Talk:Coronation of Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great job[edit]

Good job with the article Miesianiacal. Only problem is, instead of the usual complaints about articles related to the Queen being too British-centric, this one seems a tid-bit Canadian-centric. Perhaps put in the names of the other notable contingents which marched, and putting in the names of prominent guests from the other Realms in the "Guests" section? I went through the whole article and realized you put a citation needed tag on the Mount Everest climb part, I heard that on a television program about the climb of Mount Everest and the NZ and British Media dubbing it "a Coronation gift for the new Queen". I looked for sources and came up with these http://www.nepalgatewaytrekking.com/; http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0529.html at a glance when searching on Google for Mount Everest + Coronation gift. Could you please put them in? And, again, great job, keep it up, the article's looking very nice. :) --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
The article is right now a bit overly Canadian, yes; I was aware of that. It's only that way because I have the Canadian sources at hand, whereas anything else will take me a bit of time to research; that's all. If you can help, that would be great. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a service to the community! Miesianiacal, thank you for creating a page good in itself, and so well structured that future decades can build on it. At 26, she looked like a young girl to me. We were glued to the radio -- the Armed Forces Radio Network relayed a shortwave link from London. The crown touched the head of the girl at 12:31 Central European Time (11:31 Greenwich), a much littler boy swore he'd never forget the time, and I'm sure everyone in Frankfurt (43,000 Americans at the time) cheered. I came here to your article 60 years later to check my memory, but since I don't think you give the time of coronation, I'll share my recollection with you instead. Remember, you can't cite me, because I'm a living memory not a published source, and, secondly, I think the kitchen clock was a couple minutes off. Again, thanks and warm regards -- the event, the coronation, united an anxious world in hope that the past would survive and the future would be worth working for.
Jerry-va (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it is worth checking the time, so that it can be properly referenced, and included. Here is another living memory, which, similarly, can not be included, but for which a proper source must exist; there was some reflection on the recent past here. That this ancient ceremony could take place at all was a reminder of a victory over a frightful tyranny that had threatened to smash up most of Europe and rebuild it along lines that do not bear thinking about. The article could use a contemporary source expressing this thought. For I assure you, it was widely felt. 2.28.168.115 (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Great Chamberlain[edit]

Per the London Gazette (and all other sources I'm aware of), the Lord Great Chamberlain at the coronation was the Marquess of Cholmondeley, not the Earl of Ancaster, who had served in the role under George VI. Ancaster did participate in the coronation ceremony, but not as Lord Great Chamberlain. I'm not sure how to correct this, because I don't know whether Ancaster did perform the actions attributed to him, but not as Lord Great Chamberlain, or whether they were actually performed by Cholmondeley. john k (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anointing[edit]

I have seen accounts that this is done on the head, hands and heart. Did the Archbishop do this? The article says only that the head was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.168.115 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation oath[edit]

This edit by an IP editor appears to be misleading:

  • Seated again on the Chair of Estate, Elizabeth then took the Coronation Oath as administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is worth noting that the oath was changed without statutory authority.[1] In the lengthy oath, the Queen swore to govern each of her countries according to their respective laws and customs (for which there is no statutory nor customary authority[ibid.]), to mete out law and justice with mercy, to uphold Protestantism in the United Kingdom and protect the Church of England and preserve its bishops and clergy.

This is presumably based on these sentences from the cited source

  • It is worth noting that the coronation oath has been modified without statutory authority. The present Queen swore a slightly different version of the oath to the 1689 version. It still included a promise to maintain the established Protestant religion in the United Kingdom.

The source says "slightly changed", and does not say that this change related to the phrase "to govern each of her countries according to their respective laws and customs". The 1688 oath included:

  • Will you solemnely promise and sweare to governe the people of this kingdome of England and the dominions thereto belonging according to the statutes in Parlyament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same?

