The Coronation

D

dotti34

Nori Brick
Tackler
Are you going to watch the Coronation? I might watch it if only to try to spot who got my invite by mistake. It must have been delivered to the wrong address so I’ve given up checking the post and I’ve put my tiara and (faux) fur back in storage. Anyway I’m not that bothered because according to the food critic son of Charles’ missus the menu isn’t that appetising, in fact he said it’s ‘awful’.

Joking aside, I am surprised there hasn’t been anything on Accyweb about the event as it is history in the making. He’s been waiting in the wings a long time, now it’s Charles’ turn to take centre stage. One thing for sure it will be done with perfect precision and splendour in the way that the Brits do it so well.
 
It is a bit ironic though that some time ago a king abdicated because he had to choose between the woman he loved, who happened to be a divorcee, and the crown. He chose the lady. Then a princess was not allowed to marry the love of her life because oops! he was a divorced man. Now not only has the new King been divorced but his Queen has also been down that path. Things have certainly changed over the years.
 
As a non-royalist I will not be watching the coronation, but I am sure millions around the world will be. I am sure it will be done in that perfectly orchestrated pageantry, that only the Brits can do.
Cheers
 
I didn’t get an invite either But I am glad…I haven’t got anything that would be suitable to wear.
I am not sure if I will watch it on TV either.
It would not be so bad if it was just on once, but for days we will be faced with the pageantry and pomp whether we want it or not.
Like everything else that TV companies are allowed to film…it will be over-kill.
Dearie me that sounds a bit ‘wet blanket’….but it is just how I see it.
 
dotti34 said:
It is a bit ironic though that some time ago a king abdicated because he had to choose between the woman he loved, who happened to be a divorcee, and the crown. He chose the lady. Then a princess was not allowed to marry the love of her life because oops! he was a divorced man. Now not only has the new King been divorced but his Queen has also been down that path. Things have certainly changed over the years,

Dotti, could you explain that to me again, if I am right the King who abdicated was the one who married a divorcee called Wallace Simpson, a so called Escort, read into that as you wish, I think that there is maybe a (slight), difference.
Click to expand...
 
Margaret Pilkington said:
I didn’t get an invite either But I am glad…I haven’t got anything that would be suitable to wear.
I am not sure if I will watch it on TV either.
It would not be so bad if it was just on once, but for days we will be faced with the pageantry and pomp whether we want it or not.
Like everything else that TV companies are allowed to film…it will be over-kill.
Dearie me that sounds a bit ‘wet blanket’….but it is just how I see it.

Marge, if you don't like it your TV does have an button where you can switch it off and yes, I am and always will be a Royalist.
Click to expand...
 
Taddy, I’m not sure why you need anything explained. I thought I had put what I meant very plainly, but seemingly you have misconstrued what I was getting at. I was merely making an observation how times have changed, not whether Ted should have been allowed to marry Wally and still stay on in the job or whether Mrs W S’s lifestyle up to then had made her considered unacceptable to be his ‘little woman’ if he was king. (Haven’t seen her referred to as an ’escort’ though).

Irrespective of whether Mrs Simpson was suitable or not, Edward couldn't have kept his crown in those times when he married her because (as we all know) as monarch he would have been nominal head of the Church of England and divorce in that religion in those days was taboo. As marriage to a divorced person while their previous partner was still alive was not recognised by the church he had to choose. This was the reason given for the need to abdicate. Now, Taddy, that is what I was getting at - the change in attitude and regulations. As it turned out he probably did all concerned a big favour, but that’s another story.

By the way, nothing to do with my initial post Taddy, but I’d like to point out there’s a bit of a double-standard here, my lad, you were quick to mention her previous lifestyle but no mention of his. Remember, it takes two to tango.
 
