AT ALL, actually.

Primer of sorts from Daily Fail follows

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Zadok the Priest: The Coronation Anthem seems to have made the cut music wise. That's something anyway...

I read somewhere that Charles wants Camilla to be addressed as the Queen. Not the Queen Consort.

The title queen consort is a teaching tool. Once you learn the lesson that the wife of a king is not a queen regnant, you can drop it. It is like dowager. Once King George V died, everyone knew that dowager queen mary was simply queen mary. Queen Milla is Queen Milla. Dowager Queen Elizabeth hated the title dowager and her daughter came up QE, The Queen Mother to differentiate HM QE and HM the Dowager Queen Elizabeth.

I mourn the loss of tradition and pageantry. They should however substitute the presentation of gold ingots with a pack of 10 pre-rolls.

R178

Why media has latched onto "queen consort" for Camilla is a wonder to us all. Then again they also created "princess" Diana, so obviously persons are either ignorant or just careless.

Outside of official papers and such no one ever referred to Mary of Teck, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Alexandra of Denmark and others as "queen consort", but just queen. Inference is obvious since they were married to monarchs. Same for Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt of and by the Rhine (Empress Alexandra) and others.

Monarchs refer to their wives in such instances as "my" or "the" queen or empress. HM the KING hardly is going to go about referring to Camilla as "the queen consort". He bloody well knows what and who she is...

*Update*

Coronation day will be a bank holiday after all.

Two bank holidays in one week. Oh dearie me, where will it all end....

[quote]her daughter came up QE, The Queen Mother

Not true…the term Queen Mother has been around, and used many times prior to QE

The 'Queen Consort' title is just a set of training wheels for the low-functioning DianaManiacs. The training wheels will come off when they become more balanced and refer to Camilla as Queen Camilla, as the rest of the higher functioning people of the world do currently.

I suggested Old Liz, the Cookie Queen, but once again I was ignored.

Main reason for ressurecting title "Queen Mother" was those who matter and know about such things feared common people would confuse the two queens; Monarch and Mother.

In fact and practice monarchs are normally referred to as "HM", or "the King" or "the Queen" while living. Use of their regnal name and a regnal number normally are reserved for other situations.

However since both HM and widowed queen consort shared same Christian name there was concern.

Queen Elizabeth couldn't be referred to as "dowager" because Queen Mary was still alive when George VI died. More to point Queen Elizabeth was still a comparatively young woman when she became a widow and wanted nothing to do with what she saw as antiquated terms referring to relicts.

Title "queen dowager" had been around since 1560 and referred to simply a woman who was mother of current monarch and also "dowager". In this instance BRF had two living widows, so someone had to come up with something...

Dianamanics would no doubt have pushed for late Diana, Princess of Wales to have title (courtesy) of "mother of the king" had she lived long enough to see Prince of Wales (Prince William) crowned.

Damn right we would have r186!

Will King Tampon try to cram himself inside Camilla’s weather-beaten old whore cunt as a new ritual at the coronation, to symbolize their unity?

Give the people SOMETHING!

Where in the article that you link to does it say there will be two bank holidays in one week, r182?

The article at least outlines that the date planning is being done by the clueless British government, which has no idea what it's aiming for.

I'd be perfectly happy to see "queen consort" enter common English usage, to distinguish the position from that of a ruling queen. Why not, now that girls have equal inheritance rights in most monarchies.

R111 oof, the Queen Mum is giving me chinless German peasant.

[quote]I read somewhere that Charles wants Camilla to be addressed as the Queen. Not the Queen Consort.

Ah, call the dried-up old bitch "queen" if they want it so bad; it's not as if either of these assholes' titles actually carry any weight.

She's queen. Everyone stop dicking around about it, and regretting the whole Diana saga. It's over. Get over it. Don't be complete fraus about it all. She's Queen Camilla and any more whining about it is completely beside the point.

