![]() |
Credit to the owner of the image |
I haven’t gone to regular church in decades, although noticing the structure is very similar to a mass service. To be honest the responses have changed very little, slightly different for Anglicans. Anglican is so insanely close in the layout of the service as compared to a Catholic mass.
The Anglican faith is much more progressive in women in the clergy and accepting of LGBTQI folks to name a few. The exceptions are the communion portion, specifically for remembrance only no transubstantiation. Their declaration to the King as the supreme head of the Protestant faith, that’s it that’s the main difference. No links to the Pope or Rome operate on a separate set of rules and laws. If the coronation was Catholic you would swear to serve Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. This is vastly different and that is all due to Henry Viii's changes in the 16th century.![]() |
Image rights to the owner |
Now many European monarchies do not have a coronation service any longer. The monarchy plays a strictly symbolic role in other countries. Whereas in England it’s part of the figurehead of the monarch lead parliamentary system. Not a complete republic as other European nations have become over time.
In my opinion for a service, this is about as short as you could make it with all the blessings, prayers, songs, anointing, presentations of regalia, then the entire crowning and enthronement. They did shorten a large portion of it without having individual oaths of fealty, except by the Archbishop and the Prince of Wales.
Expression and body language reading time, I think Charles was being very cautious about not messing up, not tripping being very aware of everything he did, and the expression was showing on his face. Granted, this is the time you do want to get it perfect. I would say that I saw a lot of concentration on both Charles's and Camilla’s faces. There is a certain amount of solemnness, and seriousness, that this kind of oath-taking makes sense. One shouldn’t be complete smiles all the time. In the end, it is meant to be a happy occasion too for the nation
![]() |
Image rights to the owner |
As an American I watched it for its historical significance, I study the royal family ancestors from 500 years ago. For example, Mary Queen of Scots is the 11 times great-grandmother of King Charles III. I keep a periphery on the modern royal family but do not try to judge as history will do that for them in time.
To be honest, I am not disappointed. It still has significance despite being shortened. It was very well organized and executed, the British always get pomp and circumstance correct. I hope the UK people are pleased, aware not many are fans of the royal family too. Guess we will see what modernizations come with a combination with tradition, it’s an adapt or obsolescence situation. Time will tell.
This is just my personal opinion on the topic, I know that some people get very emotionally charged with a post like this. This post is meant more as a celebration of the event for historical purposes. Least so for the people and the institution involved.
Maureen
No comments:
Post a Comment