Talk:Coronation of the British monarch/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

ISTR something about the Queen's Scholars from Westminster School having the honour to be the first to proclaim "vivat regina!" (or "rex", of course), at the moment of coronation. Accurate? Worth adding?
James F. (talk) 00:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From what I have read, they made the proclamation "Vivat! Regina Elizabetha!" as the Sovereign walks into the Abbey. But I'm not sure if they should be included; there must be scores of individuals with minor privileges. -- Emsworth 01:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Their right to be the first to shout this has been incorporated into C. H. H. Parry's setting of the 122nd psalm, sung at the last coupla coronations; there's a little two-page bit in the middle of the anthem timed for the moment the queen enters the theatre. And I think it's a much more prominent and famous privilege than who gets to carry the spurs. Doops 06:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've rm'd After Pope John Paul I abolished the Papal Coronation in 1978, the United Kingdom became the only monarchy to conduct coronations rather than simple inaugurations. I'm fairly sure this is not true: the Thai kings, for one, are still crowned [1]. Markalexander100 09:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming that nobody has ever taken up the hereditary champion's challenge; if someone can confirm this, please mention it in the article — otherwise the reader is left in suspense. Doops 05:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) [later slightly edited]

I have to say that I'm very surprised this article has been featured. So much of what seems obviously appropriate for inclusion has been left out; so much obscure detail, seemingly calculated to turn off the casual passerby, has been crammed in. (On the one hand, shouldn't an article of this length include some mention of music at the coronation? of the state entry into Scotland? of the blooming STONE OF SCONE? On the other hand, who really cares about the rights of the barons of the cinque ports? or how many seals can dance on the hem of a robe?) I'm sorry to whine; I know I should just shut up and do something about it. Doops 06:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to see the word "purported" ("purported rule of Jesus Christ") replaced by some other more neutral word, or even just plain deleted. The article makes it abundantly clear after all that the Coronation is a rite steeped in Christianity; it is not abandoning Wikipedia neutrality to acknowledge that -- and "purported", meaning "asserted to be true (but not really true)" goes too far in the other direction. What about it, Powers That Be? Bill 22:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Purport" is not used in a negative sense; the American Heritage Dictionary gives "Assumed to be such; supposed" as the definition. Another dictionary gives a somewhat less favourable meaning: "commonly put forth, or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" (I am sure we can agree that no-one can conclusively demonstrate that Christ does indeed rule the World). But, I do not use the word in an Anti-Christian sense; one may replace it with "alleged," "reputed" or "supposed." To remove the word entirely, however, would be inappropriate: it would imply—whether rightly or wrongly—that Jesus Christ does indeed rule the World. -- Emsworth 00:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, the dictionary definition of a word doesn't always capture its connotation quite right. Could we just insert the formula with which the orb is presented in quotes rather than paraphrasing it? That way, the somewhat snarky quality of "purport" can be excised without placing Wikipedia's imprimatur upon the idea that Jesus Christ rules the world. Cf: "...The orb, symbolizing (according to the liturgy), 'The power and empire of Christ our Redeemer'..." Sumergocognito 00:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that I deleted the word "purported" as redundant a few days ago before seeing any of the talk discussion. The sentence reads that the orb represents the rule of Jesus, which should be sufficiently tentative -- we're describing the symbolism of the orb, not making a theological statement, and the symbolism is what it si regardless of whether or not we agree with it. Stating that it represents the "purported rule" would actually be incorrect, as it would be a claim that the symbolism itself is tentative. -Ben 17:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Former rites (presents...)

I know the Lord of Mann had to present a peregrine falcon to the king in earlier times. Were there more rites like that? Are similar presnts still given? This would be interesting in this article.--Hun2 08:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See the Grand Serjeanty section of Serjeanty for examples--George Burgess 20:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Marquess of Anglesey

Does anyone find it odd that The Marquess of Anglesey is depicted here carrying the crown as a rather upright peer when he'd had his leg shot off at Waterloo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.214.72 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He had a variety of articulated prosthetic legs made and was able to walk and ride quite well, although changing between the two modes required a change of legs. Roy Strong (Coronation 2005, p. 413) records that at the start of the 1821 Coronation Banquet, Lord Anglesea, in his capacity as Earl Marshal, was supposed to ride the length of Westminster Hall, dismount and uncover the dishes on the royal table which were concealed under a cloth. Unfortunately, because he was wearing his riding leg, he found that he was unable to dismount and several pages and footmen were required to manhandle him into the right place, much to the amusement of the assembled dignitaries. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ampulla and spoon

