Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[ashdean]

I see.  Certainly impressive, although it would seem diplomacy was sadly lacking in the curriculum.

[Constantinople]

?

[Lindelle]

If the case was the Abbey would fill to overflowing, where else would/could they have it?
St Pauls?

[CHRISinUSA]

And your credentials?

I don't see why credentials are necessary to have an opinion.

Certainly Ilyala, they are most unnecessary here.  That was exactly my point.  Read back a few posts - on several occasions Constantinople chose to attack other posters' comments, not by contradicting them with facts, but instead by questioning their knowledge of political science and constitutional law.  The obvious intention of that was to convey that his credentials on that topic are far superior to other posters, which is the only reason I bothered to ask. 

But I agree - enough of that, and back to the topic at hand.

[Constantinople]

Considering the fact that we were discussing a constitutional issue, conversion to republicanism from a constitutional monarchy, my comments were totally appropriate.  And Chris in the US, what exactly are your credentials, seeing you asked me first.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Lindelle:
I think that tradition dictates that Westminster Abbey is the venue for Coronations.  Certainly most monachs since William the Conqueror have been crowned there and I don't think any have used St. Paul's.....

Margot:
I hope that Charles will have an "old fashioned traditional" Coronation and invite all the hereditary peers - the life time peers can stand outside the Abbey with us & we can all put on our coronets together!!!  I'll even hold your train for you!!!   Should be fun!!!

Of course, I hope his Coronation doesn't take place for several years....
I intend to celebrate The Queens Diamond Jubilee in London with friends in 2012....  And, I hope she lasts longer than that, too!!!!!!!!

Larry

[Kalafrana]

Larry

I agree with all that you say. Traditional coronation, with all the traditional flummery.

The only coronation I am aware of since 1066 which did not take place at Westminster Abbey was that of Henry III, who was crowned at Gloucester Abbey in a hurry because a civil war was raging and there was a French army under the future Louis VIII on English soil. As up to 1272 coronation made the king it was imperative to get young Henry (aged nine) crowned as quickly as possible. I will need to check, but I'm fairly sure that, like several medieval kings, he had a second coronation in more settled tgimes.

Vivat Rex!!!

Ann

[CHRISinUSA]

Considering the fact that we were discussing a constitutional issue, conversion to republicanism from a constitutional monarchy, my comments were totally appropriate.  And Chris in the US, what exactly are your credentials, seeing you asked me first.

Sigh, in the interests of not boring everyone to death, let us drop this line of conversation in the forum.  I'm perfectly happy to try once again to make my point in a private message.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Ann,

Thank you for that information on Henry III;  I did not know that.
But, it makes perfect sense to get your King crowned speedily, before someone else snatchs the crown...

Cheers,
Larry

[Kalafrana]

Interestingly, by the time Henry III died in 1272, things had changed. His son Edward I was out of the country on crusade, and it was nearly two years before he reached England. Government carried on in his absence and no rivals emerged. Admittedly, Edward was on excellent terms with his brother and paternal cousins, and had already shown himself to be a sufficiently formidable military commander for any potential rivals to have second thoughts! Plus potential  opposition to Edward among the magnates had been destroyed in the Barons' War of 1264-65.

Ann

[Lindelle]

Hi,

Lindelle:
I think that tradition dictates that Westminster Abbey is the venue for Coronations.  Certainly most monachs since William the Conqueror have been crowned there and I don't think any have used St. Paul's.....

Margot:
I hope that Charles will have an "old fashioned traditional" Coronation and invite all the hereditary peers - the life time peers can stand outside the Abbey with us & we can all put on our coronets together!!!  I'll even hold your train for you!!!   Should be fun!!!

Of course, I hope his Coronation doesn't take place for several years....
I intend to celebrate The Queens Diamond Jubilee in London with friends in 2012....  And, I hope she lasts longer than that, too!!!!!!!!

Larry

I know it' a traditional thing, but is there any bill that says it can't be changed, for whatever reason?

[Constantinople]

When you dilute the tradition, you erode the cache of monarchy but things can be changed.

[Margot]

Has the abolition of a real fully paid up proper coronation undermined the monarchies in Europe countries where coronations as they were are no longer held? Is King Harlad any different from the Queen in that sense? Or any other monarch who has not gone through the old style coronation ceremony? Are we saying that because King Olaf V was not crowned in a coronation akin to that of his father he was any less of a monarch? The same applies to the POW surely? Or any other reigning monarch who has not been crowned in the fashion that Elizabeth II enjoyed in 1952? I am just curious as to whether today the absence of old fashioned coronations really dilutes the tradition and respect of monarchy in other countries compared to the UK? Or does such ceremony simply continue to raise the monarch to a pedestal where they perceived as out of touch and beyond their mortal subjects as God's anointed rather than subjects' crowned head of state?
 

[Constantinople]

Yes Margot all of the examples you cite are less monarchical than what preceded.  İ remember when the first glimpses of the British royal family were shown in documentaries (Prince Philip barbequing comes to mind).  Prior to this there were not the thorny debates on the function of the Monarchy and no debate about their future. The more human a royal family looks, the less monarchical.  When a large proportion of the polity starts to think, they are just like us except we pay them a lot of money, then the more possibility there is of the role being down graded or fazed out.

[Lindelle]

Has the abolition of a real fully paid up proper coronation undermined the monarchies in Europe countries where coronations as they were are no longer held? Is King Harlad any different from the Queen in that sense? Or any other monarch who has not gone through the old style coronation ceremony? Are we saying that because King Olaf V was not crowned in a coronation akin to that of his father he was any less of a monarch? The same applies to the POW surely? Or any other reigning monarch who has not been crowned in the fashion that Elizabeth II enjoyed in 1952? I am just curious as to whether today the absence of old fashioned coronations really dilutes the tradition and respect of monarchy in other countries compared to the UK? Or does such ceremony simply continue to raise the monarch to a pedestal where they perceived as out of touch and beyond their mortal subjects as God's anointed rather than subjects' crowned head of state?
 

I wonder that too  Margot.
IF the RF choose to have a ceremony at another place, does that dilute the monarchy? I don't think so. The only diluting going on here is what someone presumes they know. What a laugh I would have if it came true, that they decided to have the coronation at St Pauls. Speaking of, does that then mean that when Charles married Diana at St Pauls instead of the 'traditional Westminster Abbey ', then they were diluting the monarch?