May 7, 2023 - 8:00am
Amid the many and varied delights and glories of Coronation Day, I was moved by a letter from the King to his ex-shipmates on HMS Bronington, a Ton-class minesweeper which Charles briefly commanded in 1976. “I admired your professionalism, close-knit teamwork and unfailingly robust good humour,” he wrote.
Remarkably, the ship still exists, unlike most of her class, albeit in a somewhat sorry state, having partially sunk at her moorings in Birkenhead a few years ago. Perhaps now that one of her old COs is Commander-In-Chief, she might be properly restored. It was a charming reminder of the long association between the Senior Service and the monarchy. Charles’s grandfather, George VI, and his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, were both mentioned in dispatches for their wartime service at sea.
But the Bronington note also hints at a reason why I felt a certain underlying melancholy when watching the festivities. When the Ton-class were built in the 1950s, the Royal Navy ordered 115 of them. To put that in perspective, the modern RN has just 77 operational commissioned ships of any type, and fewer than 35,000 active duty personnel. When Charles joined the Navy in the early 1970s, that figure was still above 80,000.
What has this to do with the Coronation, you might very well ask. To me, it is a striking illustration of how much the country has changed in its fundamentals over Charles’s adult life. That, in turn, leads to some unavoidable reflections on whether the undoubted magnificence and ritual splendour of what happened in Westminster Abbey on Saturday is, as the cultural critics say, an empty signifier; an event that no longer connects with an underlying reality.
Now this ambivalence was not the whole of my reaction. My conservative English heart was deeply moved by the details of the ceremony — the deep historical resonances of the prayers and the mystical symbolism of orb, sceptre, sword and crown. I was almost in tears when the screens were placed around the ancient throne for the sacred moment of anointing, to the accompaniment of Handel’s Zadok the Priest. I took enormous pleasure in explaining to my children the importance and seriousness of what was happening. When Prince William swore to his father that he would be his “liegeman of life and limb”, I experienced a thrill of excitement.
And yet the questions remain. What does it mean to have a monarch who has sworn to uphold the “Protestant Reformed Religion established by law” in a country as religiously diverse as Britain, where barely anyone under thirty has any meaningful connection with the Church of England? What is the point of having a Christian King as the fount of our law, when his subjects are routinely arrested and even prosecuted for praying in the wrong place, or for stating the basic moral teachings of the Christian faith?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAh yes, the famous English sense of melancholy. We just can’t pack up our troubles in our old kit-bag for just one day, can we?
For my money, today was remarkable. This was the first time a commoner was crowned queen. Britain’s ethnic complexion has changed beyond all recognition, and the Coronation fully reflected that.
I don’t suppose the Coronation of Edward VII was much happier, amid social unrest and in the wake of the Boer War. But here we all are, 120 years later. A little optimism would work wonders!
I refer readers to my comment above.
Fair enough, but the points the author is making cannot simply be ignored. The cultural fabric underlying the rituals which culminate in coronation is in a sorry state; if we would like such a coronation to occur again, that fabric will have to be restored. And how likely is it that the attempt shall even be made?
Take music – how many now are carrying its study under formal, classical auspices, to the level of accomplishment once common across the country? Take the private schools – last bastions of excellence in such and other kinds of study – how many of them will survive the first blasts of Starmerite malice? Take the forces – underfunded, indoctrinated and increasingly subject to “woke” interferences which make their jobs impossible. I shan’t even bother to mention the Anglican church.
You refer to Britain’s transformed “ethnic complexion”. Had this change taken place over four or five hundred years with every new constituent group given time for settling in, whilst respecting the indigenes’ need for a particular and private identity of their own, then well and good. But this is not our situation, is it? The change has been abrupt and cruelly accelerated, whilst the founding population has been insulted and cowed. The unity on show at Westminster recalls the togetherness of a French football match, albeit in a more sober style, with declarations of brotherhood soon giving way to complaint and recrimination. Did you listen carefully to the BBC’s favourite “woke” historian, subtly attacking all that the coronation stood for? The strain of attack was there even then; in the very aftermath of the ritual and that, as the sound of the approaching vandals, is the sound to which we should attend.
The author is merely warning us.
Not the first commoner – that would have been Elizabeth Woodville who married Edward IV, a period of history that holds particular interest for me.
I refer readers to my comment above.
Fair enough, but the points the author is making cannot simply be ignored. The cultural fabric underlying the rituals which culminate in coronation is in a sorry state; if we would like such a coronation to occur again, that fabric will have to be restored. And how likely is it that the attempt shall even be made?
Take music – how many now are carrying its study under formal, classical auspices, to the level of accomplishment once common across the country? Take the private schools – last bastions of excellence in such and other kinds of study – how many of them will survive the first blasts of Starmerite malice? Take the forces – underfunded, indoctrinated and increasingly subject to “woke” interferences which make their jobs impossible. I shan’t even bother to mention the Anglican church.
You refer to Britain’s transformed “ethnic complexion”. Had this change taken place over four or five hundred years with every new constituent group given time for settling in, whilst respecting the indigenes’ need for a particular and private identity of their own, then well and good. But this is not our situation, is it? The change has been abrupt and cruelly accelerated, whilst the founding population has been insulted and cowed. The unity on show at Westminster recalls the togetherness of a French football match, albeit in a more sober style, with declarations of brotherhood soon giving way to complaint and recrimination. Did you listen carefully to the BBC’s favourite “woke” historian, subtly attacking all that the coronation stood for? The strain of attack was there even then; in the very aftermath of the ritual and that, as the sound of the approaching vandals, is the sound to which we should attend.
