'Secret coronation' for Charles

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=49a0a4c04b85645b&cat=c08dd24cec417021

'Secret coronation' for Charles
From corresponents in London
December 26, 2004
THE coronation of Prince Charles is already being planned, in secret preparations for his accession to the throne following the death of the Queen, it was reported today.

The Sunday Times said the Duke of Norfolk, who as earl marshal is historically responsible for coordinating the coronation, was planning to modernise the service, notably by adding a role for non-Christian religious leaders in the ceremony.

"A lot has happened since (the Queen's) coronation in 1953. There will be a large number of differences. I don't mind the word modernising," he was quoted as saying.

more...

Don't ya love how they want things to be secret!!!

[VegasWolf]

1. Wonder if his first official duty will be to give a blowjob to the butler?

[merwin]

2. Damn, you took that one right out of my mouth (no pun intended) n/t

[VegasWolf]

3. Wonder if the ritual requires the Sacred Insertion of Holy Relics into

the Most Revered Rear End?

[Sin]

4. Bring Forth

The Holy Hand grenande? :)

[0007]

16. ...perhaps sticking his prick in the mashed potatoes after the

Queen carves the Turkey for the Royal guests.

[pacifictiger]

5. So what's the problem with advance planning

for an event that will eventually happen, and for one that has centuries of historical precendent?

It is, after all, a little more steeped in ceremonial tradition than the Bushie coronation extravaganza coming up on which they are planning to spend an obscene amount of money.

[not fooled]

7. yeah, and as far as coronating scions...

...I'd much rather have Charles than * any day...at least Charles has some empathy for the natural world and his country's heritage, unlike *

[InvisibleBallots]

14. I was going to make a snide remark about British aristocracy

then I remembered the Bushes. Sigh. I thought we won the Revolution? :shrug:

[TyeDye75]

28. The only diference between our aristocracy and yours is

that ours talks down to us in a more polite tone.

[InvisibleBallots]

30. lol! good point - can I ask you a question?

Since you're British - what is up with the royals claiming to be decended from "the ancient Kings David and Solomon of Israel" - is this taken seriously? Is this an important part of their authenticity?

As an American, I know next to nothing about the royals.

[TyeDye75]

36. I have never heard that before...

so it mustent be taken seriously.

[InvisibleBallots]

37. I know they used to

I guess that particular royal legend has fallen out of favor.

[LibDemAlways]

6. Charles' mother is only 78.

His grandmother hit the century mark. He'll be a senior citizen by the time he is crowned king in say another 22 years. Any talk of the queen's demise is very premature.

[lovuian]

8. Charles is head of the Anglican Church if he is king

and there is a major group of British citizens who say he should NOT be king.

thats why its secret...

[Ken Burch]

34. Here's an oddity...

Charles, as king, will be head of the Church of England. Yet the Earl of Norfolk, who is planning the coronation, is Britain's leading Roman Catholic layman.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Maybe. But my mother-in-law's parents lived into

their nineties and she believed she would, too. Instead, she died at 76. You just never know what will do you in.

[Chicago Democrat]

26. Victoria lived to be 84, the women of that German family live

for a very long time.

[mulethree]

31. How old was the Queen Mum when she retired? n/t

[dflprincess]

32. She didn't retire

she was Queen only because she was married to the monarch. When George VI died, Elizabeth II became queen.

[Ken Burch]

33. You know, Ol Liz has a shot at outlasting Queen Victoria...

who ruled for SIXTY FOUR YEARS (1837-1901)! Liz has already "ruled ok" for FIFTY ONE and seems to be just fine, thank you. At this rate, Charles would actually, I think be older than Edward VII when he succeed his mum(who died, still not amused)when he was in his late sixties or early seventies. Poor bugger only lasted ten years himself on the throne(course, he was in much worse shape than Organic Charlie when he took over)

...Maybe he'll go mad and Wills can be regent for awhile.

[nemo137]

9. My history teacher thinks that Charles will abdicate immediately

in favor of William, because apparently Charles has no credibility.

