Plan B Forum

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

Looked as if he would rather be somewhere, anywhere, else most of the time.

I accept that royalty might be the least worst solution to the problem of a head of state but this was just a farcical waste of money and time.

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 7:50 am

Looked as if he would rather be somewhere, anywhere, else most of the time.

I accept that royalty might be the least worst solution to the problem of a head of state but this was just a farcical waste of money and time.

It's been almost seventy years since the last one (2nd of June 1953), so let 'em have their pageantry.   After all, even without gals like Vicky and Lizzie, who seemed like they'd never die, this happens what?   Maybe four times a century?

Doesn't even begin to compare with the amount of time and money wasted on presidential campaigns and inaugurations here in the good old USA every four years — or even the amount of bread blown by your run-of-the-mill Bridezillas when they tie the knot.

-"BB"-

OK. Will some Brit explain the symbolism to me -- why a glove on the right hand only? Or is this a Michael impression? For someone who is supposed to love gardening, he doesn't seem to get much sun.

snailgate

Yesterday was a celebration of two things that don’t belong in the modern age - thoroughbred horse racing and monarchy.

I truly don’t understand the draw of being a subject, especially to a king who is a multibillionaire and yet demands his subjects pay $125 million pounds to throw him a party at a moment in time when pensioners are going hungry and the national healthcare system is collapsing and other social needs abound. Wouldn’t a truly good king have at least paid out for his own party, or done a streamlined version, or done like the rest of the monarchies in modern Europe and done away with it altogether? To me it seems like nothing other than a slap on the face of the king’s subjects but there must be some kind of Stockholm syndrome that goes into being a subject rather than a free person because there are certainly many Brits who are full of pride about the mega rich inbred family they pay to support.

Certainly free people are well exploited by the elite classes all over, but most have rejected the concept of monarchy and a divine right to rule. I would love to see before I die the republican movement grow and throw off the yoke of the monarchy once and forever - polls suggest that the younger Brits are not in support, it will be interesting to see if that changes with age.

And before anyone makes the old argument that the monarchy is an economic engine due to tourism - people visit France in huge numbers to see Versailles but don’t seem to care that the kings have been gone for centuries. The UK could do more to exploit the royal properties belonging to the state if they weren’t inhabited by sitting royalty.

And what’s with not tolerating dissent from republicans? Charlie Windsor is a puke. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... megaphones

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 12:51 pm

OK. Will some Brit explain the symbolism to me -- why a glove on the right hand only? Or is this a Michael impression? For someone who is supposed to love gardening, he doesn't seem to get much sun.

snailgate

Dr. Google can. Also known as the Coronation Gauntlet, the white glove is a traditional part of the getup, and is typically worn on the right hand by the monarch as part of the coronation while they hold the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Cross during the crowning.

Dr. Wikipedia, she say: "The coronation glove is a single white glove worn on the right hand by the British monarch during part of their coronation. It is donned after they are invested with the Sovereign's Ring and remains in place during the crowning ceremony. The glove is removed prior to the taking of homage from the bishops and peers of the realm. Presenting the glove to the monarch was a right associated with the Manor of Worksop and in the past the gloves have been embroidered with the arms of the owner of that manor. In 1953 the Court of Claims ruled that the Henry Pelham-Clinton-Hope, 9th Duke of Newcastle had lost the right by passing the manor to a limited company. At the 1953 coronation the glove, now embroidered with the royal cypher, was presented to the monarch by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster"

And a lot more besides!

Sunday NYT has an amusing op thing today. "Why this Charlie?" and suggests others who may have been crowned instead include Charlie Sheen, Charles Dickens and so on. Don't know how they missed Chuck E Cheese

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 12:51 pm

OK. Will some Brit explain the symbolism to me -- why a glove on the right hand only? Or is this a Michael impression? For someone who is supposed to love gardening, he doesn't seem to get much sun.

snailgate

The white glove means that Charley is also technically the King of Pop in England.

He has other colo(u)rs

Fun fact: the accession of Charles III marks the first time in 600 years that there have been two consecutive successions from an English or British monarch to his/her eldest son, or eldest daughter, where there were no sons. The last time it happened was on the accession of Henry VI in 1422. He was the eldest child of Henry V, who was the eldest child of Henry IV. It had only occurred twice prior in English history: in 1272 when Edward I succeeded his father Henry III, who had succeeded his father John, and in 924 when Aethelstan succeeded his father Edward the Elder, who had succeeded his father Alfred the Great. In Scotland, there were a record three consecutive successions from monarch to eldest child, beginning with James II through to the accession of James V in 1513. That record will be equalled if William succeeds Charles, and then exceeded if little George then succeeds William. Given this history, the odds don't seem to be in their favour.

I guess royal statistics are like baseball statistics--they don't really mean much but are interesting to read (of course, unlike baseball (arguably) being interesting/relevant, royals are ...)

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu May 11, 2023 1:25 pm

I guess royal statistics are like baseball statistics--they don't really mean much but are interesting to read (of course, unlike baseball (arguably) being interesting/relevant, royals are ...)

It's an Empire thing, apparently -- like cricket.

I just found it interesting that an institution that is supposed to be about continuity did not operate as planned so much of the time. Or perhaps the message is precisely the opposite, that the institution has managed to continue in spite of so many interruptions in the intended succession.

And that's one reason why the statistic is interesting.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Thu May 11, 2023 3:39 pm

I just found it interesting that an institution that is supposed to be about continuity did not operate as planned so much of the time. Or perhaps the message is precisely the opposite, that the institution has managed to continue in spite of so many interruptions in the intended succession.

Both true in a sense, I'd say. While individual Kings (and then Queens) may have had leanings toward continuity of their own line, national interest was almost always bound up in continuation of the monarchy itself, ne'er mind who was "next in line".