The author is merely warning us.
Not the first commoner – that would have been Elizabeth Woodville who married Edward IV, a period of history that holds particular interest for me.
Ah yes, the famous English sense of melancholy. We just can’t pack up our troubles in our old kit-bag for just one day, can we?
For my money, today was remarkable. This was the first time a commoner was crowned queen. Britain’s ethnic complexion has changed beyond all recognition, and the Coronation fully reflected that.
I don’t suppose the Coronation of Edward VII was much happier, amid social unrest and in the wake of the Boer War. But here we all are, 120 years later. A little optimism would work wonders!
I agree about the oddity of watching a king be crowned in the name of Jesus King of Kings and promising to defend the integrity of the Protestant church, when said king appears to believe in neither of those things. Ironically, the Africans that were evangelized by the colonialist Anglicans in the 19th century are now sending missionaries to re-evangelize England in the 21st.
As for the military though, this is fairly straightforward. To see why His Majesty’s Navy is so diminished today compared to just 1970, consider the map and the exchange rate.
1) Map: https://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-british-empire/
Who needs a huge navy when you’re no longer the world’s imperial power?
2) Currency: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-03acaa3ac88aa552ce239afecab7d141
The British Pound has lost 70% of it’s global purchasing power since 1945. That’s what happens when your empire collapses and you lose “reserve currency” status. (Could be a cautionary tale for us yanks… but our leaders are too stupid to pay attention.)
Now that they’re no longer the center of civilization, Britain can’t afford a huge military (it’s an island with about $3T GDP) and simply has no need for one even if they could.
Britain hardly has a huge Navy. They didn’t have an empire in 1970 either. They have the 5/6th largest economy in the world hardly poor. It is as matter of priorities. I think most people can see they can and should do better. Poland is on coarse to have the largest army in Europe. Poland is no where near as rich as the UK and whist armies are cheaper than navies we can see it is a matter of priorities
Great comment. I would just ask what leads you to think that Charles doesn’t believe in Jesus or the maintenance of the Protestant settĺement? From my knowledge he is a regular at anglican services and follows the faith of his mother (whose Protestant christian witness I don’t think was in doubt). He might be a bit esoteric; the greek singing during the presentation of the sword reminded me more of a Byzantine emperor than a British monarch, and his ecumenical tendencies can be read in both directions but I think most people give him the benefit of the doubt (even though that’s not who matters).
On your second point it is the precipitous loss of naval power which is unforgivable for an island nation. The army has about double the manpower of the navy. I would rather it was the other way round and with the tilt to a Pacific century it would be best for the democracies if Britain resurrected this tradition.
”Great comment. I would just ask what leads you to think that Charles doesn’t believe in Jesus or the maintenance of the Protestant settĺement?”
Projection…..
I note that various members of the Royal Family now make The Sign of The Cross?
Sorry for late reply. So do lots of people at my Anglican church, same for kneeling at prayers. I don’t as I don’t believe in gesticulation and genuflection but don’t hold it against others who do. Some even believe in transubstantiation which I have a harder time accepting but that is one of the joys of the anglican communion – not too doctrinaire. It is also a drawback at times but if you don’t like it there aren’t many who begrudge a turn to Rome or Puritanism in any real sense.
Sorry for late reply. So do lots of people at my Anglican church, same for kneeling at prayers. I don’t as I don’t believe in gesticulation and genuflection but don’t hold it against others who do. Some even believe in transubstantiation which I have a harder time accepting but that is one of the joys of the anglican communion – not too doctrinaire. It is also a drawback at times but if you don’t like it there aren’t many who begrudge a turn to Rome or Puritanism in any real sense.
”Great comment. I would just ask what leads you to think that Charles doesn’t believe in Jesus or the maintenance of the Protestant settĺement?”
Projection…..
I note that various members of the Royal Family now make The Sign of The Cross?
H.M. Submarines are now carrying Tapax when they should be carrying torpedoes, the RAF should be disbanded, and Army has abandoned soldier F* to the tender mercy of the Northern Ireland Judiciary.
Consummatum est!
(*1 Para.)
I think that the RAF should never have actually been formed. The Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps should have been kept. In particular, the RNAS was a very innovative service, unfortunately the Admiralty didn’t really know what to do with it and the pilots were determined (along with RFC pilots) to have their own service. I think that it would be more efficient to let the army and navy have their own forces at their own beck and call, I realise that there is the Fleet Air Arm, but it is relatively small.
We don’t need a big navy or air force. The future of armed warfare is drones.
The Current NOW in war is Artillery! A WWI weapon – !!
Watch some Colonel MacGregor – the Ukrainians are being Slaughtered! Losing 7 to each Russian. Ukrainian is destroyed as a nation because USA and UK thought war was drones and missiles.
The utter Evil Biden and Boris rained down on that poor nation with their $180 $ Billion of weapons and corruption bribes and 10% to all who would have the region destroyed…. The Evil they caused by getting involved and sending Billions of missiles and drones –
They are Crushed, Crushed, by the old WWII and WWII Artillery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
watch some before you make judgements you are not qualified to as all MSM on this are LIES! Evin Unherd is agenda before facts. Swept up in the lies….
https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmacgregorcol5835
do not write off Navy yet – Carrier Task Forces may be obsolete, maybe not – but a surface, and especially Submarine Navy is Vital!
