Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
determinedtomakethiswork · 01/05/2023 10:22

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.

I think the Oxford comma is there to separate true allegiance and legal allegiance.

Outgrabe · 01/05/2023 10:44

determinedtomakethiswork · 01/05/2023 10:22

I think the Oxford comma is there to separate true allegiance and legal allegiance.

Show quote history

It’s not an Oxford comma! An Oxford comma is placed after the second-last item in a list of three or more items, before the final conjunction.

For example:

The coronation is expensive, anachronistic, and pointless.

or

The Cambridges have three children: George, Charlotte, and Louis.

determinedtomakethiswork · 01/05/2023 10:46

Sorry, I mean the comma is there to separate those two.

Tangled123 · 01/05/2023 10:54

I find the concept of a king/queen bizarre. Maybe in olden times when they led an army to defend people’s homes or something but definitely not now. Like what has Charles physically done to deserve my allegiance? Then again, I don’t really understand celebrity/ influencer worship either and it’s a similar thing.

Outgrabe · 01/05/2023 11:04

Tangled123 · 01/05/2023 10:54

I find the concept of a king/queen bizarre. Maybe in olden times when they led an army to defend people’s homes or something but definitely not now. Like what has Charles physically done to deserve my allegiance? Then again, I don’t really understand celebrity/ influencer worship either and it’s a similar thing.

Did you not see Charles patrolling your area in hi-vis last night, like a Royal Vigilantes R Us member? After the coronation, he gets to wear a hi-vis crown too.

rattymol · 01/05/2023 11:07

@Livingtothefull agreed. A narrative is being promoted that Charles, a 32 year old man, had no choice but to marry a 19 year old naive woman.
If he really had no choice it was an illegal forced marriage and Elizabeth and Philip broke the law.
But the truth is it was not a forced marriage. Charles wanted to marry a naive young woman who he thought would not object as he carried on seeing other women.

vera99 · 01/05/2023 11:18

Therese Coffey was also hung up on Oxford commas - apropos, of nothing.

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 11:20

rattymol · Today 09:50
@mainsfed the royalists are basically trying to detract attention from Charles by saying Diana was promiscuous.

Don't be ridiculous! Diana is presented as some kind of a saint in order to show Charles in a bad light. She was a normal young woman (girl even) who thought she was living in a Barbara Cartland fairy tale. Marry a Prince, happily ever after.

They were so different in every way it could never have worked in modern times.
Maybe would have in the past when kings and princes had their mistresses, and Queens pretended not to know. Like QE's parents, and great-grand-parents. I don't think her grandfather had a mistress - more interested in his stamp collection.

And I'm prepared to disparage members of our RF and our elected representatives when I feel they need it.

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 11:29

Tangled123 · Today 10:54
I find the concept of a king/queen bizarre. Maybe in olden times when they led an army to defend people’s homes or something but definitely not now.

But isn't the whole point that it is anachronistic, mediaeval, and fancy*
As a medieval historian I am all in favour.

  • see what I did there?
Novella4 · 01/05/2023 11:38

@BadgerB
No it's not the whole point

The point is it's happening in 2023 .

It's deluded and a disaster

Livingtothefull · 01/05/2023 11:39

Charles (and Camilla) show themselves in a bad light without any help from Diana. Imo they are forever tainted by their past. I am old enough to remember C&D's first wedding; how it was sold to the public as a love match when all along it seems that Charles had no intention of being faithful to his wife.

Of course if they were not public figures then this would be a private matter only and none of our business. However as things stand, we have a Monarch who is also the head of the Church who was blatantly adulterous, and seems content for his first wife's memory to be trashed.

So the public were lied to about that 1981 wedding believing it to be a love match. Lied to about Camilla being Princess Consort when Charles became King, lied to again that she would be Queen Consort, when now she has now become Queen.

Are we really expected to look up to these 2 as public figures and role models? The scale of cynicism of their self promotion and lies damns them both.

Novella4 · 01/05/2023 11:39

And most of the 'ritual' that royalists run their thighs over was invented in the 19th century!

