King Charles III Coronation

[Pete_uk]

Wasn't BBC2 showing sign language or something?

 

[MikeWM]

I did find myself thinking that I have no problem with the King also being the head of the Church of England, but it felt like they should be separate metaphorical hats; whereas at the moment the ceremony felt very coupled to the 'the King must be Protestant and head of the Church", if that makes sense.

This always strikes me as 'something that ought to be untangled' but is terribly difficult to do given it is pretty much the basis of our entire constitution. Fiddling about with the constitution usually ends up causing worse problems than it fixes (eg. the Fixed Term Parliament Act, or Blair's House of Lords reforms).

I must admit I felt quite flat watching the coronation today. I enjoyed the pagentry, but it didn't move me in the way the Queen's Funeral (unexpectedly!) did last year. Not sure why.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Let's not forget that Charlie Windsor is an adulterer who was not even discreet about it at all.

Like most kings for the last 2000 years then.

 

[gnolife]

same can be said of Victoria, however the monarch (we can debate whether we should've should not have one) reigns for life. I can't see any reason for Charles to change this and abdicate.

Edward VIII provides fairly recent precedent for abdication

 

[Gloster]

Edward VIII provides fairly recent precedent for abdication

If he abdicates for his ‘descendants’ as Edward VIII did, that puts Andrew on the throne. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[43096]

If he abdicates for his ‘descendants’ as Edward VIII did, that puts Andrew on the throne.

It doesn't, and I have no idea how you have worked that out.

It passes to the next in the line of succession: William. The reason it passed from Edward VIII to his brother was because Edward had no children.

 

[Trackman]

Wasn't BBC2 showing sign language or something?

What I read it was on one of the ITV channels.

If he abdicates for his ‘descendants’ as Edward VIII did, that puts Andrew on the throne. Be careful what you wish for.

That's never going to happen!

 

[adc82140]

Yes, but I was amazed at the frequent sound drop-outs - surely for an occasion like this, the technical side has to be bullet-proof. I don't know if other channels suffered this but it was very poor.

The sound drop outs were quite bad on BBC One via Sky. But there were none on the iPlayer, and I'm glad I switched to this because the 4K UHD looked absolutely fantastic. During the rerurn procession my bus enthusiast son was picking out route numbers from the bus stops on Whitehall.

 

[Darandio]

If he abdicates for his ‘descendants’ as Edward VIII did, that puts Andrew on the throne. Be careful what you wish for.

He had no children, it's an entirely different scenario.

 

[Enthusiast]

If he abdicates for his ‘descendants’ as Edward VIII did, that puts Andrew on the throne. Be careful what you wish for.

Why does it? Edward VIII had no children, so his brother was next in line. The Duke of York is currently No 8 in the pecking order.

 

[simonw]

Edward VIII provides fairly recent precedent for abdication

Not really, that wasn't age related.

 

[Gloster]

It doesn't, and I have no idea how you have worked that out.

It passes to the next in the line of succession: William. The reason it passed from Edward VIII to his brother was because Edward had no children.

That's never going to happen!

He had no children, it's an entirely different scenario.

Why does it? Edward VIII had no children, so his brother was next in line. The Duke of York is currently No 8 in the pecking order.

Read Edward VIII’s abdication letter and you will see what I mean.

 

[SteveP29]

If you look at our fellow European constitutional monarchies - Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands etc, they seem to be stable wealthy countries. Not a bad club to be in.

Would be nice if we joined them eh?
( for clarity I mean as a stable, wealthy country, not the EU)

 

[Darandio]

Read Edward VIII’s abdication letter and you will see what I mean.

Yes, he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants. But he didn't have any descendants so i'm still unsure of your point?

 

[Deepgreen]

One irritation continues to be the BBC's inability to decide whether to write Coronation or coronation and, more importantly, Charles' or Charles's (the latter being correct). Their lack of either accuracy or consistency is terrible, with both versions for both examples appearing side-by-side on the same web pages! One of the BBC's remits is to educate but anyone reading their pages will be confused as to correct grammar in this and a vast number of other instances. How standards have plummeted. The BBC and the railway used to be two institutions who could be relied on for good writing, but no longer.

 

[Gloster]

Yes, he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants. But he didn't have any descendants so i'm still unsure of your point?

To give a highly unlikely scenario. Charles starts to get a bit doddery and William, possibly for the best of reasons, suggests he either hands him the regency or abdicates. Charles does not like this and the relationship between them deteriorates. Eventually Charles thinks, ”One has a rotten pair of sons”, and in a fit of petulance abdicates for himself and ‘for My descendants’. That cuts out all of numbers 1 to 7 of the succession and leaves Andrew to be crowned.