There is a big difference between what is being predominantly used in a war and what actually wins the war.
“The Current NOW in war is Artillery! A WWI weapon – !!” Yes, they had rifles, guns, warships, submarines and tanks in WW1 too. The modern equivalents are a little different though.
There is a big difference between what is being predominantly used in a war and what actually wins the war.
“The Current NOW in war is Artillery! A WWI weapon – !!” Yes, they had rifles, guns, warships, submarines and tanks in WW1 too. The modern equivalents are a little different though.
The Current NOW in war is Artillery! A WWI weapon – !!
Watch some Colonel MacGregor – the Ukrainians are being Slaughtered! Losing 7 to each Russian. Ukrainian is destroyed as a nation because USA and UK thought war was drones and missiles.
The utter Evil Biden and Boris rained down on that poor nation with their $180 $ Billion of weapons and corruption bribes and 10% to all who would have the region destroyed…. The Evil they caused by getting involved and sending Billions of missiles and drones –
They are Crushed, Crushed, by the old WWII and WWII Artillery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
watch some before you make judgements you are not qualified to as all MSM on this are LIES! Evin Unherd is agenda before facts. Swept up in the lies….
https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmacgregorcol5835
do not write off Navy yet – Carrier Task Forces may be obsolete, maybe not – but a surface, and especially Submarine Navy is Vital!
Precisely!
Hi Charles, back from my banishment – still not allowed to comment on that insanely bad Freddy/RFK mess – but it seems back..haha
Hi Charles, back from my banishment – still not allowed to comment on that insanely bad Freddy/RFK mess – but it seems back..haha
Linda, I always enjoy your posts – But, if you get the chance please visit RAF Uxbridge, and the last underground Bunker which directed the RAF to win the Battle of Britain. (It shames me to think the worm Boris is MP over that brave facility)
Unless the RAF had been unified under Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, and giver over 100% control to him, WWII would have been lost.
After the Battle of Britian was won due to his leadership he was ejected for political reasons – Just imagine if the Air services ahd been all disjointed under Army control – it Never could have survived those months of ultimate stresses.
Not only that, but if under Army then the last British Fighter would have been wasted over France in the land war against the Germans leaving Britain totally open to a successful German invasion – as Churchill and the Army wished – only Sir Hugh stopped that.
Every Foot Guard would agree!!!
We don’t need a big navy or air force. The future of armed warfare is drones.
Precisely!
Linda, I always enjoy your posts – But, if you get the chance please visit RAF Uxbridge, and the last underground Bunker which directed the RAF to win the Battle of Britain. (It shames me to think the worm Boris is MP over that brave facility)
Unless the RAF had been unified under Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, and giver over 100% control to him, WWII would have been lost.
After the Battle of Britian was won due to his leadership he was ejected for political reasons – Just imagine if the Air services ahd been all disjointed under Army control – it Never could have survived those months of ultimate stresses.
Not only that, but if under Army then the last British Fighter would have been wasted over France in the land war against the Germans leaving Britain totally open to a successful German invasion – as Churchill and the Army wished – only Sir Hugh stopped that.
Every Foot Guard would agree!!!
Never forget ‘Sergeant Alexander Blackman,’
Never Forgive the traitors who prosecuted him, and thereby destroyed him and the profession of soldiering!
I think that the RAF should never have actually been formed. The Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps should have been kept. In particular, the RNAS was a very innovative service, unfortunately the Admiralty didn’t really know what to do with it and the pilots were determined (along with RFC pilots) to have their own service. I think that it would be more efficient to let the army and navy have their own forces at their own beck and call, I realise that there is the Fleet Air Arm, but it is relatively small.
Never forget ‘Sergeant Alexander Blackman,’
Never Forgive the traitors who prosecuted him, and thereby destroyed him and the profession of soldiering!
Britain hardly has a huge Navy. They didn’t have an empire in 1970 either. They have the 5/6th largest economy in the world hardly poor. It is as matter of priorities. I think most people can see they can and should do better. Poland is on coarse to have the largest army in Europe. Poland is no where near as rich as the UK and whist armies are cheaper than navies we can see it is a matter of priorities
Great comment. I would just ask what leads you to think that Charles doesn’t believe in Jesus or the maintenance of the Protestant settĺement? From my knowledge he is a regular at anglican services and follows the faith of his mother (whose Protestant christian witness I don’t think was in doubt). He might be a bit esoteric; the greek singing during the presentation of the sword reminded me more of a Byzantine emperor than a British monarch, and his ecumenical tendencies can be read in both directions but I think most people give him the benefit of the doubt (even though that’s not who matters).
On your second point it is the precipitous loss of naval power which is unforgivable for an island nation. The army has about double the manpower of the navy. I would rather it was the other way round and with the tilt to a Pacific century it would be best for the democracies if Britain resurrected this tradition.
H.M. Submarines are now carrying Tapax when they should be carrying torpedoes, the RAF should be disbanded, and Army has abandoned soldier F* to the tender mercy of the Northern Ireland Judiciary.
Consummatum est!
(*1 Para.)