What exactly is the deep meaning of his golden coach ? With added air conditioning and shock absorbers ?

Novella4 · 01/05/2023 11:40

And wait a minute- we are being 'invited ' to pledge our allegiance to 'his highness'

Charles didn't keep his own marriage vows

mainsfed · 01/05/2023 11:41

BadgerB · 01/05/2023 11:20

rattymol · Today 09:50
@mainsfed the royalists are basically trying to detract attention from Charles by saying Diana was promiscuous.

Don't be ridiculous! Diana is presented as some kind of a saint in order to show Charles in a bad light. She was a normal young woman (girl even) who thought she was living in a Barbara Cartland fairy tale. Marry a Prince, happily ever after.

They were so different in every way it could never have worked in modern times.
Maybe would have in the past when kings and princes had their mistresses, and Queens pretended not to know. Like QE's parents, and great-grand-parents. I don't think her grandfather had a mistress - more interested in his stamp collection.

And I'm prepared to disparage members of our RF and our elected representatives when I feel they need it.

I didn’t even mention Diana, let alone present her as a saint.

Blossomtoes said Camilla was not the OW, I corrected her to say she was.

It’s you who immediately jumped with accusations of Diana’s promiscuity.

Arginalia · 01/05/2023 11:58

to pledge our allegiance to 'his highness

'His Majesty' it is for a monarch.

Blossomtoes · 01/05/2023 12:07

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.

It wasn’t a royalist who started that. Just like the person who kicked off the vow of allegiance idea was the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the King. But, as usual on MN, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good old biased rant.

Blossomtoes · 01/05/2023 12:08

Novella4 · 01/05/2023 11:39

And most of the 'ritual' that royalists run their thighs over was invented in the 19th century!

What exactly is the deep meaning of his golden coach ? With added air conditioning and shock absorbers ?

Wrong. Most of the ritual goes back 1000 years. Do keep up.

rattymol · 01/05/2023 12:32

The Archbishop of Canterbury would never have suggested it without Charles total agreement. It may have been Charles idea originally.

rattymol · 01/05/2023 12:34

@mainsfed most of us are parents here. The idea of a 32 year old man proposing to a naive 19 year old woman is horrifying. And if my son did this I would be saying was much too young for them to rush into marriage. Diana wanted to call the wedding off.

Blossomtoes · 01/05/2023 12:38

rattymol · 01/05/2023 12:32

The Archbishop of Canterbury would never have suggested it without Charles total agreement. It may have been Charles idea originally.

You know this how? More speculation presented as fact.

Inthedarkagain · 01/05/2023 12:38

I'm happy to say it as long as I can include some well chosen expletives. It is an odd time to say it. Lots of people are struggling financially and we have this ridiculous display of entitlement and waste of public funds.

Novella4 · 01/05/2023 12:48

@Blossomtoes

No. The rituals of anointing etc is stolen from early Christian ritual which in turn stole it from roman republics

Of course monarchs wanted that in order to legitimise their reign- esp once they'd set up their own church

Need a bit of magic and mystery added
That is the bit that will not wash today . Charles anointed and god present and hidden from view as we are not worthy ?? Ludicrous

All the rest - the gilt / soldiers /parades - all the shallow stuff and pomp - that is anything but ancient

cakeorwine · 01/05/2023 12:56

That is the bit that will not wash today . Charles anointed and god present and hidden from view as we are not worthy ?? Ludicrous

Anointed with olive oil from olives from the Mount of Olives and consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III, and the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, The Most Reverend Hosam Naoum.

The consecration of the Coronation Oil | The Royal Family

Couldn't just get some olive oil from Lidl, could they?

Clavinova · 01/05/2023 13:09

what have the Labour Party got do with it??

One Labour MP here;
Shabana Mahmood, the Labour elections campaign chief, said it was a “lovely idea to involve the people” and that the oath was a “lovely touch”.
She said she, as a Muslim MP, had already sworn allegiance to the king on the Qur’an and would be “joining in at the weekend as well”.