Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think this homage to the King will go badly wrong?

559 replies

MRex · 30/04/2023 06:40

According to BBC news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

There are hopes that people will say out loud: "I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

The Archbishop of Canterbury will then proclaim "God save the King", with all asked to respond: "God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever."

This is surely madness. Asking everyone in the Abbey - sure. People crowding nearby might be swayed to say "Hail the King" or something similarly short. But hoping for video footage of crowds in parks and pubs shouting a great long sentence that most don't fully buy into, then doing it again and with "live forever"! Does Charles really think he's liked that much? Is he? It doesn't seem very British at all, and seems destined to be a mess of people saying random stuff loudly.

The new photos were taken in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles

The pledge is among several changes to the service, which will incorporate female clergy and other faiths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
KingSpaniel · 01/05/2023 00:19

@derxa why ignore anti royalist comments? Why not engage? Or is unthinking slavish loyalty all that’s allowed? 🤷‍♀️

Mojoj · 01/05/2023 00:19

I'm in Scotland where no-one gives a flying fuck what the eejits will say/do on 6th May.

Earlydancing · 01/05/2023 00:22

I've got the words written on post-its round the house like exam cribs. I want to get it absolutely perfectly right on the day.
And a curtsey.

As it gets closer, I just get more and more excited. 🥳
God save the King. 🇬🇧

Earlydancing · 01/05/2023 00:23

Mojoj · 01/05/2023 00:19

I'm in Scotland where no-one gives a flying fuck what the eejits will say/do on 6th May.

Actually, I can assure you that absolutely not true.

colouringindoors · 01/05/2023 00:29

It seems utterly tone deaf to me. As is the massive expense of the coronation given the state of the country.

Redbushteaforme · 01/05/2023 00:40

I'm in Scotland where no-one gives a flying fuck what the eejits will say/do on 6th May.

Actually, I can assure you that absolutely not true.

Well, I'm in Scotland, and although there maybe some people who care about the coronation, I haven't met any of them yet and am very glad about that.

bluebeardswife7 · 01/05/2023 01:04

Xenia · 30/04/2023 06:42

I think they might have been better just leaving thing as they were for the previous monarch.

I have already been exercised by what I think is called an Oxford comma before the "and" which I really don't think should be there.

The Oxford comma rules. I would say more but the cat has drooled all over my phone

Miri13 · 01/05/2023 01:52

Irish Gaelic is not spoken in Britain so I do not understand why it’s included. If it is spoken in Northern Ireland, it is usually by people who consider themselves Nationalist not British. The whole homage thing sounds ridiculous but each to their own.

CelestiaNoctis · 01/05/2023 02:01

The royal family believe their chosen by god. What do you expect. This lunacy is no different to North Korea. Charles believes we all exist to serve him by the right of god and everyone allows him to think so, I mean the queens funeral had a big turn out and she was no different to him, just pretended a little better.

CelestiaNoctis · 01/05/2023 02:01

*they're

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 05:49

mainsfed · Yesterday 22:23
He committed adultery with her. Once a OW/OM, always a OW/OM.

In how many marriages was Diana the OW? But death apparently clears all guilt.

Charles should have been allowed to ask Camilla to marry him when they were both in their 20s, but she wasn't aristocratic enough - and had a bit of a wild reputation.

The Family learned their lesson. Both of Charles's sons married commoners. With mixed results....

emanresu000 · 01/05/2023 07:46

Perhaps giving the people the opportunity to voluntarily pledge their allegiance to the monarch and his heirs, rather than assuming that allegiance is quite a significant gesture from the King to his subjects.

mainsfed · 01/05/2023 08:08

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 05:49

mainsfed · Yesterday 22:23
He committed adultery with her. Once a OW/OM, always a OW/OM.

In how many marriages was Diana the OW? But death apparently clears all guilt.

Charles should have been allowed to ask Camilla to marry him when they were both in their 20s, but she wasn't aristocratic enough - and had a bit of a wild reputation.

The Family learned their lesson. Both of Charles's sons married commoners. With mixed results....

The thread is about Charles and Camilla, why bring Diana in to it? In which marriage was the OW? And why you asking me?

Both of Charles's sons married commoners. With mixed results....

Yes, Harry and Meghan seem happy and committed to each other, whereas William got a super-injunction from the court to stop newspapers reporting on his alleged affair. Mixed results indeed.

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 08:47

The thread is about Charles and Camilla, why bring Diana in to it? In which marriage was the OW? And why you asking me?

Because you seem to think being the OW is unforgivable.
Here's Diana's list -
James Hewitt – 1986-1992
James Gilbey – 1989
Oliver Hoare – 1992 to 1994
Will Carling – 1995
Hasnat Khan - 1995 to 1997
Dodi Al Fayed - 1997

They weren't all married, but some were. Seem to remember Will Carling's wife made a fuss...

Harry and Meghan seem happy and committed to each other,
Well, he seems committed; her - not so much; following fame and money. He will soon be irrelevant. Now she has two royal children they'll be her "connection".

William got a super-injunction from the court to stop newspapers reporting on his alleged affair.
Really? How do you make that out, since the supposed "affair" never seems to have happened.