I agree about the oddity of watching a king be crowned in the name of Jesus King of Kings and promising to defend the integrity of the Protestant church, when said king appears to believe in neither of those things. Ironically, the Africans that were evangelized by the colonialist Anglicans in the 19th century are now sending missionaries to re-evangelize England in the 21st.
As for the military though, this is fairly straightforward. To see why His Majesty’s Navy is so diminished today compared to just 1970, consider the map and the exchange rate.
1) Map: https://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-british-empire/
Who needs a huge navy when you’re no longer the world’s imperial power?
2) Currency: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-03acaa3ac88aa552ce239afecab7d141
The British Pound has lost 70% of it’s global purchasing power since 1945. That’s what happens when your empire collapses and you lose “reserve currency” status. (Could be a cautionary tale for us yanks… but our leaders are too stupid to pay attention.)
Now that they’re no longer the center of civilization, Britain can’t afford a huge military (it’s an island with about $3T GDP) and simply has no need for one even if they could.
As an American who finds that we need more arrests, if not for the same thing, I was stunned at how much I was moved by the service. It made me realize that a Coronation is probably the most beautiful event humans have ever conceived — the music, the tradition, the grandeur, the tens of dozens of uniforms, the marching the regal splendor of the coaches.
Perhaps its best not to seek deeper meaning. When we do so, we recall the horrors that Christianity have brought to the world, the murder, the slaughter. But as an American, I know that whining about past injustice is an arrogance and a waste of time. Whatever the tawdry past may have been…long live the King!
For all of the humiliation and insult he has endured, it was splendid to see him there in his moment of purpose.
”When we do so, we recall the horrors that Christianity have brought to the world, the murder, the slaughter.”
OMG – almost all great things of society and our Western culture which gave the world everything was founded on the Christian Intellectualism coupled with the ridged Christian Laws of Ethics.
In the Dark Ages 10,000 monks hand copied the great works of Philosophy from classics to modern great thinkers. Tens and Tens of thousands of Priests underwent very rigorous university kinds of education in Philosophy, Rhetoric, maths Natural Philosophy, Latin Greek, local languages – an education which would make yours seem soft – To then be sent all over the Western and non-Western world to educate and teach the barbarian rulers. To open the roads to commerce, establish treaties, spread technology and agriculture, and Justice. Art was made accessible, was made fundamental and great.
All this coupled with the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament and the new rules of Jesus Christ of decency, compassion, and Justice.
Then some modern, brainwashed people who know Nothing at all but what you have been fed in popular lies of propaganda say your jeering comments on Christianity which created Democracy, Rule of Law, Learning in science, maths, philosophy, industry, end of slavery, Literature, Arts, and on and on…
I suppose you think Carthage with its human sacrifices as religion is no different….well, you are the product of postmodern education entirely designed to make people stupid. To destroy the heritage which made greatness.
”When we do so, we recall the horrors that Christianity have brought to the world, the murder, the slaughter.”
OMG – almost all great things of society and our Western culture which gave the world everything was founded on the Christian Intellectualism coupled with the ridged Christian Laws of Ethics.
In the Dark Ages 10,000 monks hand copied the great works of Philosophy from classics to modern great thinkers. Tens and Tens of thousands of Priests underwent very rigorous university kinds of education in Philosophy, Rhetoric, maths Natural Philosophy, Latin Greek, local languages – an education which would make yours seem soft – To then be sent all over the Western and non-Western world to educate and teach the barbarian rulers. To open the roads to commerce, establish treaties, spread technology and agriculture, and Justice. Art was made accessible, was made fundamental and great.
All this coupled with the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament and the new rules of Jesus Christ of decency, compassion, and Justice.
Then some modern, brainwashed people who know Nothing at all but what you have been fed in popular lies of propaganda say your jeering comments on Christianity which created Democracy, Rule of Law, Learning in science, maths, philosophy, industry, end of slavery, Literature, Arts, and on and on…
I suppose you think Carthage with its human sacrifices as religion is no different….well, you are the product of postmodern education entirely designed to make people stupid. To destroy the heritage which made greatness.
As an American who finds that we need more arrests, if not for the same thing, I was stunned at how much I was moved by the service. It made me realize that a Coronation is probably the most beautiful event humans have ever conceived — the music, the tradition, the grandeur, the tens of dozens of uniforms, the marching the regal splendor of the coaches.
Perhaps its best not to seek deeper meaning. When we do so, we recall the horrors that Christianity have brought to the world, the murder, the slaughter. But as an American, I know that whining about past injustice is an arrogance and a waste of time. Whatever the tawdry past may have been…long live the King!
For all of the humiliation and insult he has endured, it was splendid to see him there in his moment of purpose.
As an historical experience it was bewitching and superbly done. But of course the soggy Anglicanism and Military associations not really where we now are as a Nation and hence some melancholic nostalgia inevitable.
Much like the Queen’s Funeral these moments in time make us reflect on the certainties of the Past whilst being conscious of the Future uncertainties to come. As our lives progress, while some things change for the better and some change for the worse, loss aversion means that we pay much more attention to the bad things. So overall, we think life is getting worse. But of course it isn’t – Just one set of examples – we live longer and healthier than even the rose tinted 1975 the Author refers to.
Our memory has the tendency to filter out bad experiences. We remember great holidays for example and not the rubbish ones.
So that basic psychological response will have been v common yesterday, myself included. But the Future is now what counts.
