You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Prince Charles' coronation in no longer secret planning stages: report
2004-12-26
From the Dept. of How Do I Get Tickets:
The coronation of Prince Charles is reportedly already being planned, in secret preparations for his accession to the British throne following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The Sunday Times said the Duke of Norfolk, who as earl marshal is historically responsible for coordinating the coronation, was planning to modernize the ceremony, notably by adding a role for non-Christian religious leaders in the ceremony.
I wonder which non-Christian religious leaders they are planning to appease create a role for?
Unitarians?
Episcopalians?
"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 modernizing," he was quoted as saying. "I have been secretly planning and secretly thinking and secretly consulting and secretly liaising," the duke said. But he also stressed that the sovereign, now 78, was still in good health and not likely to cede anytime soon to her 56-year-old son. The Sunday Times said Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, the office of the prince of Wales, confirmed the review of the coronation operations but referred to it as "contingency planning".
Now I'm wondering if Fred needs to pull the vulture jpeg out of the mothballs and dust it off...
Posted by:Seafarious

#15  Do the Windsors really think if an Islamic coup hit the UK, they would be spared?
A wahhabi coup? Evidently yes. Look at all the hobnobbing they've done through the years with the House o' Saud. They've got plenty in common: a lack of touch with political reality, for starters, also bad taste and serious problems with their progeny.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-26 11:00:05 PM  

#14  Charles has the same problem with Camilla that Edward VIII had with Wallis Simpson: she is a divorcee and thus he cannot marry her and remain head of the Chrch of England. Being monarch of the state and not the church would require some major constitutional wrangling that considering the popular position of the Royal Family is probably not on.
Posted by: john   2004-12-26 10:29:14 PM  

#13  I don't know Barbara - but there are so many things that go on behind the scenes with Royalty I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with something that kept him off the throne.

SPoD! :) - we don't *do* it like that any more. Well at least not since 1936 - when King George V was given a morphine-cocaine injection so that his death would be reported in the Times in the morning rather than in the evening in 'less reputable' journals!
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-26 6:10:59 PM  

#12  A dose of poison would cure any problems with Chucky the Cheeseball. William then could come to the throne.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-12-26 5:42:25 PM  

#11  Tony - From your lips to the Queen's ear.

Question: Does she have some way of fixing it so Charles is skipped and William becomes King?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-12-26 5:31:13 PM  

#10  RT, you may have hit something there in regards to being passed over for William.

Very many people over here do not want Camilla Parker-Bowles as the Queen (or whatever titular rank is made up for her) - they really do feel (rightly or wrongly) that Charles was a bounder (great word that - makes me think I'm a Colonel in India!!) with respect to Diana. Add to the fact that Charles has made many many bone-headed statements in the past and has publicly said that he wants to be 'defender of faith' rather than 'defender of the faith' and you can see why Elizabeth hasn't considered abdication.

Consider this; there is a groundswell of patriotism in this country - the Gaurdianistas and assorted leftists were pretty freaked out by the St Georges Crosses that came out with the winning of the Rugby World Cup (Trafalgar Square - hundreds of thousands came out for that)- they live in fear of what might happen if England wins the football world cup (10x at least); most people in this country do not consider themselves 'European'; the UK Independence Party is making major gains on the so-called 'mainstream' parties; people have cottoned onto Blair's lies (hospital targets, crime targets, education targets, asylum seeker targets - all shown to be falsified or 'doctored'); there is some Anti-Americanism, but nowhere near the levels that exist elsewhere - people in this country have an affinity with the US and to cap it all, people are getting fed up of being treated like kids, with all the Nanny-State laws being passed. I'm starting to think we may have seen the high-water mark of Socialism in this land - I sincerely hope so.

If Charles does ascend to the throne, I think it will be a short reign - people have no real liking for him (he also will choose the name 'George' rather than 'Charles' as that has certain connotations - ie getting beheaded for one). In my opinion, people are looking to William as their next 'real' Monarch.

Sorry Chuck, you had your chance, and Royally (ho ho) blew it mate.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-26 1:28:08 PM  

#9  I can understand him not wanting to be associated with the Church of England. It has long since ceased to be even remotely Christian and has degenerated into a club for holier-than-thou socialist pederasts. I think that Charles is starting to realize that he is going to be passed over for William.
Posted by: Random Thoughts   2004-12-26 1:06:10 PM  

#8  Open dhimmitude from King Chuck would improve relations with France, and solidify support for the monarchy in Canuckistan and Helengrad (formerly "New Zealand") but I would look for a Republic of Australia within months of the coronation/surrender ceremony.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-12-26 12:58:40 PM  

#7  Chuck has already publicly stated he doesn't think the Monarch should be head of the Church of England.

Wonder what other "church" he might want to be head of?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-12-26 11:44:47 AM  

#6  A hit needs to be put on Charlie if he goes Bourka.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-12-26 9:45:02 AM  

#5  At the rate Liz is going, she's likely to outlive this moose limb fad.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-26 9:17:28 AM  

#4  Last coupla days stories have been coming out about the Royals of the UK.

My question would be: Do the Windsors really think if an Islamic coup hit the UK, they would be spared?
Posted by: badanov   2004-12-26 8:33:56 AM  

#3  The greedy guts wants to be head of all the religions in his domain-to-be, not just the Church of England. Even the first Elizabeth was content merely to discriminate against non-members...she didn't presume to rule their souls as well as their bodies. If Charles were to make the ceremony non-denominational, followed by a private Church ceremony, that would be fine, but this is just silly. Does he plan to include representatives from all the varieties of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Bahai, Christianity, etc, not to mention the agnostics and the atheists? Anything less is just pandering to the Flavour of the Month.
Posted by: Gleaper Thomomble7223   2004-12-26 1:49:32 AM  

#2  Why, there hasn't been such excitement since the coronation of...of...oh, George the Fourth?
Posted by: Phamp Creck6225   2004-12-26 1:40:10 AM  

#1  Those non-Christian religious leaders insist Chuck be called caliph.
Posted by: ed   2004-12-26 12:10:49 AM  

00:00