Where the 1953 oath had:

  • Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

The main difference is that the 1953 oath names more countries, does not specify "Parlyament agreed on" and the language is modernised. Our new wording from the recent edit implies a more significant unauthorised change, and is thus misleading. I will revert the edit. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not sure why anyone would expect there to be a new statute to cover amendments which were self-evidently required. I have had a look at Sir Roy Strong's Coronation and he is silent on this issue, except to say that amendments to the ceremony to make greater inclusion of the Commonwealth Realms would only open "a hornet's nest of complex negotiations" and therefore there were only minimal adjustments over the 1937 event (p. 444). Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading?

"it is a rule in law, that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner, as they have used to be, unless the alteration were by authority of parliament." (4 Inst. 75)

"A new Oath cannot be imposed upon any Judge, Commissioner, or any other subject without authority of Parliament...but the giving of every Oath must be warranted by Act of parliament, or by the Common Law time out of mind." (2 Inst. 479)

"So as an oath is so sacred, and so deeply concerneth the confciences of Christian men, as the same cannot be ministered to any, unless the same be allowed by the common law, or by some act of parliament; neither can any oath allowed by the common law or by act of parliament be altered, but by act of parliament. It is called a corporal oath because he toucheth with his hand fome part of the holy fcripture." (3 Inst. 165)

Administering a counterfeit oath is illegal. Roy Strong's book is not an authority in law, nor is what most 'academics' say about the "commonwealth." It's treason all the way to the Archbishop, in 2001 the Barons invoked s. 61 of the magna carta, go back to the sandbox kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:E827:CA57:D0B:E1AC (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further research indicates that the oath has been counterfeit since the incorporation of the United Kingdom, which is when, after Anne, the oath was changed to "Will you solemnely promise and sweare to governe the people of this kingdome of England and the dominions thereto belonging according to the statutes in Parlyament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same" to "this United Kingdom." The "laws and customs of the same" refers back to "this kingdom", so the proper understanding is that all dominions will be governed by the laws and customs of England and the statutes agreed in parliament. I understand how people can think 'what does it matter that the oath was changed without statutory authority,' but this is a very serious constitutional problem, it shows that there is something strange going on---if the Acts of Union had intended the oath to be changed they would have changed it, but for some reason the Archbishop unilaterally changed it, as though it were not a ceremony prescribed by statute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C933:9FEE:B86C:A50C (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms[edit]

Re [2], quote "No officials from any Commonwealth realm other than the UK participated in the event itself" - yes they did: The Queen, who was proclaimed Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of her other possessions and territories. Firebrace (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation as monarch of ....?[edit]

Is the coronation regarded by Commonwealth realms "to be a religious rite unique to Britain"? This is a question arising from recent edits of the opening sentence.[3] The coronation in Westminster Abbey is of the person as successor to the British/UK throne (usually together with the new King's Queen Consort, if there is one), whose accession as monarch is proclaimed separately in the other realms and territories. "Elizabeth ascended the throne at the age of 25..." While no sourced text in the article specifically supports the proposition that her coronation as monarch of the United Kingdom was at the same time coronation as monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, comparison with other Coronation articles shows:

  • "The coronation of Queen Victoria took place on 28 June 1838, just over a year after Queen Victoria succeeded to the throne at the age of 18."
  • "The coronation of Edward VII and his wife Alexandra as King and Queen of the United Kingdom and the British Empire took place at Westminster Abbey..."
  • "The coronation of King George V and his wife Queen Mary as King and Queen of the United Kingdom and the British Empire took place at Westminster Abbey..."
  • "The coronation of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as King and Queen of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth and as Emperor and Empress of India took place at Westminster Abbey..."