I think you make a valid point. Despite appreciating the seemingly overwhelming pomp and ceremonial, at the heart of it all the king looked slightly bewildered. Although he’d been preparing himself for the moment all his life, the trappings such as the golden robes and objects of kingly status appeared to humble him rather than uplift. That impression isn’t intended as criticism, but rather an acknowledgement that what was being asked of him was impossible in the 21st century.
His role is one of a figurehead, and as i’ve commented previously, it’s within our power to keep the role or not to do so. I hope we do, since it continues to work for us but can’t depend on the ability of the individual monarch to defend or otherwise that with which he is tasked.
My thoughts also turned to his successor, William, and how things might’ve changed in the probable couple of decades till he finds himself taking the regal oaths.
We had a Hindu PM reading from the bible (which he did well) but i thought that Penny Mordaunt got it very right with her updated outfit and considerable fortitude in bearing the heavy Sword of State throughout, which struck a note of renewal that the UK can move forward with sufficient strength to endure. She’s an ex-Naval reservist and has said the training helped prepare her for her role in the ceremony; that’s more valid than how many vessels we maintain.
“We had a Hindu PM reading from the bible (which he did well).”
As one would expect from a former head boy of Winchester.
Think he deserves considerable credit for handling the ceremony at his age. He knows worldwide audience constantly on him and he has to concentrate the whole time. We forget sometimes he’s 75yrs of age. That Crown looked heavy too! We can do alot worse than Charlie, which of course is part of the dilemma about the whole thing. But for now it was a day one will remember as a rare piece of history and all the more fascinating for that.
Penny M is so gorgeous, .. errr… end of.
“We had a Hindu PM reading from the bible (which he did well).”
As one would expect from a former head boy of Winchester.
Think he deserves considerable credit for handling the ceremony at his age. He knows worldwide audience constantly on him and he has to concentrate the whole time. We forget sometimes he’s 75yrs of age. That Crown looked heavy too! We can do alot worse than Charlie, which of course is part of the dilemma about the whole thing. But for now it was a day one will remember as a rare piece of history and all the more fascinating for that.
Penny M is so gorgeous, .. errr… end of.
Although you are correct about longevity, ‘quality of life’ is not so clear cut, thanks to dementia, obesity general decay etc.
Where there has been a staggering revolution since say 1953 is both in the COST and SPEED of travel.
In ‘53 Air travel was prohibitively expensive and very limited. Trains were also were comparatively costly and rarely exceeded a start to stop average speed of 60 mph. Driving was even slower and considerably more dangerous, with the UK annual road cull running into the many thousands. ( No speed limit, no breathalyser, no MoT.)
Happy days indeed, 110mph down to the Hog’s Back to oblivion!
Agree with the ubiquity of travel as compared with 50yrs ago. As regards quality of health – 50 yrs ago v limited cataract or joint replacement surgery as just two examples – so much more pain and sight disability in old age. Just two totally transformational differences
I am fascinated as to why a flight to Nice takes exactly the same time as it did in 1964?
Same for Geneva or Paris!
Same for Geneva or Paris!
Agree with the ubiquity of travel as compared with 50yrs ago. As regards quality of health – 50 yrs ago v limited cataract or joint replacement surgery as just two examples – so much more pain and sight disability in old age. Just two totally transformational differences
I am fascinated as to why a flight to Nice takes exactly the same time as it did in 1964?
I think you make a valid point. Despite appreciating the seemingly overwhelming pomp and ceremonial, at the heart of it all the king looked slightly bewildered. Although he’d been preparing himself for the moment all his life, the trappings such as the golden robes and objects of kingly status appeared to humble him rather than uplift. That impression isn’t intended as criticism, but rather an acknowledgement that what was being asked of him was impossible in the 21st century.
His role is one of a figurehead, and as i’ve commented previously, it’s within our power to keep the role or not to do so. I hope we do, since it continues to work for us but can’t depend on the ability of the individual monarch to defend or otherwise that with which he is tasked.
My thoughts also turned to his successor, William, and how things might’ve changed in the probable couple of decades till he finds himself taking the regal oaths.
We had a Hindu PM reading from the bible (which he did well) but i thought that Penny Mordaunt got it very right with her updated outfit and considerable fortitude in bearing the heavy Sword of State throughout, which struck a note of renewal that the UK can move forward with sufficient strength to endure. She’s an ex-Naval reservist and has said the training helped prepare her for her role in the ceremony; that’s more valid than how many vessels we maintain.
Although you are correct about longevity, ‘quality of life’ is not so clear cut, thanks to dementia, obesity general decay etc.
Where there has been a staggering revolution since say 1953 is both in the COST and SPEED of travel.
In ‘53 Air travel was prohibitively expensive and very limited. Trains were also were comparatively costly and rarely exceeded a start to stop average speed of 60 mph. Driving was even slower and considerably more dangerous, with the UK annual road cull running into the many thousands. ( No speed limit, no breathalyser, no MoT.)
Happy days indeed, 110mph down to the Hog’s Back to oblivion!
As an historical experience it was bewitching and superbly done. But of course the soggy Anglicanism and Military associations not really where we now are as a Nation and hence some melancholic nostalgia inevitable.