Also, I think Charles is making a mistake here. Do the whole fucking saga. The whole bullshit thing. People will lie and say they want some scaled down thing. They don't. They are completely full of shit. They want once in their life to have some completely crazy over the top thing like a coronation. This is one of those things when any poll is completely full of shit and everybody is a lying whore. Don't believe them for one fucking second.

Well of course Dataloungers want all the pageantry, jewels, ermine capes, and weird ancient rituals possible, but we're Dataloungers!

The bulk of the British public undoubtedly feels differently.

Just as Philip had to tell Elizabeth a thing or two about her own coronation, Camilla is going to have to sit Chuckles down and tell him to stop fucking around and have a real coronation.

The bulk of the British public is 100% full of shit on this question. Every single fucker of them is lying their fucking ass off. They will say what pollsters want them to say and not mean a fucking word of it.

Charles should have a rising throne, like the Byzantine Emperors. Seriously, what a goddamn hit that would be. Charles gets crowned and starts rising into the air. Damn, that would be a thrill for all viewers.

Actually, bring in the bitch that did the Chinese Olympics opening ceremony and say, go nuts. People need a goddamn show. Britain, your government is a complete fuckup these days. You know it, we know it, the whole world knows it. Charles' coronation is the best opportunity you have had in years not to be a complete fuck up. Take advantage of it!

I sure hope Elton John, Posh Spice, and David Beckham aren’t invited. They seem to wrangle these invites and to me they bring the elegance down, much like having Oprah there.

r198 Thanks for chiming in, Mrs. Venable. 🚡 We'll see what we can rig up. 😁

I just learned today that Prince William is the first heir to the throne since the 1400s to marry a commoner. (The QM was of course only the spare's wife at the point of marriage.) He will also be the tallest monarch since the same guy (Edward IV, I think it was: he was just before Richard III). Just thought they were interesting factoids.

And what was royal about Diana before her marriage to HRH The Tampon Consort?

Methinks one needs to learn what an aristocrat is and that all non royals are commoners.

R202, whenever you idiots go on about tampons, the only thing you achieve is to verify that you're morons.

Is this fucking circus not done yet? Jesus f christ, how long does this crap take?

I’m starting to think that he feels guilty for the existence of the monarchy. Every country has its patriotic parades so…

Isn't 'queen mother' an unofficial title, and these other titles are official?

I still think it’s damn sad that Charles was rushed into a loveless marriage while still out sowing his wild oats. How many paid the price for the palace’s impatience? How many have died? How much damage has Charles done? And what is yet to come?

"I just learned today that Prince William is the first heir to the throne since the 1400s to marry a commoner."

Well someone has to nitpick: Edward IV was king when he married Elizabeth Woodville, not heir to the throne! And you could say that he was the first monarch to marry someone middle-class... depending on your definition of middle-class. Elizabeth's father was a knight and baron, and her mother was a dowager duchess, so she had tons more aristocratic blood than the current PoW, but as her first husband was a knight and a country squire, so she was considered "middle-class" by Brit standards.

Queen Consort Elizabeth was massively unpopular with the nobility, as she squeezed them out of top governmental positions and put her own relatives in their place.

Charles III is the first king of GB in some time who actually wants the job and is quite keen.

George VI became monarch only because is brother Edward VIII abdicated. After spending his life as the spare, and quite happy doing so by neither temperament nor desire was Prince Albert suited. HM did his duty of course, and couldn't have gotten through the ordeal without his wife, Queen Elizabeth who proved to be a pillar of strength.

Edward VIII enjoyed being prince of Wales, but was not so keen on being monarch by most accounts. Issue of his marriage to twice divorced American Wallis Simpson gave the new king an out. Issue was maneuvered to get off the throne, something that otherwise doesn't happen in England/GB until death.

George V was another "spare" who never was supposed to inherit, and was quite happy being second son. Prince George was quite happy in Royal Navy and likely would have spent much of his life otherwise split between that career and being a country gentleman. Death of Prince Albert Victor (am seeing a trend here....), changed those plans.

