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

[MRex]

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.

Imagine thinking you are just so special that you deserve this entire farago! Most adults are careful about impinging on friends and family for their special birthdays! It’s utter cringe!

I was horrified to find out how wealthy he actually is. I mean come on.

They never ‘meant anything’, except to the credulous who actually believe in the divine right of kings, surely? It’s not as if ample evidence of royal bad behaviour is anything new.

I think you will find in the First World War and largely in the second as well men went willingly to fight for their King and Country because there was a sense of decency about the Royals. I know my father did. As soon as he was 18 he signed up and was sent to the front.
Media put paid to all that mystery and now we know what they are really like where we did not back then or I suspect many men would have not wanted to fight at all

And yet it didn’t require modern media for it be be generally known that Edward VII was a spendthrift, irresponsible playboy with an estimated 55 documented liaisons with everyone from actresses to prostitutes, numerous I acknowledged children, and almost called as co-respondent in a high-profile divorce case. He died in 1910 so most of the men who went to fight in WW1 would have lived through his reign. Not to mention his son having to change the family surname and for them to give up all German titles to placate anti-German feeling during the war.

Hardly much ‘mystery’.

And yet it didn’t require modern media for it be be generally known that Edward VII was a spendthrift, irresponsible playboy with an estimated 55 documented liaisons with everyone from actresses to prostitutes, numerous I acknowledged children, and almost called as co-respondent in a high-profile divorce case

It did actually. A tiny handful of his subjects knew about it at the time. The same as Edward VIII’s liaison with Mrs Simpson, there was a news embargo on that in the U.K.

Bloopsie · Today 08:08
We all have to fund them still tho.. regardless how we feel about family with links of incest/slavery at home and abroad/pillaging,looting,genocides done on their name which benefited them etc.

That's interesting....who did all those horrible things? Will they be at the Coronation?

Well, I said an oath of my own, as requested. Two words, beginning and ending in F.

You are wrong on this @Outgrabe

I'm not arguing the point - I'm simply saying people were unaware of what the Royals are/we really like or we would not have stood up in the cinema and elsewhere for the National Anthem and all the other patriotic things we did such as fight for King and Country.

Hearing David Lammy say how after the London riots of 2011 all the politicians tipped up once with soundbites.Cameron and Milliband Inc.None came back even though they said they would.Charles asked if he could visit and what could he do.He got the Princes Trust and Princes Foundation involved.And has been back 5 times do far.That speaks volumes and call me old fashioned but I think he has a huge sense of duty.

Look it won't go horribly wrong if the British people stop thinking such an outdated institution has any relevance in the modern world. It's cute and twee but really just no longer fit for purpose.
The figures bandied around about all they do for the economy is utterly inflated compared to their cost. Besides we don't them all. They have a dangerous sense of self importance that's not fair on anyone especially them. Look at how immoral they have behaved over the years The poor Queen God bless her she couldnt even retire and worked right up to her death out of duty.

I'll call you old fashioned. So bloody what. So many people work in the front line of professions changing lives making lives better. Turning up for the odd event so he should.

If that's true surely some of his prodigy would be up selling their stories by now. Claiming their ancestry.

I found the Archbishop kneeling at him a bit much and don't get me on Camilla.

QueenMegan, don't you have a birthday party to prepare for? Thought you'd be making fairy bread and cornflake crispies rather than hanging around disparaging a royal family that don't impact you one iota.

I didn't see any of the news coverage, did people do the swearing allegiance thing?

I think they decided last minute not to invoke chaos and disorder: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/king-charles-oath-pledge-coronation-archbishop-b2333711.html.

I was out at an activity farm though with a bunch of friends and kids, so no idea what anyone actually did.

I did watch it but cannot remember what was changed so glad I read this thread today. I think I remember words like if you want to say .... Anyway I chose not to say it (thinking it was the original oath).

It is a long time since we have believed in the divine right of Kings in the UK. I am a royalist (as are 75% of people in the UK) because they give us a stability and bind us together. However I did not give the suggested oath - not least because the service is very much protestantism (I am a Catholic) as indeed, largely, is the history of the monarchy since Henry VIII and the oath was voluntary and just a suggestion that if you want to give it do so.

We have kept our royals in the UK since the Russians got rid of theirs in about 1914 and despite a huge swing to the left after WWII, because they have no effective power and do not impose their own political views - that is how it has worked in my view for the last 100 years - they are indeed in a sense our servants as King Charles and the service made clear yesterday.

Woah 62% actually and less than half of the under 45s.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/

Under 45’s grow up though and start to value duty and service, I was anti monarchy in my teens and twenties now pro monarchy.

I never think the under 45s stat is very worthwhile to be honest. I would have said I opposed the monarchy aged 14-25ish. It’s only as I learned about the system that I realised some of the arguments for it despite some of the flaws. And there’s no stronger argument against an elected president than Boris Johnson, who is exactly the kind of president the British would elect. Stephen Fry summed it up beautifully yesterday when he said the king is for everyone and no one, a president is always only the half of the people - those who elected them.

I've gone the opposite way. I see the monarchy as the opposite of duty and service.

62 and I can remember at school arguing against the monarchy way back then. Quite a bit of the residual support is tied up with affection for the timeless Queen of whom most people knew no other, and she never put a foot wrong publically. She rode the wave of post-war austerity to post-war prosperity, where most people could expect a good job, a house, a pension, good free education at all levels, peace and an NHS that was there for them. The monarchy was a luxury item that seemed to go with that package.

These are very different times now and if we as a society can't get the same for our younger generation then they will increasingly be seen as a luxury that we can't afford and at jarring odds with who we have become.

@Hollyhead

That thinking is out of date

The younger generation is not experiencing the same secure steady increase in standard of living
We have more information now and from different sources

It is wrong to say the young will become conservative

Like you I grew up in the 60's and 70's. It certainly wasn't the land of milk and honey that you portray. Don't you remember the Sex Pistols?

Remember them - I saw them and was a bit of a punk and trot back then, derxa. So no change there. I took part in 1977 Stuff the Jubilee and still have my badge ! But it was a lot easier to muddle along, drop in or out if you wanted to, cheap rents, squatting was a thing, and you didn't need a load of stuff to be happy. I basically had a free university education from lower middle class parents and dole in the holidays was there to be had and could buy a studio flat in Eastbourne for 2x my salary. Rock against Racism gigs, the GLC Red Ken - happy daze. Then came Thatcher .....