Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Coronation


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

First, please spare us the diatribes and screeds about the British monarchy.  It's part of our history, deal with it.  

Second, as I was watching it I was thinking that very few of the people in that cathedral had been alive at the time of the last coronation, but many of them would be around to witness the next one.

Third, at the start of the sermon both my wife and I chuckled at the way the archbishop started off because we both thought of the wedding scene in The Princess Bride, "Mawagge...."

Fourth, all those poor schmucks - the Heralds, Guardsmen, Grooms, etc. who had to stand stock still in all that regalia for two or three hours.

 

Fifth, Charles was looking very old and very tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothered me was I couldn't get any news even local news this morning. All the stations had this on from 5:00am to 10:00am! One local station did cut away at 7;00 but it's not my favorite channel. 

I could care less about watching the whole long boring thing but some of the music was great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw bits & pieces of it, I found it a little silly and kind of interesting, some of the devices used in the ceremony date back to 1661.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have the opportunity to watch it live but I did view some of the pictures and read the proceedings.  One thing I found interesting is how King Charles tailored it to the current day UK, including blessings in other languages to show acceptance of other beliefs currently practiced in the UK for one.  It will be interesting to see how William will tailor his coronation.  From the look of King Charles, Willian's may be sooner rather than later.

 

I do agree that this is a part of history, whether you agree with it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Saw bits & pieces of it, I found it a little silly and kind of interesting, some of the devices used in the ceremony date back to 1661.

 

While the part I saw as in the setting of the Anglican Mass, which I recognized from being raised Roman Catholic, and then in my 20s attending Episcopalian services, some of it seemed close to the vesting of an Orthodox bishop.  

It was also interesting that some of the music was Byzantine, and sung by a group of Orthodox chanters, with the Bishop of Thyateria and Great Brittan offering one of the prayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today is our daughter's birthday.  She said it's very nice of England to celebrate it all day!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<_< Not interested for all the reasons that Joe forbade us to express!!! :rolleyes:
 

 

I confess to being a total and unrepentant anti-monarchist!! :FlagAm: B)
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our elections and inauguration day ceremonies probably seem odd to the rest of the world also.

 

What is strange is all the political ads that start a whole year before the elections.   And the cost of 

all that hoopla could be as much as this recent Coronation of the King.

 

 

..........Widder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

<_< Not interested for all the reasons that Joe forbade us to express!!! :rolleyes:
 

 

I confess to being a total and unrepentant anti-monarchist!! :FlagAm: B)
 

 

 

Up The Rebels!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more than history. At the risk of calling to the fore the ghost of Topol, it it tradition on display. A not often seen tradition that has developed over many hundreds of years. This in itself should spark interest in the historically minded, not just anglophiles. 

 

In its own way, it also informs and is responsible for many of our own traditions in one way or another. History tells us that many in Europe and America expected George Washington to become king. The fact he chose to resign his commission from the Army, then step down from the presidency after two terms and not become a de facto king, says much about his character, but more importantly led us down a far different path. Sort of. Even the word "president," was meant as a rejection of monarchy and the implications of "King." At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the word president was chosen precisely because it was not lofty, nor did it hold the implied prominence of such a word as king. It was typically understood as a presiding officer, a chairman or foreman, who simply managed things.

 

Today, we see the President of the United States as being powerful, the most important political figure, and the face of our nation, for better or worse. The election and inauguration of the President is complete with pomp, parades, bunting, galas, and religious aspects. There are honor guards, and notable events all around. It is simply normalized for us because we do it every four years, and is devoid of crowns, robes and vestments, except for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is wearing his robe. If it were truly not meant as a quasi-coronation, a reminder that The President is powerful, on par with a King, it could be done without ceremony, in private even, and certified for the records and public knowledge. Maybe a picture or two thrown in before the un-lofty president of constitutional aim set about doing his job.

 

So, we can pat ourselves on the backs for rejecting a monarchy and the traditions of our English forebears, many of which we still cling to. If Joyce Lee Malcolm is to be believed, one of those is our right to bear arms. But as we pat, we need to be honest with ourselves where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DocWard said:

It is more than history. At the risk of calling to the fore the ghost of Topol, it it tradition on display. A not often seen tradition that has developed over many hundreds of years. This in itself should spark interest in the historically minded, not just anglophiles. 

 

In its own way, it also informs and is responsible for many of our own traditions in one way or another. History tells us that many in Europe and America expected George Washington to become king. The fact he chose to resign his commission from the Army, then step down from the presidency after two terms and not become a de facto king, says much about his character, but more importantly led us down a far different path. Sort of. Even the word "president," was meant as a rejection of monarchy and the implications of "King." At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the word president was chosen precisely because it was not lofty, nor did it hold the implied prominence of such a word as king. It was typically understood as a presiding officer, a chairman or foreman, who simply managed things.