George V did his duty but was often quite happy either out shooting something or with his stamp collection. Queen Mary was another pillar of strength to a British king. George V trusted and valued his queen's consul, giving her extraordinary access to government papers and seeking the queen's advice on all sorts of matters.

r208, isn't Camilla a commoner?

In strictest sense anyone who is not royal is a "commoner". But there is common commoners, and just "commoners".

In UK at least nobility while common are considered step up from dead common and suitable for marriages to royals. In other royal courts of Europe (such as Imperial Russia) Romanov family house rules forbade unequal marriages. That is Romanovs had to marry those from other royal or imperial families, period.

Saving grace at least for Romanovs was above laws loosely defined "royals" as those belonging to a reigning, deposed or mediatised dynasty. For this reason members of both the Bourbon and Napoleon dynasties were not excluded from royal marriage market.

This also explains why Russia had so many consorts from Germany. It didn't matter if one's family were monarchs of an area no larger than Central Park in New York City, or Hyde Park in London, long as blood was royal, they were good to go.

England/United Kingdom wasn't much bothered by monarchs marrying commoners until really arrival of Hanoverians. Only two of Henry VIII's wives were royal princesses for instance. Germans then (and some say still do) have a mania about purity of bloodlines. Thus either someone was royal or they weren't and morganatic marriages were frowned upon.

In great upheaval of George V's remaking of BRF many of his German relations living in UK were ticked off on being busted down ranks from royalty (even if only serene) into the nobility. They do say the Mountbatten (formerly Battenberg) family never forgot nor forgave this act. They do also say that this drove Louis Mountbatten to get some of his family's own back against the Windsor clan.

Lord Mountbatten skillfully slotted in his nephew, Prince Phillip of Greece into orbit of young Princess Elizabeth, then actively promoted, schemed and plotted for a match to occur. Mountbatten tried again with Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales ( a match between PoW and one of the daughters of Lord Mountbatten's sister, Lady Pamela Hicks), but that bit failed.

"[R208], isn't Camilla a commoner?"

Technically, but I think she's related to various aristocrats, and her family is old, established, and monied. Totally unlike the Princess of Wales's new-money dead-common family.

I'd call someone like Camilla "upper class", because I'm American and to us old money and aristocratic relatives make you upper class. But the British call people like that "upper middle class", because they're not actually titled.

R188 has a limited vocabulary revolving around the not-at-all funny “King Tampon” and “weather-beaten cunt”.

But, then again, R188 IS limited.

R212 doesn't seem to know Catherine is also descended (directly) through Edward IV on her mother's side, Edward III on her father's side, and shares several common ancestors with Diana and the Queen Mum.

Most people of primarily British ancestry are descended from Edward III, who had many sons who had many sons. That is no great mark of distinction.

Camilla, like Diana and Fergie, is a descendant of King Charles II via one of his numerous bastard sons. Camilla and Fergie were technically commoners but were soaked in noble blood on both sides of their family and were classic country gentry.

Will the choir include the Vivats in Parry's "I was glad?"

"Vivat Rex - Vivat Rex Charles" just won't carry the same pleasing ring as "Vivat Regina Elizabetha." Therefore, I feel the entire thing should be cancelled!

But most people don't have direct descent r215.

Camilla cannot be a "Queen Mother." And I believe out of respect to Queen Elizabeth II the media is drawing the distinction that while we now have a new King, Camilla is not "the Queen " in the sense that Elizabeth was. She is Queen because she married Charlies, thus his Consort. Eventually that distinction will go away.

If Camilla outlives Charles, she will be the Queen Dowager.

If Camilla survives the King, then she will be known as "The Old Gray Mare." When Royal functions and occasions are televised then as they are now, the commentators will always say something like "....and here we see the ole gal, Camilla, arriving at a slow pace. It's been some time since she was able to trot or cantor...."