The spoon is indeed older than all the other crown jewels. The ampulla, however, was created in 1661 together with all the other crown jewels to replace the items that were destroyed during the commonwealth. "In the inventory of goods taken to the Tower of London to be sold in 1649, the ampulla appears as 'a Dove of gould sett with stones and pearle' weighing 8.5 ounces. The new Ampulla of 1661 is also in the form of an eagle[...]." Source: "The Crown Jewels", Royal Historic Palaces, 2002. It's the official guide book sold at the tower, which I brought with me from a visit to London a few years ago. --134.130.57.172 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a replica of the spoon which was sold as a souvenir in 1937. There is a note in the box which basicly says the same thing.--Wehwalt 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

London Gazette refs

I've updated the Gazette refs to use {{LondonGazette}}, this is primarily for ease of future maintenance. The gazette website was recently completely revamped, breaking all existing references (and someone's currently running a bot to work out exactly how many articles are affected...). Hopefully the template captures sufficient parameters that if they change it again, all we neeed do is fix the template, and all articles using the template will magically be fixed. There are a few slight differences as to how the result is formated, but hopefully nothing that will offend any other contributor to this page. David Underdown 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I noticed when adding inline cites to this article recently that the Gazette website had changed, so I started quoting the issue number and global page number for exactly this reason. A template is a good idea and will hopefully prevent any problems in future. Dr pda 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New reference

This book contains a considerable account of Victoria's Coronation. It may be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the exact same order of service is set out in the London Gazette too. Craigy (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's where he got it from, since he sets forth the announcements on Victoria's accession just like the ones in the Gazette. However, there are some footnotes and commentary.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the LG hasn't uploaded 1702 yet, I've been waiting for years for Queen Anne's coronation service (which happens to be in the book), so thanks for the link! Craigy (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No trouble. I own the hard copy of the book and have been wondering whether to scan and post. But then I thought, check Google books . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Walter Ullmann, ed., Liber regie capelle should be added. It contains a copy of the coronation ritual from about 1449.98.225.109.243 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Coronation and legitimation

The article oughts to have a section about legitimatizing role of the coronation ceremony. That section should explain that coronation does not make person a British monarch, but that historically coronation legitimatized the monarch's right to rule. For example, the coronation of Anne Boleyn (who was crowned pregnant) legitimatized her right to use the royal prerrogatives, as well as honour and title of Queen of England, and it also legitimatized her unborn child's right to inherit the crown one day. It should also be mentioned that Anne Boleyn was the only queen consort crowned with St. Edward's crown, precisely because Henry VIII wanted to confirm their unborn child's right to inherit that crown. The section would also discuss how the lack of coronation led to doubts of legitimacy of medieval English/Scottish monarchs such as Empress Matilda and Margaret, Maid of Norway, but that coronations have had no legitimatizing role in the modern times (the case of Edward VIII would be mentioned here).

Does anyone have anything against creating such section? If not, I'll start working on it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember the central purpose of the coronation ceremony in terms of 'legitimacy' is the Coronation Oath. The Oath itself is an implicit set of clauses set within a formal legal document, (agreed verbally and signed by the monarch at the Coronation), between the sovereign and the Community of the Realm (Communitas Regni). Failure to meet or perform the requisite promises will open to question the efficacy of the sovereign, and can (and has done so in the past, most notably Edward II), lead to formal renunciation and deposition. In all other respects the monarch has full powers and indeed could function as monarch without a coronation so long as the Oath is conducted in a formal ceremony with the appropriate Officers of State in attendance. In regard to which, (and according to English Law), the sovereign reigns 'immediately' on the death of the preceding monarch, three days after which the Accession Council of the Privy Council meet to confirm the accession of the monarch, who is duly then proclaimed sovereign at St James's Palace. The two female 'monarchs' you mention were only threatened with legitimacy simply because they were female. All coronations, including the most recent one, have full legitimacy simply because they contain within the ceremony the Coronation Oath. Ds1994 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Layout of the Abbey

I'm wondering how the layout of the Abbey is utilized for the coronation: who sits where? And specifically, is the Abbey quire moveable (I can't find this info anywhere after a moderate search)? It would seem to block the view of people in the nave of the coronation itself, so is it moved, or is it not really an obstruction?Vbdrummer0 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think temporary raked seating was put in place, the screen probably did hide somethings, I beleive that the point at which HM received communion was ot televised either. Quite a lot of the footage of the coronation has been placed on the offical UK royalty channel on youTube, if you watch that it may help you udnerstand what was done. David Underdown (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The key positioning in the Coronation Ceremony is St Edward's Chair, (the coronation chair), which has always been positioned directly beneath the Central Tower. There is a particular tile in the Abbey floor which is used as a guide for this.Ds1994 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question - Do three Bishops of England, Scotland and Wales need to approve ?