 

Today, we see the President of the United States as being powerful, the most important political figure, and the face of our nation, for better or worse. The election and inauguration of the President is complete with pomp, parades, bunting, galas, and religious aspects. There are honor guards, and notable events all around. It is simply normalized for us because we do it every four years, and is devoid of crowns, robes and vestments, except for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is wearing his robe. If it were truly not meant as a quasi-coronation, a reminder that The President is powerful, on par with a King, it could be done without ceremony, in private even, and certified for the records and public knowledge. Maybe a picture or two thrown in before the un-lofty president of constitutional aim set about doing his job.

 

So, we can pat ourselves on the backs for rejecting a monarchy and the traditions of our English forebears, many of which we still cling to. If Joyce Lee Malcolm is to be believed, one of those is our right to bear arms. But as we pat, we need to be honest with ourselves where we are.

 

Very well said, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Texas Lizard said:

I wonder who paid for it....

 

Texas Lizard

British Taxpayers.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand or any other Commonwealth country does not pay anything to support the Royal Family in England.  If the Queen or, now the King visits Canada, the Canadian taxpayer covers 100% of the cost of the visit.  Same for the other Commonwealth nations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DocWard said:

It is more than history. At the risk of calling to the fore the ghost of Topol, it it tradition on display. A not often seen tradition that has developed over many hundreds of years. This in itself should spark interest in the historically minded, not just anglophiles. 

 

In its own way, it also informs and is responsible for many of our own traditions in one way or another. History tells us that many in Europe and America expected George Washington to become king. The fact he chose to resign his commission from the Army, then step down from the presidency after two terms and not become a de facto king, says much about his character, but more importantly led us down a far different path. Sort of. Even the word "president," was meant as a rejection of monarchy and the implications of "King." At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the word president was chosen precisely because it was not lofty, nor did it hold the implied prominence of such a word as king. It was typically understood as a presiding officer, a chairman or foreman, who simply managed things.

 

Today, we see the President of the United States as being powerful, the most important political figure, and the face of our nation, for better or worse. The election and inauguration of the President is complete with pomp, parades, bunting, galas, and religious aspects. There are honor guards, and notable events all around. It is simply normalized for us because we do it every four years, and is devoid of crowns, robes and vestments, except for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is wearing his robe. If it were truly not meant as a quasi-coronation, a reminder that The President is powerful, on par with a King, it could be done without ceremony, in private even, and certified for the records and public knowledge. Maybe a picture or two thrown in before the un-lofty president of constitutional aim set about doing his job.

 

So, we can pat ourselves on the backs for rejecting a monarchy and the traditions of our English forebears, many of which we still cling to. If Joyce Lee Malcolm is to be believed, one of those is our right to bear arms. But as we pat, we need to be honest with ourselves where we are.

What Doc said.  Tradition and ceremony count in all cultures. 
 

I caught a few scenes through the BBC. Even on his best day, Charles will never be Elizabeth.  And Camilla isn’t fit to clean Phillip’s chamber pot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the commentators on tv would just shut up and let us watch the event unfold.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Buffalo Creek Law Dog said:

British Taxpayers.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand or any other Commonwealth country does not pay anything to support the Royal Family in England.  If the Queen or, now the King visits Canada, the Canadian taxpayer covers 100% of the cost of the visit.  Same for the other Commonwealth nations. 

So if he drops in for a visit....You pay for the room....So to speak...

 

Texas Lizard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texas Lizard said:

So if he drops in for a visit....You pay for the room....So to speak...

 

Texas Lizard

 

That's about it.  We get off easy, so to speak, compared to the Brits, who have to pay for them all year around.

1 hour ago, Texas Lizard said:

So if he drops in for a visit....You pay for the room....So to speak...

 

Texas Lizard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

It's called "history."

The history of what!? Old chuckie carried on an open relationship with Camilla for years before finally marrying her after Diana the people’s princess died. Of course she was busy keeping her security chief safe inside her and riding her riding instructor on a regular basis.

Both princes carried on several open affairs and let’s not forget Randy Andy his name speaks for itself. What an amazing example they are for the people of England and the world 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Henry T Harrison said:

The history of 

 

Western Civilization

 

England

 

United States

 

 

Take your pick.  Like it or not the history of the US is tightly tied up with English history.   Doc laid it out quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

image.thumb.png.30d3c262842a452784625beab6d6fbc9.png

 

 

At about that moment in the ceremony, my wife said, "I wonder what he's thinking now?". I said, "He's an old guy, probably just wants to go pee."

 

She sighed and shook her head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

 

 

At about that moment in the ceremony, my wife said, "I wonder what he's thinking now?". I said, "He's an old guy, probably just wants to go pee."

 

She sighed and shook her head.

I guess he shouldn’t have had that 2nd cup of tea 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.