[ally_sc]

11. many think that eom

[Capn Sunshine]

27. Credibility for what?

The royal wave? Wearing the royal jewels?

Who CARES in the 21st century about a rich guy whose ancestry took a bribe to stop a bunch of Eurotrash from wasting money fighting each other over the keys to the vault?

Credibility lol

Do you have Prince Albert in a can?

[InvisibleBallots]

10. is he still claiming to be decended from "King David of Ancient Israel"?

Will he marry Britney Spears? :eyes:

[MaineDem]

12. The planning is secret!

Not the coronation events. Sheesh! What a horrid headline!

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Presumably out of respect for the queen's feelings,

since the whole show depends on her death.

[MaineDem]

17. I don't quite understand what you're saying

The headline is deceptive.

I'm sure the monarch understands that the plans for succession must be made and I'm also pretty confident that she's actually involved in the planning.

My point was simply that the headline gives the impression that Charles will be crowned in a secret ceremony.

[ianrs]

22. murdoch media

story, therefore illiterate in presentation - the stupid headline - and inaccurate/careless as to fact. A double dose of Murdoch, in fact since it is a Sunday Times - UK's most expensive tabloid - story filtered, if that's the right word, by some crappy murdoch newsfeed site.


As you imply, this sort of planning goes on all the time, all over the world, for contingencies of every sort. Perfect non-story on every level.


Quite apart from which, who cares?

[pacifictiger]

23. I note this headline is from

Australian media, where there are a lot of real anti royalty feelings. There are significant factions that are trying to cut all ties with Britain - fairly recently actually brought as far as the voting process, and defeated.

[soaky]

29. there was a referrendum a number of years ago on whether to become

a republic, which was defeated mainly due to the option presented to us - the question was not simply whether we should become a republic, but whether we wanted a specific model of a republic. The model offered was always going to be defeated, and john howard, a noted monarchist, knew that.

[Stuckinthebush]

18. Why do the British people continue to facilitate this silliness?

How much money does it take to prop up this family?

Why does this particular group of humans continue to deserve special treatment by their society?

Clearly they are not morally superior. They have many flaws. They are not shinning examples of grace.

What would happen if the people said, "Enough of this charade!" Then they refused to be obsequious in the presence of the "royals". The "royals" could then take their money and have fox hunts and balls as much as they desired, and the British people wouldn't have to constantly read about their antics.

[okasha]

24. Stability

The Brits hang onto their monarchy because the head of state remains constant even when the head of government takes a dive. They don't have the kind of crises we have over the likes of Watergate or the Clinton impeachment. Given that the PM can be ousted far more easily than a President, the monarch provides stability. The Brits seem to think the old girl's worth it--and it's their call.

Okasha

[pacifictiger]

25. while the queen's children's behaviour

has not alway's been exemplary in the sense of perfectionism, they are streets ahead of the likes of the Hilton sisters, or Bushie in his 'adulthood.'
The tourist revenues that royal assets bring in are staggering. Not to mention that the queen is an incredibly hard working person, giving enormous sums of money and personal fundraising influence to numerous charities. Imagine having to be on public display most of the time, even when you didn't feel up to it? I think out of a year she generally has about 350 public functions to attend.

[MasonJar]

19. I believe that the queen has her own money. I am sure that the

people pay also, but they have an important tradition and one that brings them revenue in the form of tourism. In addition, how often do the English crown a monarch? Compare that to the US where we have to go through another Bush inauguration in the multi-millions after 4 depressing years.
I personally do not feel disrespectful toward Charles; he is a committed environmentalist, which erases any negatives for me. Princess Grace and her sad story were played up in a way to make Charles a villain...we know quite appallingly about negative press and its machinations here too.

[oldcoot]

20. I agree

Considering how much money is being spent on King Bush's second inauguration, I really do not believe that Americans should be too critical of British traditions.

[dand]

21. Another in-bred little turd being crowned?

We have our own obscene spectacle to gag on, please let the Brits handle their own fiasco.

[Forever Free]

35. Charles can join "King George" as the dual monarchs

Although I would choose the British monarchy over the Bush junta anyday.