Mr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago
Mr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
Robbie K
1 year ago
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
rob clark
1 year ago
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
rob clark
1 year ago
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
martin logan
1 year ago
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
An excellent comment. You highlight the implicit connection between modernism and Marxism – and bring out the bleak inhumanity of both.
martin logan
1 year ago
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
Robbie K
1 year ago
What an amazing brilliant day!
Robbie K
1 year ago
What an amazing brilliant day!
Keith Payne
1 year ago
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
But they nonetheless were descendents. The Norman Kings had a LOT of descendents!
Keith Payne
1 year ago
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
Jeffrey Mushens
1 year ago
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
Jeffrey Mushens
1 year ago
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
j watson
1 year ago
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.
j watson
1 year ago
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.
Mr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
Mr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
British.
.
Well actually, I could have said the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, but it didn’t have the same ring to it.
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
.
Well actually, I could have said the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, but it didn’t have the same ring to it.
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
British.
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
An excellent comment. You highlight the implicit connection between modernism and Marxism – and bring out the bleak inhumanity of both.
An excellent comment. You highlight the implicit connection between modernism and Marxism – and bring out the bleak inhumanity of both.
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
What an amazing brilliant day!
What an amazing brilliant day!
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
*descendants
It’s stretching it a long way to include William of Orange, as well.
William of Orange was the son of Charles I’s daughter, the Princess Royal, which takes us back to William the Conqueror.
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
William of Orange was the son of Charles I’s daughter, the Princess Royal, which takes us back to William the Conqueror.
But they nonetheless were descendents. The Norman Kings had a LOT of descendents!
*descendants
It’s stretching it a long way to include William of Orange, as well.
But they nonetheless were descendents. The Norman Kings had a LOT of descendents!
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.