Just like Queen Mary, Queen Milla will remain Queen Milla.

" And I believe out of respect to Queen Elizabeth II the media is drawing the distinction that while we now have a new King, Camilla is not "the Queen " in the sense that Elizabeth was. She is Queen because she married Charlies, thus his Consort. Eventually that distinction will go away."

That is just stupid.

Elizabeth II was a queen regnant. Camilla is a queen consort. First outranks the latter, so why would anyone need to tippy-toe about feelings, respect or whatever for the deceased monarch?

Then again it was and is the media that gave us "Princess Diana" so there's no accounting for that lot having a clue.

As of today the royal procession to Westminster has been updated.

R223, wasn't it in the divorce decree?

[quote]r207 I still think it’s damn sad that Charles was rushed into a loveless marriage while still out sowing his wild oats.

and tampons

[quote]r213 …revolving around the not-at-all funny “King Tampon” and “weather-beaten cunt”.

That’s ‘Weather-Beaten OLD WHORE Cunt,’ to you.

" I still think it’s damn sad that Charles was rushed into a loveless marriage while still out sowing his wild oats."

Why? It is long the done thing for heirs to marry and breed children quite soon as possible. What ever else they get up to afterwards falls under "lads will be lads"....

Heirs married, but had one or more mistresses. This went on even after heir inherited and became king.

Prince Charles, was *32* when he married Lady Diana Spencer (she was 20).

Early thirties by many standards was leaving things too long for an heir to marry and produce heirs of his own for the throne. Anything could have happened. Within not too distant past one heir, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale died. Then Prince of Wales could have been injured and ended up in a spinal chair... All sorts of ghastly things might have occurred.

Fly in ointment of course was no one bothered asking Lady Diana if she minded being part of a group even if she was first. Considering what her own father and his heir got up to marriage wise can see why Diana was looking for a steady bloke. Someone who would lavish immense amounts of patience and otherwise shoring up an emotionally needy young woman.

Sadly it wasn't to be, and all Hell broke lose....

[quote]isn't Camilla a commoner?

Yes, but William married Kate before Charles married her, so he was still first since Edward IV.

R229 Charles & Camilla (2005) were married before William & Kate (2011).

Oops! Sorry, R230. In that case, Charles takes the cake.

Queen Elizabeth The eventual Queen Mother would never have received permission from Queen Mary and King GV to marry Bertie had she known David was going to abdicate. That is why Bertie was allowed to marry a commoner, al be it an aristocratic commoner.

Funny that England is now in the Year of Three Prime Ministers.

R225, Diana, who was not born a Princess (a blood Princess) was never titled Princess Diana. She could only be referred to as Diana, Princess of Wales, which title she was allowed to keep since her son would one day be King.

The Queen offered to make Diana a princess in her own right, HRH Princess Diana, a title she would keep even if she remarried, but she clung onto the Princess of Wales title, pissed the Queen off, and lost the HRH.

Of course they do, R218. How else can you be descended? It could be a bastard line or a female line or the line of a younger son, but most Caucasian Britons have Edward III as a many-great grandpa, and many Americans too. Both my parents, who grew up poor as dirt in the rural south, are descended from Edward III.

"Queen Elizabeth The eventual Queen Mother would never have received permission from Queen Mary and King GV to marry Bertie had she known David was going to abdicate"

He got lucky there! He had ISSUES, and he was wise to marry someone who was incredibly kind, supportive, and encouraging. Without that, who knows what would have become of him, he might have been a hotter mess than his older brother. And as it turned out, his short chunky little commoner wife, who wouldn't have been good enough for a crown prince, turned out to be a popular queen.

That is completely untrue, R234. Don’t make stuff up, you only look stupid.

As per terms of divorce decree Diana Spencer voluntarily gave up her royal status (HRH). During proceedings HM Elizabeth II was fine with then Princess of Wales keeping the HRH, but Prince Charles was quite firm that she should not. Subsequently Elizabeth II issued letters patent stating in future all wives of royal princes who divorce will lose the HRH. This applied not just to Diana, but Fergie, Duchess of York.

