Behind the Scenes at the Coronation - Boxing Day

[MrsLeonFarrell]

I love things that go behind the scenes at special events or show how TV programmes are made, or explain stuff I don't know about how stuff is organised. I'm the person who watches behind the scenes clips on YouTube! I know it won't be completely candid because the cameras are there but I'm still looking forward to it.

So I thought I'd start a fun thread asking what burning but trivial question would you like to see the answer to?

Mine - do royals have bladders of iron or do they build secret loo breaks into the schedule of big events?

Although it sounds awful to say - the benefit William will have is that there will be people around for his Coronation who helped organize the last one so the institutional knowledge will be more current.

It must have been hard working just from documents etc that are 70 years old.

I agree to a point, but the late Queen's coronation was the first to be televised so there was that primary source evidence. Clearly some things had to be done differently. Health and Safety means they couldn't construct scaffolding to have about 6000 in attendance. I also think no-one would have tolerated 3 hours for the Abbey part alone. I also feel that only having William plead alliegence got round the delicate issue of the likes of the elderly Duke of Kent trying to kneel.

The coronation of George VI was filmed and so we have that visual record of the coronation of a king and a queen consort.

And documents that exist go back hundreds of years; it is an ancient ceremony whose essential elements have not changed much for nearly a thousand years.

Although it sounds awful to say - the benefit William will have is that there will be people around for his Coronation who helped organize the last one so the institutional knowledge will be more current.

I listened to a podcast about past coronations earlier this year, and this has been a perennial problem in the past it seems. One of the George’s coronations was particularly shambolic, and the relevant officials apparently advised the annoyed King afterwards that they’d now made careful notes, so he could rest easy that this wouldn’t happen again for the next coronation - which did not mollify him, unsurprisingly!

I recall reading that things went wrong at Victoria's coronation, and it wasn't that long since the last one. They missed a bit out, I think, and had to bring her back when she'd withdrawn for that short interval, and the ring was made too small, or was put on the wrong finger, so she struggled to get it off afterwards. One of the elderly lords did trip and fall on the steps. Victoria stood up and went forward to meet him, a spontaneous act of courtesy and consideration which pleased people.

To go with the glove of Antioch and the Bloomers of Neasden I suppose?

I’m afraid I thought the whole thing utterly ridiculous.

Watching it I felt a bit sorry for Prince William as he’s not going to have an “Anne” when he’s king

He isn’t his brother but I think Mike Tindal is - and will be- a huge support to William . I am sure that William is also close to Peter Phillips .
Now that we have seen the jealous , petulant (real) side of Harry, I am not sure he would be much use anyway !

Yes, I think the Tindalls are good friends, their children are obviously close to the Wales' and they seem like a down to earth couple. I don't think Harry would have been any help anyway.

At least George will have Charlotte - she seems a lot more sensible than her uncle

If anyone is interested in the history of the coronation, and things that went wrong at past events, The Rest is History podcast did a double episode about them. It was fascinating.

Thanks for the recommendation, @MrsLeonFarrell , I'll check that out.

I thought it was very unfair that the press made such a big deal of Peter Phillips walking in the middle of William and Harry at Prince Philips funeral. They made it all that the two brothers couldn't be put side by side due to their relationship. But Peter is the oldest grandson /child of the late Queen and P Philip. He may not be the first in line to the throne but he was a much loved grandson and in that capacity I consider he deserved to be in that 'front' row position.

Yes, they were interesting and at times hilarious!

Well yes, the traditions of the Coronation are 1000 years old so they will seem faintly ridiculous in a modern context , but that’s not the point is it? Traditions link us back to our past, and this does not apply to just the Coronation nor is it peculiar to this nation. All peoples have old traditions and customs which are probably a bit silly if you look at them with a modern eye, but they are important to the context of those peoples and those nations.

It was a ridiculous fuss considering the ‘children’ also walked in age order, rather than Anne being lazy as per royal protocol

It would have been downright bizarre to have the children in age/family order and then the grandchildren in line of succession order

I've made a complaint. I've had 50 years of Royal propaganda shoved down my throat. At least now they are teaching the kids the truth about the empire.

do people really complain about a tv programme that they don't have to watch? maybe I should complain about football.

How old is she? 8! How can you possibly tell what she will be like?

The BBC is supposed to be impartial. Look at fuss caused by Gary Linekar. Yet this is showing one side of the monarchy. No mention of any corruption, contacts with sex offenders and arm dealers views of people who protested at the coronation.

Now that we have seen the jealous , petulant (real) side of Harry, I am not sure he would be much use anyway !

I'm not convinced the huge push to reinvent a grasping, leching chancer as a benevolent uncle figure is a much better choice TBF.

I get that some people don't like the monarchy and the history of it, but why would the BBC show the 10 or 20 people who protested against the monarchy, when there were tens and tens of thousands of people who were there to support them, that's how a democratic majority works (thankfully).

Who ?

It was a documentary about the Coronation. About the rehearsals and the work behind the scenes. It was not meant to
be a panorama style investigation in to the state of the monarchy. And as those who protested at the Coronation were really in the minority, why would there be any focus on them? The impartiality or otherwise of the BBC is not relevant here.

Just as e.g. the Great British Sewing Bee doesn't do investigative journalism about human rights abuses in the fabric production chain, or Match of the Day not talking about safeguarding failures in football academies - it's just not what the programme is about. Nothing to do with being/not being impartial.

Edited for typo