Much like the Queen’s Funeral these moments in time make us reflect on the certainties of the Past whilst being conscious of the Future uncertainties to come. As our lives progress, while some things change for the better and some change for the worse, loss aversion means that we pay much more attention to the bad things. So overall, we think life is getting worse. But of course it isn’t – Just one set of examples – we live longer and healthier than even the rose tinted 1975 the Author refers to.
Our memory has the tendency to filter out bad experiences. We remember great holidays for example and not the rubbish ones.
So that basic psychological response will have been v common yesterday, myself included. But the Future is now what counts.
when his subjects are routinely arrested and even prosecuted for protesting in the wrong place.
Corrected that for you.
when his subjects are routinely arrested and even prosecuted for protesting in the wrong place.
Corrected that for you.
Here in residential S London, we have a quiet branch of BPAS (British pregnancy advisory service) which advises on obtaining abortion.
Christians kneel in silent prayer on the other side of the road but get arrested regularly. So much, as you say, for a Christian rule of law.
Here in residential S London, we have a quiet branch of BPAS (British pregnancy advisory service) which advises on obtaining abortion.
Christians kneel in silent prayer on the other side of the road but get arrested regularly. So much, as you say, for a Christian rule of law.
As a late middle aged American who has spent a lot of time studying English and European history, I gotta say I thought the whole thing kinda hollow.
There was something truly regal about Elizabeth that is lacking in the follow on generations. There was something almost clownish about seeing Charles in his crown next to Camilla.
It had too much of the feel of a community theater group composed of people we know putting on costumes for a play. Maybe we know them too well.
I have thought for years that the monarchy provided a stability to government and that if democracy were to ever fail under corruption or something else that at least, unlike the U.S., Britain had a built in plan B for national leadership to turn to during any reset or transition.
There has always been something special about the British monarchy that all others lacked. Hard to say specifically what but you knew it was there. I am left feeling that it has become more like the other old monarchies, not much more than very wealthy family with an interesting ancient heritage and titles that are powerless and increasingly meaningless. It almost feels like you could see a future Prince Louis living in a very nice mansion in some small town with 6 kids, spending his days working as a venture capitalist and telling his kids and club members about what his dad said it was like back in the day. You could imagine his kids growing up and not even being sure what their inherited title means, it is just something to do a school paper about your family on.
Maybe it is that the royal family does not seem to take the sanctity of the monarch all that seriously anymore, that they too feel like they are there to just put on a show?
Fair comment. I know where you’re coming from with “putting on costumes” too, but if the ancient robes aren’t retained i’m not sure where that takes us. It’s almost as if the crowns themselves were designed to sit uncomfortably upon the head. Maybe heads are just bigger these days?
perhaps like every other prole in The Pipls Republictoylitte of nu beitn HewKay, they should have all been wearing ” troyners” hoodies and tracksuit bums?
perhaps like every other prole in The Pipls Republictoylitte of nu beitn HewKay, they should have all been wearing ” troyners” hoodies and tracksuit bums?
There is much in what you say, but frankly it could have been MUCH worse if certain people had got their way.
Gotta Kinda? Clearly didn’t ” study” reading and writing English?
Queen Elizabeth had gravitas.
Fair comment. I know where you’re coming from with “putting on costumes” too, but if the ancient robes aren’t retained i’m not sure where that takes us. It’s almost as if the crowns themselves were designed to sit uncomfortably upon the head. Maybe heads are just bigger these days?
There is much in what you say, but frankly it could have been MUCH worse if certain people had got their way.
Gotta Kinda? Clearly didn’t ” study” reading and writing English?
Queen Elizabeth had gravitas.
As a late middle aged American who has spent a lot of time studying English and European history, I gotta say I thought the whole thing kinda hollow.
There was something truly regal about Elizabeth that is lacking in the follow on generations. There was something almost clownish about seeing Charles in his crown next to Camilla.
It had too much of the feel of a community theater group composed of people we know putting on costumes for a play. Maybe we know them too well.
I have thought for years that the monarchy provided a stability to government and that if democracy were to ever fail under corruption or something else that at least, unlike the U.S., Britain had a built in plan B for national leadership to turn to during any reset or transition.
There has always been something special about the British monarchy that all others lacked. Hard to say specifically what but you knew it was there. I am left feeling that it has become more like the other old monarchies, not much more than very wealthy family with an interesting ancient heritage and titles that are powerless and increasingly meaningless. It almost feels like you could see a future Prince Louis living in a very nice mansion in some small town with 6 kids, spending his days working as a venture capitalist and telling his kids and club members about what his dad said it was like back in the day. You could imagine his kids growing up and not even being sure what their inherited title means, it is just something to do a school paper about your family on.
Maybe it is that the royal family does not seem to take the sanctity of the monarch all that seriously anymore, that they too feel like they are there to just put on a show?
Yes, I approached the coronation with a sense of foreboding, but was pleasantly surprised and indeed moved. I was a kid in the ’70s and remember already the ‘sense of decline’. However that feeling of ‘a nation set apart’ still appears sometimes, perhaps we are the sort of Japan of Europe?
In which case we need to be more industrious while at the same time recovering a sense of our culture and place.
Yes, I approached the coronation with a sense of foreboding, but was pleasantly surprised and indeed moved. I was a kid in the ’70s and remember already the ‘sense of decline’. However that feeling of ‘a nation set apart’ still appears sometimes, perhaps we are the sort of Japan of Europe?
In which case we need to be more industrious while at the same time recovering a sense of our culture and place.