It was quite a blow to Diana that she should be stripped of royal status. As a more practical matter as now commoner once again Diana, Princess of Wales would have to bow curtesy to every member of BRF but her own sons as well.

This could have been dealt with as Henry VIII did with Anne of Cleves by granting Diana precedence (via letters patent) somewhere in line of female members of BRF, but Anne of Cleves was a royal princess by birth.

There is no record of HM offering to create Diana a royal princess post divorce. What was on table apparently was doing so posthumously after Diana's death but before her burial. HM and the palace made overtures to Earl Spencer and his family, but nothing ever came of it.

More...

Divorced peeresses use their Christian name followed by title. Thus "Anne, Duchess of Devonshire" indicates former spouse of duke of Devonshire. Several peers over years brought legal proceedings to compel their former wives to cease using titles, they all failed.

Things get confusing because "X" followed by title is also form used by widowed peeresses.

All this was one of reasons why George VI issued letters patent making his brother (former Edward VIII) Duke of Windsor, but also "HRH". Separate letters patent were necessary because the HRH was restricted to the duke himself alone. Wallis Simpson was *NOT* to be granted royal duchess status via marriage as what normally would occur. Queen Elizabeth (consort to George VI) was quite clear and firm on that subject.

Queen Elizabeth spoke what many others were thinking; that given Wallis Simpson's marriage track record she'd soon throw "David" over, then there would be a thrice divorced royal duchess loose upon society.

Upon hearing news and reading documents Wallis Simpson cracked it at once. "David" was the son of a monarch and grandson of another. Thus by birthright he was already royal, however just as today with Catherine Middleton and Meghan Markle under those terms Wallis would have automatically become HRH just as her husband. Granting Duke of Windsor a new HRH removed possibility of his wife gaining royal status by marriage.

There was talk at time as with Diana of Wallis getting the HRH posthumously so she could be buried as a royal duchess. IIRC talk was some bizarre arrangement that once plane carrying coffin passed a certain point, voilà , late Duchess of Windsor would become "HRH". It was all nonsense of course. What would be point of giving Wallis Simpson something denied her for decades during her lifetime.

[quote]r231 The Queen offered to make Diana a princess in her own right, HRH Princess Diana… but she clung onto the Princess of Wales title, pissed the Queen off, and lost the HRH.

At last, at least ONE person wasn’t afraid of that noxious, fetid, practically decomposing old cunt.

Diana - like many others - was sick of Big Liz’s high handed bullshit.

How is wanting titles that only the monarch can give a sign of being sick of the monarch, r242?

Early on Diana was petrified of her MIL. The Princess of Wales bowed into a deep curtesy anytime Elizabeth was present/arrived, then sort of shrank into background. Gradually however "shy Di" overcame her timidity around the QUEEN and other senior members of BRF.

The QUEEN early on was a staunch ally of Diana as her DIL coped with whole CPB thing. But gradually Diana's neediness and hysterics wore down HM, Prince Phillip and other senior members of BRF. HM et al found Diana exhausting; they grew weary of her weeping and hysterics. Yes, her marriage wasn't what Diana thought it was going to be, and there was CPB, but HM and rest of BRF just didn't see a huge problem there.

There's a famous story that goes one senior courtier or someone at the palace told the QUEEN he had just put up with Diana crying for a half and hour or whatever. HM shot back she had to deal with her DIL crying for over an hour...

Yes, R244 - we’ve all seen “The Crown”.

I haven't, r245.

Keep a civil tongue in your mouth sauce box.

Have no need to watch "The Crown" since no new territory is covered that hasn't been done so elsewhere before. Then again funny little people like yourself who don't read must get everything from film media I suppose.

^ Lady Lickspittle

R232

You don't have a clue do you?