The question is at least arguable either way, but without some weighty source to the contrary, now does not seem to be a time to rewrite this or the other coronation articles. Qexigator (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should probably retain the status quo, but the catch-all term "Dominions of the British Commonwealth" would be just as applicable in 1953 as it was in 1937, although perhaps not a description that present-day Australians, Canadians et al would be comfortable with. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is the only one of the Commonwealth realms that crowns its monarch. British India used to crown its emperor/empress at the Delhi Durbars, but no other realm does . As the article states, the Canadian prime minister regarded the coronation as unique to Britain ... presumably the other realms did likewise, if they were asked to participate and chose not to (as the article currently states). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.236.151 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, but it's not right. Sovereigns were proclaimed as Emperor of India at the Delhi Durbar – not crowned. George V wore the Imperial Crown of India for the duration of the ceremony in 1911. He was the only monarch to attend a Durbar personally. At the 1953 coronation, Elizabeth II was crowned simultaneously as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon and her other possessions and territories. A new piece of regalia, Queen Elizabeth II's Armills, were presented to the Queen by the governments of her Commonwealth realms, and she wore a new stole decorated with the floral emblems of her realms. Commonwealth prime ministers declined to put forward representatives or "delegates from native races" to pay homage after the crowning, which I agree would have been a peculiar thing for them to do, but it by no means invalidates the fact that she was crowned as queen of all her realms. Firebrace (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the text of the 1953 Coronation Oath runs: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?". [4] Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the whole Commonwealth realms setup is complexed. She's both one monarch & yet several monarchs at the same time. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2018[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extensive time for discussion. bd2412 T 15:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– These two pages need to be moved back to their previous titles per WP:CONSISTENCY as users have decided that other articles about British monarchs' coronations should follow the format of "Coronation of King X and Queen Y" (i.e. Coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, Coronation of King George V and Queen Mary, Coronation of Queen Victoria, etc). Keivan.fTalk 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:314F:EBEF:E655:BEA4 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have no strong feelings on this, except that the proposal is based upon a misreading of the linked discussion. That discussion explicitly found no consensus to move the examples cited as part of a multimove request, and not any particular consensus that those titles are best for the articles. In contrast, a move request just last month at Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II#Requested move 9 June 2018 resulted in actual consensus to move the pages involved in this move request to their present titles. Dekimasuよ! 18:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's saying that because there was no consensus for moving (e.g.) Coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra to Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark, there is consensus for moving this article back to Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Firebrace (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I would like to point out that I wasn't the person who wanted this page to be moved in the first place. A discussion took place about a month ago, which stripped so many articles of these "king" and "queen" titles. As a result, when I nominated other similar pages for a move, the users clearly opposed moving the articles about the British monarchs' corinations to the format that I had suggested which was based on the titles that are used on their main articles (just like the current title of this page). If the articles about coronations are to be kept at the format "King X and Queen Y" (or Queen X) then these two shouldn't be excpetions, per WP:CONSISTENCY. Keivan.fTalk 20:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Consensus was against moving those articles to "Coronation of <name> <number> and <maiden name>", not just deleting King. I'd be all for moving them to "Coronation of Edward VII an Queen Alexandra", in which case this article's title (Coronation of Elizabeth II) would still be consistent, but that was not the proposal... Firebrace (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right. That was not the proposal, and I think it should not have been. It just looks very unbalanced and awkward to use the format "Coronation of <name> and Queen <name>". It should either be "King <name> and Queen <name>" or "<name> and <name>". Keivan.fTalk 03:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, consensus was not against moving those articles. Instead, no consensus was found with respect to those articles. Dekimasuよ! 18:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coronation of Elizabeth I which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music: total of performers[edit]

While adding details of the "Coronation Orchestra" I did a swift bit of arithmetic and made the total number of singers and players 408. The article, citing Wilkinson's book, gave the total as 480, which may, I think, be a typo on Wilkinson's part. I have deleted it for now, but don't want to tread on any toes. Tim riley talk 14:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing consistency[edit]

Note: I've brought Elizabeth II's coronation intro, into line with Charles III coronation intro, for consistency. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were reverted, but I've restored them. Will consider opening an RFC on this matter, if reverted again. IMHO this page's intro should closely match the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla page's intro. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related RFC[edit]

An RFC concerning this page's intro, has been opened at WP:ROY. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wish we could have more input. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noun[edit]

Should the "the Queen" be changed to "Queen Elizabeth" or just "Elizabeth" for consistancy? Jord656 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jord656 - It is alright to refer to her with any of the three examples provided. DDMS123 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1195743457"