Edward VIII did not have any descendants at the time, but he was also cutting out any that might come later. Charles does have descendants, but I believe he could still abdicate and include them, although he can abdicate just for himself.

Yes, it is unlikely in the extreme, but I believe it is legally and constitutionally possible.

 

[yorksrob]

Would be nice if we joined them eh?
( for clarity I mean as a stable, wealthy country, not the EU)

We can always aspire !

 

[43096]

Read Edward VIII’s abdication letter and you will see what I mean.

I assume you are referring to "renounce the throne for myself and my descendants". That is what Edward wrote, there is nothing - constitutional or otherwise - that says any abdication by Charles has to say the same. It was a rather different scenario, as Edward had no children then, so he was renouncing any future claim by someone who wasn't even born (and, as it turned out, were never born).

 

[GS250]

Yes, it is unlikely in the extreme, but I believe it is legally and constitutionally possible.

I think that would end up going to court. Andrew being crowned King would do so much damage to the UK that emergency laws would probably be brought in to block it. I very much doubt Andrew would accept the position anyway.

The good news for republicans would be that it would almost certainly mean the end of the monarchy.

 

[randyrippley]

The person having the most fun seemed to be the young girl bashing the cymbals.
She only got one 5-second camera shot but she was grinning her head off

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2023 ==

I think that would end up going to court. Andrew being crowned King would do so much damage to the UK that emergency laws would probably be brought in to block it. I very much doubt Andrew would accept the position anyway.

The good news for republicans would be that it would almost certainly mean the end of the monarchy.

It wouldn't go to court - parliament would simply pass a new act of succession

 

[yorksrob]

Andrew comes after William and Harry anyway.

 

[baz962]

I think the same, though I expect Charles' reign will be 10 to 15 years.

Why do people think it will be the last.

 

[Gloster]

Andrew comes after William and Harry anyway.

Correct, but if Charles were to abdicate for his descendants, he would be cutting out William, Harry and their offspring. Charles doesn’t have to, but I believe he could do that. And Andrew is next.

 

[GS250]

Andrew comes after William and Harry an

Why do people think it will be the last.

I wonder if it would ever go to referendum? Then again... would it have to include all commonwealth nations and would it be a simple yes/no or a little more complicated? Also...would it be sensible to include a minimum pass mark?

 

[Lloyds siding]

I did find myself thinking that I have no problem with the King also being the head of the Church of England, but it felt like they should be separate metaphorical hats; whereas at the moment the ceremony felt very coupled to the 'the King must be Protestant and head of the Church", if that makes sense.

If he didn't say that then it would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who would be on the throne!

 

[yorksrob]

Correct, but if Charles were to abdicate for his descendants, he would be cutting out William, Harry and their offspring. Charles doesn’t have to, but I believe he could do that. And Andrew is next.

I'm not sure that's true. William is next in line, therefore if Charles were to abdicate, William would be King.

 

[43096]

Correct, but if Charles were to abdicate for his descendants, he would be cutting out William, Harry and their offspring. Charles doesn’t have to, but I believe he could do that. And Andrew is next.

You can make up as many scenarios as you like, it's just pure fantasy stuff.

 

[GS250]

I'm not sure that's true. William is next in line, therefore if Charles were to abdicate, William would be King.

Yes but it's suggested Charles could potentially block William or Harry from becoming King? Again though....I think this would end up in parliament and resolved.

 

[birchesgreen]

Charles isn't going to abdicate, he is anointed by God just like his mum.

 

[Gloster]

I'm not sure that's true. William is next in line, therefore if Charles were to abdicate, William would be King.

But if Charles did not just abdicate, but abdicated ‘for My descendants’ then William ceases to be in the line of succession. Charles can, as far as I understand, just abdicate on his own behalf, in which case the crown descends on the next in line (William). Or Charles can abdicate for his descendants, which means that none of his children or grand-childeren can accede to the throne and the crown passes to the highest in the line of succession who is not a descendant of Charles: Andrew.

It is highly unlikely, but possible. One thing I don’t think he can do is cut out one descendant, but not another. For example, he can’t decide that William can’t be King and the crown should pass straight to George. It is all or nothing.

(All based on some quite detailed research I did around the time they abolished male primogeniture. All wasted as at the last minute the mag stopped publishing.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2023 ==

Yes but it's suggested Charles could potentially block William or Harry from becoming King? Again though....I think this would end up in parliament and resolved.