The Coronations in XX-XXI cent.

[DanlScott]

As an American, i have to say that you Brits know how to put on the pomp and circumstance, and some of us certainly enjoy watching it - provided you guys pay for it.  From what little I have observed, I would hazarrd to guess that the Royal Establishment will try to make Charles' coronation as big an event as the previous coronations, and it will follow as closely as possible the previous coronations; after all, tradition is one of the monarchy's cornerstones, isn't it?  I think the the one big factor that will affect the "size" of the coronation will be the cost.  What will the economy be like, and how much will the taxpayers tolerate spending on it.  The flak over windsor Castle, the Civil List, and  the Queen's taxes are proof that it's no longer business as usual.

[CHRISinUSA]

Speculating on this in the context of today's economic crisis is most likely a mute point.  The Queen is in excellent health, so the event in question is not likely to occur for at least another decade - probably even longer.  By then, perhaps Britain will be enjoying a thriving economy once again.  Before then will be debates over the cost of the Diamond Jubilee - which is only 3 years away. 

Wow - 60 years on the throne; and Her Majesty will be only the second British monarch to ever reach that milestone.  For trivia, should Queen Elizabeth II still be reigning on:

11 October 2009, at the age of 83, her reign would surpass that of James VI (57 years, 246 days)

12 May 2011, at the age of 85, her reign would surpass that of George III (59 years, 96 days)

10 September 2015, at the age of 89, she would surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history (63 years, 216 days)

26 May 2024, at the age of 98, she would become the longest-reigning monarch in European history, surpassing the reign of Louis XIV of France (72 years, 3 months, and 18 days).

[Soane]

Speculating on this in the context of today's economic crisis is most likely a mute point.  The Queen is in excellent health, so the event in question is not likely to occur for at least another decade - probably even longer.  By then, perhaps Britain will be enjoying a thriving economy once again.  Before then will be debates over the cost of the Diamond Jubilee - which is only 3 years away. 

Wow - 60 years on the throne; and Her Majesty will be only the second British monarch to ever reach that milestone.  For trivia, should Queen Elizabeth II still be reigning on:

11 October 2009, at the age of 83, her reign would surpass that of James VI (57 years, 246 days)

12 May 2011, at the age of 85, her reign would surpass that of George III (59 years, 96 days)

10 September 2015, at the age of 89, she would surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history (63 years, 216 days)

26 May 2024, at the age of 98, she would become the longest-reigning monarch in European history, surpassing the reign of Louis XIV of France (72 years, 3 months, and 18 days).

I don't wish to be pedantic, but James VI only ruled over England (Great Britain) for 22 years and 6 days. He was king of Scotland previously, having succeeded to the throne at the age of just 1. However, he would only attain full control of his realm in 1581.
Equally, Louis XIV succeeded to the throne of France when is was barely 5 years old and - despite being officially crowned in 1654, would not gain independent power until 1661 after the death of Cardinal Mazarin.
I just feel that when one is considering the length of a reign it is important to take into account the period of time that a monarch actually reigned for, i.e. having reached their majority or without a regent.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Soane,

I understand your viewpoint and I suppose I agree with it.
But, I think that we may be counting from the time the person became King, with or without regent.
The may have reigned from that moment but actually ruled at their majority.

Just my supposition!

Larry

[Douglas]

People complain about the Civil List and money paid to the royals.  Actually the royals are the UKs greatest tourist asset. 

 The amounts paid to royals is pennies compared to the multi-millions the UK takes in from tourists BECAUSE of the royals.

Don't mess with a good thing.  The British royals are the goose that laid the golden tourist egg.

[LadyTudorRose]

Personally, I think Charles should do the coronation similar to how his mother did it and keep with the traditions of how it was done for his grandfather and great-grandfather as well. He can make minor changes if he wants to (most monarchs have) but I think overall it should be like it always has been. So what if it's out-of-date and perhaps politically incorrect because of the religious elements? The entire monarchy is a bit out-of-date. That's one of the charms of it.

The coronation is an old ceremony. Nostalgia and love of tradition is one of the reasons they keep doing it when many other countries do not have coronations. I don't see the point of changing it.

I also think it could very well be William crowned in the next coronation rather than Charles. The Queen Mother outlived Princess Margaret, and Queen Victoria, Queen Alexandra, and Queen Mary all out lived children. If you look at the Windsor family the women tend to live longer than the men by several years. Plus remember than the Queen was only 22 when Charles was born, which makes it all the more likely she might outlive him than her younger sons who she had later in life.

Not saying that it will be William and not Charles, just that it's a very real possibility.

[Grace]

I agree with you, Jeniann.  Personally, I don't want Prince Charles's new age ideas to influence his coronation in any way at all.  Hopefully, it will be a long way away, but as the Queen is now in her 80's, regretfully, planning does have to be implemented.

[RoyalWatcher]

I agree; no changes to the coronation ceremony should be made. Keep it intact and don't mess with tradition. This is one of those exceptional occasions that desires full focus and no short cuts. Only my humble opinion.