In a funny movie (including Rowan Atkinson and John Malkowich) John Malkowich's character want's to became King of the UK. In that film the coronation procedure includes three archbishops (or common bishops?) from England, Scotland and Wales - wich all must declare that "Wales says Yes", "Scotland says Yes" and "England says Yes" and first then the crown is placed on the head of the new monarch. Was that for the film only ? Or do the churches of theese three parts of the UK need to do something at all ? Normally this subjet is not quite my cup of tea, but I still wonder if there is any truth in the film concirning the form of an UK coronation. Greatful for any kind of answer (I do not recall the name of the film but it's not very old) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.81 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's artistic licence on the part of the film. DrKiernan (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The film is Johnny English, and the article does state, in any case, that Scotland has no bishops. (And no, one does not become king by the act of having the crown placed on one's head in a coronation, either, in case someone reading this wonders but dares not ask.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotland has no established bishops since the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian; there are Anglican bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church and of course Catholic ones, but neither have any constitutional role in Scotland. Alansplodge (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

An important distinction indeed; thank you for the clarification. Waltham, The Duke of 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This may however be an allusion to the accession council, when , and without looking up couldn't tell you precise details, an "extended" privy council (the privy council, senior archbishops and bishops, lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london, and many others) gather for the monarch to swear the two accession oaths - one is directly regards the accession, and the second is an oath guaranteeing the freedoms of the Church of Scotland in all ecclesiastical matters.194.74.226.190 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Some details

I have found a series of videos of Elizabeth II's coronation on YouTube, and although they are abbreviated, I have found one element there missing from the description in this article: the Armills, which are worn after the presentation of the Sword of State. On the subject of dress, I might also mention that the Stole Royal is worn before the Robe Royal—or at least was in this coronation. Also, the "End of the ceremony" section makes specific reference to the removal of the Robe Royal and Stole Royal, but aren't the supertunica and colobium sindonis also removed for the surcoat to be changed? I am not saying they should all be mentioned, but the current wording is a bit confusing.

One more thing: aren't guns fired from Hyde Park in addition to the Tower of London? I've been under the impression that Royal Salutes are always fired from two locations in London, namely the Tower and a Royal Park (sometimes Green Park but usually Hyde Park), so it would be strange that the coronation should be the exception. The source does only mention the Tower, but still... Waltham, The Duke of 05:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

'British' Law

I have changed where ever I can observe the expression 'British' law for English law, as of course 'British' law does not exist. We have English law, pertaining to England, and Scottish law pertaining to Scotland (this major distinction was acknowleged and preserved in the Acts of Union of 1707). All lawyers will shudder at the term 'British' law as this was firmly drummed into us from day one from taking our law degree. Ds1994 (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But as the monarch is being crowned as the joint head of state for both, it may well be that both English and Scots law are pertinent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.226.190 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What coronation robes would certain members of the royal family wear who have no peerage title?

What coronation robe would HRH Prince Michael (or Peter Phillips) wear at the next coronation? They do not have a peerage title (so rows of seal spots would not apply I would imagine).Trajanis (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure that they actually wear coronation robes? Perhaps rules are different for the royal family, but as far as I am aware, only peers wear them. Waltham, The Duke of 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince Michael has several honorary military positions, & a nice range of dress uniforms to choose from. Phillips will (unless given something similar) just wear morning dress like the politicians etc not in the Lords. Actually I'd expect all male royals except the monarch not to wear peer's robes but just uniform, but I might be wrong there. See State Opening of Parliament, the other time peers get their robes out. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

it appears that Princes and Princesses of the Blood do have a particular type of princely coronation robe (even if they are not a peer of the realm). For example, HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (with no separate peerage title) wore a coronation robe (as a Princess of the Blood) with a coronet (as a male-line grandchild of a monarch) at the last coronation back in 1953

PICTURE HERE http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/coronation/guests.html

as such, I would guess that TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent (as well as HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent) would wear such types of princely coronation robes with a (4 crosses-4 strawberry leaves) coronet (as male-line grandchildren of a monarch with princely rank) at the next coronation...

Also, I would imagine that if she attended the next coronation, The Dowager Countess of Harewood, 86 (grand-daughter in-law of King George V) would be entitled to a robe of a countess and a (4 fleurs-4 strawberry leaves) royal coronet of a female-line grandchild of a monarch (instead of a regular coronet of a non-royal countess, which has 8 strawberry leaves and 8 raised pearls)

Lastly, I would venture to guess that Peter Phillips, Zara Phillips, Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah (all as female-line grandchildren of a monarch without substantive princely or (non-courtesy) peerage rank) would not wear any coronets or robes (as in the case of The Hon. Gerald David Lascelles, grandson of King George V (through Mary, Princess Royal) at the last coronation in 1953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

About the Dowager Countess of Harewood. I dont think that she will be entitled to more than what other Countesses have. Does a seperate royal coronet of a female-line grandchild of a monarch even exist? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice photo

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I am just starting to figure out what goes on. I saw a nice image of King George V's coronation on Wikimedia and wondered if it would fit somewhere on this page. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silkindustry-King_George.jpg Regards, Otto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto1943 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)