45 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I wonder why they didn't use the canopy for the anointing, which they used for Queen Elizabeth.

I was surprised at the three screens, which I've never heard being used before.

31 minutes ago, n4gix said:

I suspect that I might still be alive to watch William become King!

Quite possible. He’s the oldest monarch to ever ascend the British throne….

Edited May 6, 20233 yr by DD_Arthur

36 minutes ago, n4gix said:

I was surprised at the three screens, which I've never heard being used before.

Explanation from the Telegraph newspaper:

"The King requested more privacy for the most sacred part of his Coronation ceremony, it has been revealed, as his anointing screen was unveiled.

He will have greater privacy than has been given to previous monarchs during the religious moment before his crowning.

Nick Gutfreund, who led the project to build the screen, said the King “wanted actual privacy and wanted to take the opportunity to communicate with people, rather than it just being something that’s just decorative - it’s actually communicating a message”.

Unlike his late mother’s 1953 Coronation, the King will be anointed out of sight, enclosed behind a three-sided screen, rather than just a canopy.

The new partition, which pays tribute to the Commonwealth and the King’s lifelong passion for sustainability, will be used when the monarch is anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

Indeed it was an historic occasion. However, for the last few days I've been hearing it referred to as a "once in a lifetime event." What, they don't think William will become King one day in the not too distant future?

I suspect that I might still be alive to watch William become King!

Leaving aside the overly hyperbolic headlines, for some of the Commonwealth realms (it wasn't just the UK that got a new king), King Charles could well be their last monarch.

Edited May 6, 20233 yr by goates

The Brits do know how to do pageantry, I don't think anyone else comes close.

Some background uniform trivia...

On the red tunics of the Guards regiments, you can tell the regiment by the pattern of the buttons down the front.

The Guards' bearskins are modeled on the bearskins worn by the Chasseurs a Pied of the French Imperial Guard at Waterloo, whom they defeated in Napoleon's final assault. A t the time they had believed it to be the Grenadiers a Pied whom they had put to flight, which is why they are called "Grenadier" regiments to this day (and presumably why the bearskins don't have a brass plate at the front - the Imperial Guard Grenadiers had one but the Chasseurs didn't).

The armour of the household cavalry was also adopted after Waterloo, the British having been so impressed by the Fench Cuirassers in theirs. The British had got rid of their armour ("cuirass") in the 18th century. This had caused a bit of a row as the cuirass-equipped regiments - "Heavy Horse" - were told they were to become Dragoons, i.e. heavy cavalry without armour. The regiments were much displeased at this, since their new regimental numbers would have much less seniority i.e. the 1st, 2nd etc regiments of Heavy Horse would become, say the 11th, 12th etc regiments of dragoons, and this wouldn't do at all for men for whom the seniority of regimental numbers mattered. The circle was squared by renaming them "Dragoon Guards", this way the powers that were made the desired expenditure saving, while the regiments kept their numbers.

Napoleon himself started a similar row in 1809, when he had been much impressed by the performance of the 1st and 2nd Carabinier regiments at Wagram. These had been uniformed similarly to the Horse Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard i.e. blue tunic with (again) bearskin headgear. Napoleon decided to "upgrade" them to cuirassiers, of which he already had twelve regiments. However, the colonels of the 1st and 2nd Carabineers were d@mned if they were going to slide down the list to become the 13th and 14th Cuirassiers and so they put their feet down. A compromise was found: the Carabiniers were re-equipped with brass armour over white tunics whereas the Cuirassiers wore steel over blue. Thus Napoleon got his two additional regiments of armoured cavalry.and the Carabiniers kept their regimental names and numbers, and everyone went home happy - especially the uniform and equipment suppliers, one assumes. 

Imperial Guard Grenadier a Pied

Imperial Guard Chasseur a Pied

Cuirassier

Carabinier (pre-1810)

Carabiniers (post-1810)

16 minutes ago, Holdit said:

The Brits do know how to do pageantry, I don't think anyone else comes close.

Some background uniform trivia..

 

Thanks @Holdit ...it's been quite a day here. Thank you for further enlightening me on the origins of our ceremonial uniforms - very interesting!

By the way, wonderful to see the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - the Mounties - taking such a prominent role today, just as they did at the Queen's funeral in September. And all the armed forces of the Commonwealth, too.

5 hours ago, n4gix said:

Indeed it was an historic occasion. However, for the last few days I've been hearing it referred to as a "once in a lifetime event." What, they don't think William will become King one day in the not too distant future?

I suspect that I might still be alive to watch William become King!

But the Chorus sang, "May the King live forever"!

The rain may have lightened the crowds on the trip over to Westminster, but later they were out in force beneath the Buckingham balcony. Looked like it stretched back a mile. I was astonished so many people !

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no problem with freedom of speech but they wouldn’t have stopped at that. They would have disrupted the occasion as much as they could. The police acted appropriately.

 

"They wouldn't have stopped at that"

You've shocked me there Ray.

Now wouldn't that be a dreadful scenario for the UK. The police thinking "You know what, he MIGHT do something, better arrest him". "Look at that Ray guy, standing by that shop, he might brake in, better arrest him, just in case.

Innocent untill proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system. In the UK, you can't arrest people without reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in a crime, for which arrest is necessary. And holding a placard that says "not my king" is not reasonable grounds you are involved in a crime.

Unless you live in one of the extremely dodgy nations on the planet, where the police do that all the time. And I'm sure you wouldn't want the UK to be akin to one of those nations. 

 

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by martin-w

8 hours ago, n4gix said:

Indeed it was an historic occasion. However, for the last few days I've been hearing it referred to as a "once in a lifetime event." What, they don't think William will become King one day in the not too distant future?

I suspect that I might still be alive to watch William become King!

 

Occured to me too. In fact it was speculated the Charles would abdicate before the coronation and pass it on to William. I guess he wanted to be King.

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no problem with freedom of speech but they wouldn’t have stopped at that. They would have disrupted the occasion as much as they could. The police acted appropriately.

for once we agree.  Its a shame they are not allowed to be as heavy handed with the eco warriors on the m25 or the idiots glueing themselves to stuff.   

this weekend you saw a police force,  on tuesday they will go back to being a police service.

56 minutes ago, martin-w said:

In the UK, you can't arrest people without reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in a crime, for which arrest is necessary.

What do you think their purpose was? It was to disrupt the occasion. That’s the only reason they exist.

I’m out of this discussion.

36 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

What do you think their purpose was? It was to disrupt the occasion. That’s the only reason they exist.

I’m out of this discussion.

 

No Ray. Its was individuals who were arrested. The police have to state, by law, why an indidual is being arrested. The stated reason for arrest was the signs being displayed and chants being made. 

You have to have reasonable grounds to suspect a person IS involved in a crime. Present tense. It's displaying the signs and chants being made that was claimed to be the crime. Not what a person is capable of doing at a later date.

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by martin-w

10 minutes ago, martin-w said:

You have to 

Have a read here before you go on.
 

I don’t think there’s any point in joining this debate but Martin; you’re absolutely correct.

Just quite surprised at some of the misconceptions about the basic freedoms British democracy is established upon and the rights of the people to freedom of expression and dissent that we’re (supposed) to enjoy.