What a simply splendid spectacle. The next best thing to a Roman Triumph.
I thought it was an episode of Harry Enfield’s Windsors, particularly the balcony scene. The likenesses were uncanny.
For my money this was Mr Enfield’s ‘magnum opus’:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
lol, genius
lol, genius
For my money this was Mr Enfield’s ‘magnum opus’:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Thought so to – it was simply magnificent.
I thought it was an episode of Harry Enfield’s Windsors, particularly the balcony scene. The likenesses were uncanny.
Thought so to – it was simply magnificent.
What a simply splendid spectacle. The next best thing to a Roman Triumph.
As long as the ceremony can make enough people feel the emotions you describe then the monarchy is connecting to an underlying reality.
As long as the ceremony can make enough people feel the emotions you describe then the monarchy is connecting to an underlying reality.
The coronation ceremony dates back to the Anglo Saxons, who had no overseas empire, or colonies, and probably no military uniforms or marching bands (not a subject I know about). I doubt if their navy had thousands of men. They did have poverty, war, political chaos, corruption and ethnic strife. These things haven’t changed.
The ceremony was devised by St Dunstable, a Benedictine monk, and it is unmistakably a Catholic ordination with very few alterations; eg the candidate is presented with a sword instead of a chalice. The single most jarring aspect is the addition of the oath about Protestantism, but that fault line runs through the C of E itself, and because it is familiar it isn’t seen as a problem. If this oath can be added successfully into a Catholic ceremony, that ceremony can be adapted in other ways too. We saw that done on Saturday.
The key aspect is that the King has accepted that he has an obligation to rule wisely and justly in the common good. He will fall short, as his predecessors and other Christian leaders have done, but the look on his face as he took the oaths and his attitude of awe and humility showed he was in earnest.
I found the coronation uplifting and I felt an unfamiliar optimism afterwards.
The coronation ceremony dates back to the Anglo Saxons, who had no overseas empire, or colonies, and probably no military uniforms or marching bands (not a subject I know about). I doubt if their navy had thousands of men. They did have poverty, war, political chaos, corruption and ethnic strife. These things haven’t changed.
The ceremony was devised by St Dunstable, a Benedictine monk, and it is unmistakably a Catholic ordination with very few alterations; eg the candidate is presented with a sword instead of a chalice. The single most jarring aspect is the addition of the oath about Protestantism, but that fault line runs through the C of E itself, and because it is familiar it isn’t seen as a problem. If this oath can be added successfully into a Catholic ceremony, that ceremony can be adapted in other ways too. We saw that done on Saturday.
The key aspect is that the King has accepted that he has an obligation to rule wisely and justly in the common good. He will fall short, as his predecessors and other Christian leaders have done, but the look on his face as he took the oaths and his attitude of awe and humility showed he was in earnest.
I found the coronation uplifting and I felt an unfamiliar optimism afterwards.
I expected the coronation to be disappointing, partly because I knew that it would be “modernized” (and also because of my own general pessimism). But I was wrong. It’s true that it was modernized in various ways, some superficial and others significant. But coronations are stubbornly and inherently not modern–which is precisely why this one was such a remarkable and valuable rebuke to modernism (in the worst sense of that word), let alone postmodernism and its affiliated ideologies such as woksim. In a profoundly cynical world that proudly denies the existence of truth (and even the desirability of seeking anything but “our” truth), one that implacably attacks every moral principle and relentlessly undermines every source of stable meaning, this event and even its setting was saturated with meaning. Every archaic costume or object, every carefully chosen word or song, every choreographed procession or gesture, everything had a meaning (or at least a half-forgotten one). The whole thing was overtly primordial or even primitive (in the best sense of that word), and therefore risky in this supposedly progressive and easily offended world, but also astonishingly beautiful (a living, collective work of art) and therefore galvanizingly audacious.
I could mention several specific items of interest from my own point of view, but I’ll confine myself here to one of them. While planning his coronation, the king wanted very much to be the “defender” of all religions. With that in mind, he invited the United Kingdom’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. This presented some problems. First, Mirvis had to consult other rabbis about going to a Christian church for a Christian liturgy at all. They all agreed that he should indeed. Next, however, he had to find a way of doing so on a Saturday without violating the commandments that separate sacred time from profane time–which is to say, driving or taking public transportation. This is where the king stepped in by inviting Mirvis to spend the night at home with him in St. James’s Palace, which is within walking distance of Westminster Abbey. Moreover, the king hired a kosher caterer so that the rabbi would not have to worry about eating there. Next day, at the coronation, several non-Christian leaders led an ecumenical public prayer. Knowing that the rabbi would not use electricity during Shabbat, however, the king ensured that these leaders would not use a microphone.
Now, you can describe all of these things as perfunctory bows to “diversity” or “inclusion” and therefore a need to appear “relevant” in 2023, but I think that more than political expediency was involved. I think that the king had learned much from his family, albeit after an extended and troubled adolescence, about respect for others. And I refer not only to his mother but also to his paternal grandmother, who had become a Greek Orthodox nun after sheltering Jews from the Nazis. (Two of her daughters married Nazis; another opposed the Nazis). In my book, the coronation represented (apart from anything else) the king’s personal coming of age. It was a rite of passage for him as well as the nation. His mother would be proud of him.