DonnaBanana · 01/05/2023 08:59

People slagging off all people who swear allegiance to the royal family are also denigrating our armed forces because they all swear allegiance.

Original poster
MRex · 01/05/2023 09:01

The thread is about Charles and Camilla, why bring Diana in to it?
Actually it isn't about Charles and Camilla either. This thread is about Charles's egotistical desire for the whole country to recite long statements. I definitely agree to leave Diana out of it though. There's bound to be a thread or two about Diana and Camilla for those who find such debate interesting, but personally I have no interest in who this set of people shag or have shagged. I'm only interested in the potential for farce with crowds shouting random stuff at screens.

OP posts:
rattymol · 01/05/2023 09:08

Makes me laugh. A thread about a ridiculous request for people to swear allegiance to Charles denigrates into slagging off the women instead. So many royalists do this. Pure misogyny.

dontgobaconmyheart · 01/05/2023 09:19

It would be laughable if it weren't so ridiculous.

I can't see how it would present any meaningful issue though - those who don't want to say it, won't, and the whole thing will carry on exactly as it always would. I have next to zero interest in the RF and hadn't ever even considered watching the coronation so just don't any investment really. I highly doubt there will be anti royalists disrupting the peace outside my house so expect to play the day our as I would any other. None of it is obligatory, and I'm fairness hasn't been advertised as being anything other than.

Whilst I don't wish ill on anyone, RF included. Charles is no spring chicken so you have to wonder how long he'll hold the throne anyway. In most of our lifetimes things will move on again in that respect.

cakeorwine · 01/05/2023 09:25

DonnaBanana · 01/05/2023 08:59

People slagging off all people who swear allegiance to the royal family are also denigrating our armed forces because they all swear allegiance.

They HAVE to swear allegiance.

I wonder how many people in the Armed Forces don't give a shit about the RF but swear allegiance because they have to or else they don't get in.

""I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King Charles III, his heirs and successors, and that I will as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend his Majesty, his heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors and the generals and officers set over me.""

I guess that if you don't believe in God, then this allegiance doesn't matter.

rattymol · 01/05/2023 09:26

Queen Elizabeth did not ask the public to do this. Charles has a monstrous ego.

mainsfed · 01/05/2023 09:39

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 08:47

The thread is about Charles and Camilla, why bring Diana in to it? In which marriage was the OW? And why you asking me?

Because you seem to think being the OW is unforgivable.
Here's Diana's list -
James Hewitt – 1986-1992
James Gilbey – 1989
Oliver Hoare – 1992 to 1994
Will Carling – 1995
Hasnat Khan - 1995 to 1997
Dodi Al Fayed - 1997

They weren't all married, but some were. Seem to remember Will Carling's wife made a fuss...

Harry and Meghan seem happy and committed to each other,
Well, he seems committed; her - not so much; following fame and money. He will soon be irrelevant. Now she has two royal children they'll be her "connection".

William got a super-injunction from the court to stop newspapers reporting on his alleged affair.
Really? How do you make that out, since the supposed "affair" never seems to have happened.

Again, why are you bringing Diana into it, when OP has just said again the thread is about Charles?

And why have you listed unmarried men at all? To try to portray Diana as promiscuous?

rattymol · 01/05/2023 09:50

@mainsfed the royalists are basically trying to detract attention from Charles by saying Diana was promiscuous. It's the oldest trick in the book. Detract attention from a man by claiming a woman was easy.

rattymol · 01/05/2023 09:52

Charles ego is obviously so monstrous that I expect him to continually fuck up. He is going to constantly act as if he is far more important than he is.

mainsfed · 01/05/2023 09:54

rattymol · 01/05/2023 09:50

@mainsfed the royalists are basically trying to detract attention from Charles by saying Diana was promiscuous. It's the oldest trick in the book. Detract attention from a man by claiming a woman was easy.

Agreed. At least Diana went into her marriage with good intentions, when Charles did not, as he was in love with another woman and openly disparaging of the idea of being in love with Diana to the press.

Livingtothefull · 01/05/2023 10:05

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 05:49

mainsfed · Yesterday 22:23
He committed adultery with her. Once a OW/OM, always a OW/OM.

In how many marriages was Diana the OW? But death apparently clears all guilt.

Charles should have been allowed to ask Camilla to marry him when they were both in their 20s, but she wasn't aristocratic enough - and had a bit of a wild reputation.

The Family learned their lesson. Both of Charles's sons married commoners. With mixed results....

Let's not bring Diana into this. It is neither here nor there what we think of her; you don't need to think she is blameless to believe Charles & Camilla behaved despicably. How about we just let her rest in peace? Diana died far too young and doesn't need to impress us any more; Charles and Camilla, on the other hand, do.

And what's all this about Charles not being 'allowed' to marry Camilla? He managed to assert himself OK when it came to promoting Camilla after Diana's death. I suppose you would think that Charles was forced into marrying Diana - a man in his 30s.

Yes Charles' sons married commoners - maybe after the Diana debacle they couldn't find any aristocrats who wanted to marry them. And yes the results are mixed - it is evident which is the happy and successful marriage and it is not the one in the UK.