George V encouraged all his children to marry "commoners" instead of making dynastic matches. Indeed only Prince George, Duke of Kent married a royal princess (Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark). All rest married spouses from the peerage.

Prince Albert of York was having a hot and heavy affair with Lady Sheila Loughborough a married woman. George V got wind of it and predictably hit the roof finding the woman totally unsuitable. HM dangled the dukedom of York to his son as an inducement to put Lady Loughborough away, Prince Albert fell into line and soon began courting Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon.

Contrary to your statement George V was rather fond of Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, saying at the time..

"Even the taciturn George V was a fan, telling his son, “You’ll be a lucky fellow if she accepts you.”

Queen Mary was onboard as well, so that was that.

George V adored his young DIL the Princess Albert of York, and her children the young princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. Later on towards end of his life as the Prince of Wales was making a fool of himself over Wallis Simpson George V made a rather accurate prophecy.

The KING stated that the Prince Of Wales will "disgrace himself shortly after inheriting, and that Elizabeth will make a fine queen...".

Charles should keep things simple…

He should wear a white cotton jumper and attempt to climb in Camilla’s pussy.

The commemorative tampon that’s sure to be marketed should have a gold, crown shaped applicator at the tip.

If they get behind the project, Charles and Camilla could use them ever after as party favors and stocking stuffers.

Oh you Americans and your tampon jokes! 25 years later and it’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?

What’s old is your Prime Minister. He’s been in office a whole week—aren’t you ready for your betters to appoint a new one?

Jeez, R253. Talk about thin ice.

Truss toed the traditional Trickle-down theory that has failed decade after decade.

Rishi has the problem of raising taxes on the rich as a Tory.

If I were him, I'd call for a General Election and blame the ensuing economy on the outcome.

The English+ are going to go all Greek on austerity.

R189

Monday, 8 May 2023 will be a Bank Holiday

HM like his mother quite favors Queen Mary. Especially about the eyes and nose.

His coronation isn't a big secret, y'know? Why shouldn't his people talk about a public, historic event?

I think I'll watch at least some of King Charles' Coronation. I won't be able to see dozens of these in my life! Next May I'll be in front of my TV watching the ceremony.

I'm pretty sure that the RF want people to know details about the coronation because they are going to televise it to the public.

Can’t they just mail him the completed paperwork? No one really cares about him.

Speaking of coronations.

See link below (starting at 53:00 minute mark) showing Marlon Brando as Napoleon Bonaparte at his coronation which took place December 2, 1804 in Paris at Notre Dame de Paris.

Napoleon shocked the people there because, reflected by Jean Simmons's (who played Desiree) comment ..."Heavens. He's crowned himself!!!"

Merle Oberon is playing Josephine.

Michael Rennie is playing Jean-Baptise Bernadotte, Desiree's husband.

From the 1954 film "Desiree".

The paperwork's already been completed, r260 (you must have missed the pen episode). The coronation is for the public (and the Church a bit, but not really).

Thank God it will be the last.

Are you British, r263?

Stick a tampon in him - he’s done!

“Those tampon jokes never get old!”.

I'm still going to wear a tiara that day.

Latest noise from BP...

Queen Camilla will not have formal ladies in-waiting, but HM has put together a group of several women who will act as the "Queen's Companions".

Included within this working group is Jane von Westenholz, the mother of the woman who introduced Prince Harry to his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.

R267, as opposed to?

I believe that r267 will blow glitter from his presented hole.

SURPRISE GLITTER !!!

I’m hoping for a little glow up for Her Majesty before the Coronation - she’s been looking a bit tired recently.

Oh, and some more supportive bras.

And some cosmetic dental work. Those crowns need replacing.

Vanity Fair which normally is a Diana Was a Goddess and La Markle is too! publication, today has a very long, detailed article about Charles' environmentalism which began in the 1970s. I learned Charles' degree from Cambridge was in Archaeology and Anthropology and that he is valued by leading environmentalists not just tolerated as a royal.