I expected the coronation to be disappointing, partly because I knew that it would be “modernized” (and also because of my own general pessimism). But I was wrong. It’s true that it was modernized in various ways, some superficial and others significant. But coronations are stubbornly and inherently not modern–which is precisely why this one was such a remarkable and valuable rebuke to modernism (in the worst sense of that word), let alone postmodernism and its affiliated ideologies such as woksim. In a profoundly cynical world that proudly denies the existence of truth (and even the desirability of seeking anything but “our” truth), one that implacably attacks every moral principle and relentlessly undermines every source of stable meaning, this event and even its setting was saturated with meaning. Every archaic costume or object, every carefully chosen word or song, every choreographed procession or gesture, everything had a meaning (or at least a half-forgotten one). The whole thing was overtly primordial or even primitive (in the best sense of that word), and therefore risky in this supposedly progressive and easily offended world, but also astonishingly beautiful (a living, collective work of art) and therefore galvanizingly audacious.
I could mention several specific items of interest from my own point of view, but I’ll confine myself here to one of them. While planning his coronation, the king wanted very much to be the “defender” of all religions. With that in mind, he invited the United Kingdom’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. This presented some problems. First, Mirvis had to consult other rabbis about going to a Christian church for a Christian liturgy at all. They all agreed that he should indeed. Next, however, he had to find a way of doing so on a Saturday without violating the commandments that separate sacred time from profane time–which is to say, driving or taking public transportation. This is where the king stepped in by inviting Mirvis to spend the night at home with him in St. James’s Palace, which is within walking distance of Westminster Abbey. Moreover, the king hired a kosher caterer so that the rabbi would not have to worry about eating there. Next day, at the coronation, several non-Christian leaders led an ecumenical public prayer. Knowing that the rabbi would not use electricity during Shabbat, however, the king ensured that these leaders would not use a microphone.
Now, you can describe all of these things as perfunctory bows to “diversity” or “inclusion” and therefore a need to appear “relevant” in 2023, but I think that more than political expediency was involved. I think that the king had learned much from his family, albeit after an extended and troubled adolescence, about respect for others. And I refer not only to his mother but also to his paternal grandmother, who had become a Greek Orthodox nun after sheltering Jews from the Nazis. (Two of her daughters married Nazis; another opposed the Nazis). In my book, the coronation represented (apart from anything else) the king’s personal coming of age. It was a rite of passage for him as well as the nation. His mother would be proud of him.
Dunno, but I was somewhat surprised by the ceremony. I was expecting it to be presided over by a mullah, with the music resembling a James Brown concert. Surely the whole thing was Too White.
Dunno, but I was somewhat surprised by the ceremony. I was expecting it to be presided over by a mullah, with the music resembling a James Brown concert. Surely the whole thing was Too White.
Considering the fragility of these royal arrangements is terribly modern world, this decided to wax poetic about what we witnessed in Westminster last Saturday:
Many and many a year ago in a kingdom by the sea
My King was raised with thorny crown on a cross at Calvary.
His miracle resurrecting life changed our course of history.
Then many and many a year went by ’til nine-seventy-three AD,
when Edgar was anointed king by Archbishop’s ceremony.
Many and many a king was crowned through English history;
Right up to now with Charles’ anointing in twenty-twenty-three.
Now I’m a yank in America; we don’t comprehend the monarchy.
I do see that Charles’ is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
So there’s some connection there with the King at Calvary.
Now the world still turns by God’s creative authority.
But I wonder if King Charles will take his anointing seriously.
Or is his high position now just a power move for royal authority?
Now as many and many a year pass by in that kingdom on the sea,
May God save King Charles and establish his authority,
as Charles himself doth take seriously Our Lord’s divinity.
Selah.
Considering the fragility of these royal arrangements is terribly modern world, this decided to wax poetic about what we witnessed in Westminster last Saturday:
Many and many a year ago in a kingdom by the sea
My King was raised with thorny crown on a cross at Calvary.
His miracle resurrecting life changed our course of history.
Then many and many a year went by ’til nine-seventy-three AD,
when Edgar was anointed king by Archbishop’s ceremony.
Many and many a king was crowned through English history;
Right up to now with Charles’ anointing in twenty-twenty-three.
Now I’m a yank in America; we don’t comprehend the monarchy.
I do see that Charles’ is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
So there’s some connection there with the King at Calvary.
Now the world still turns by God’s creative authority.
But I wonder if King Charles will take his anointing seriously.
Or is his high position now just a power move for royal authority?
Now as many and many a year pass by in that kingdom on the sea,
May God save King Charles and establish his authority,
as Charles himself doth take seriously Our Lord’s divinity.
Selah.
We live in an age of air power, increasingly remote controlled at that, and still need armies for physical possession and keeping the peace. The main role of the navy is as a transport service, and a underwater platform for weapons. Very sad, but inevitable.
If you were a Catholic in the congregation on Saturday, the whole thing would have felt very familiar. It was a very un-Protestant ceremony. Sounded more like the Roman Mass on a holy day. All houses in decline now, thankfully.
Yes!! Brilliant… must have upset the Orangemen in the £3 bowler hats and terylene suits!
Yes!! Brilliant… must have upset the Orangemen in the £3 bowler hats and terylene suits!
If you were a Catholic in the congregation on Saturday, the whole thing would have felt very familiar. It was a very un-Protestant ceremony. Sounded more like the Roman Mass on a holy day. All houses in decline now, thankfully.