I did not say I did not like it Taddy. I said I might not watch it. I like some of the Royal family, but not fond of Charlie or his choice of horse face as a wife….and making her Queen is not a good move.(just my opinion of course) a couple of adulterers on the thrones of the country.
I watched the previous Coronation on a nine inch Black and white Bush TV.
Full of pomp and pageantry…but back then we did not get the boring wall to wall round the clock coverage for days and days…that is the bit I do not enjoy.
I know that if Saturday is a sunny day I might go out….because I will miss nothing as it will be on again and again.
 
Last edited:
By the way, nothing to do with my initial post Taddy, but I’d like to point out there’s a bit of a double-standard here, my lad, you were quick to mention her previous lifestyle but no mention of his. Remember, it takes two to tango.

Many thanks for that Dotti, as usual you were very erudite and correct, I stand admonished, by the way I had to dig out my "Oxford Senior Dictionary" in order to look up "Erudite and Admonish". ;);)
 
Not sure about this «Queen» business. I was always under the impression that you had either a King or a Queen, but not both?
I can very well understand the Consort bit as well as Queen Mother, but Queen Camilla, definitely not.
Another thought just came to mind, what if something happened (hope not) to Charles, would then Camilla take over, after all she will still be the Queen or William :-)
Cheers
 
landhusweg said:
Not sure about this «Queen» business. I was always under the impression that you had either a King or a Queen, but not both?
I can very well understand the Consort bit as well as Queen Mother, but Queen Camilla, definitely not.
Another thought just came to mind, what if something happened (hope not) to Charles, would then Camilla take over, after all she will still be the Queen or William :-)
Cheers
Click to expand...

It would be William because he is the heir apparent.
 
Taddy, thank you for the compliment which I will be happy to accept because these days compliments are few and far between, but I think maybe the term erudite is overdoing it a wee bit, just a tad (and the rest).

Anyway, you being the true royalist that you are I hope you have the flag flying on the 6th May.
 
dotti34 said:
Taddy, thank you for the compliment which I will be happy to accept because these days compliments are few and far between, but I think maybe the term erudite is overdoing it a wee bit, just a tad (and the rest).

Anyway, you being the true royalist that you are I hope you have the flag flying on the 6th May.
Click to expand...

Yes Dotti I will be putting the flag out but it will be the red cross on a white background, i.e. the English Flag, the same one that I put out when our Queen died and not the Union Jack.
 
What a spectacle, something that only the Brits can stage; to all you Republicans eat your heart out, I will now put up my umbrella to guard me from the flak that will surely descend upon me by most folk under 40 or so and all those of a "woke" mentality. I won't say God save the King because I am not and have never been a "God Botherer" but power to your elbow Charles III, you are 12 months younger than I am and I hope that both of us can stay in "reasonable" health for many more year's.
 
Taddy, it doesn’t look like anyone is throwing flak at you. Maybe you are being a tad paranoid about this. It is good to know you are proud to be a loyal Royalist and from the crowds that braved the rain on the day you are definitely not alone in your loyalty. So maybe put that umbrella away.

Regarding the ceremony, I watched it because it was history in the making and as expected it was perfectly orchestrated, though a bit over-the-top for me. Not exactly my cup-of-tea, too much of this and that, but tradition deemed it had to take place and it has. The part I really enjoyed was the military procession afterwards which was absolutely brilliant. Outstanding. I doubt that any other country could do this sort of thing as well as the Brits.
 
Thanks for that Dotti, as is usual for me, my comments were slightly tongue in cheek but as my father served in the Royal Artillery, my Brother served in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, my son served in the First Royal Tank Regiment, my brother in law served in the Royal Navy and but for a motor cycle accident in 1968 I also would have joined up. I would much rather have our Royal Family than some Buffoon like Trump or Macron but thankfully we live in a democracy so everyone to their own.

As you say the Military Parade was Outstanding, having watched my son's Passing out Parade many year's ago and other Military Parades since, the back of my eyelid's tend to get rather moist at these events and a clean handkerchief is always useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top