King Charles coronation

Witches were definitely burnt at the stake in Scotland. Right up until 1727.

Sorry, Agnes Prest was a religious martyr, not sure if that counts, but obviously they were burnt at the stake.

Glorianny

Funny isn't it point out any of Charles' huge gaffes and you are immediately jumped on. Suddenly he's a cross between St Theresa and the pope and untouchable.
H&M are now the "baddies"
I'm currently reading "In Defence of Witches" and I just realised that many of you would have had Meghan hung as a witch at one time (they were never burned in the UK). She cast a spell on our prince and spirited him away!

Just to clarify that English witches were burnt at the stake, for example Agnes Prest in 1554. I'm not sure if your book is reliable if it says they weren't.

Good post LadyHonoriaDedlock

Ziplok

I think King Charles is doing the right thing. As someone upthread said, Harry is his son. That aside, can you imagine the media hysteria, speculation and downright nastiness towards Charles if he hadn’t invited Harry? It’s now up to H & M to decide what to do - the ball is very firmly in their court, the invitation has been given.

The best decision, having thought about it.👏🏻

LadyHonoriaDedlock A thoughtful and interesting post.

the invitation has been given.

Except it hasn't.

Now, am I being picky, and pedantic? Or am I pointing out the fact that something that "might " happen hasn't happened at all. It well might, it probably will, but if it doesn't, we'll be having a "why did the King change his mind"? thread.

It seems to me that people often read something, add a spin, embellish it to make it suit their preconceptions, and go from there. Its not good. Its not good at all.

Why? Because they are his son and daughter in law.

I am an unrepentent republican but that doesn't mean I don't have For reasons I can't discuss I've come to have some well-founded respect for at least some members of the family, including Charles, his second and current wife (but never his first) and his late mother, as human beings rather than the almost god-life creatures they are officially depicted as, and I began to realise that these people are just as much prisoners of the institution as anybody else. The courtiers, all people of a very conservative and traditionalist, disposition make the rules, and the family has to live within the bounds they set unless they can slip the lead for a while. Anecdotal evidence abounds of the late Queen being easily distracted from protocols when somebody piques her interest, or of bantering with a group of squaddies just off manoevres she'd given a lift to on the way back from an off-duty trip to the races, or of chit-chat with the cinema manager hosting her at a royal perfermance. She and the avowedly republican Robin Cook (the best PM we never had, in my view) got on like a house on fire because of their shared love of horse-racing. It was known that she wanted her visitors (as for investitures) to feel comfortable and not have to do anything that felt wrong to them, like bowing and curtseying. But the palace insiders insist on maintaining the protocols within the privacy of the palace, and when Meghan was told that she was expected to curtsey, not just to the Queen but to her brother and sister-in-law but in her husband's absence to just about everybody else connected with the family she was furious, and so would I be. It looks and sounds like a deliberate humiliation from the custodians of protocol, a vicious dig at somebody who was clearly "not one of us". For Meghan was not only of mixed heritage, she was brought up in a very different culture in a foreign country; she is not evil, she is an American, a Californian even, and a Southern Californian at that, raised to be emotionally open and candid, physical and unstuffy and undeferential. It didn't sit well with the stoical, stiff-upper-lipped traditions of the court but it's not her fault, if indeed it is a fault.

And before we get carried away with notions of centuries of tradition, it's always good to remember that most of the frippery and flummery associated with the royal family is not much more than a year old, beginning with the elaborate arrangements for the funeral of Queen Victoria. Victoria was an unpopular recluse for much of her reign.

I think King Charles is doing the right thing. As someone upthread said, Harry is his son. That aside, can you imagine the media hysteria, speculation and downright nastiness towards Charles if he hadn’t invited Harry? It’s now up to H & M to decide what to do - the ball is very firmly in their court, the invitation has been given.

Of course they won’t decline, how laughable.

The Coronation is not a family party, it's a Monarchy ceremony.

They will be invited just as all the other royals are, not a special invite and I haven't seen the word 'insisting'.

hopefully they will decline

But don't princes have to take part in the Coronation and swear an oath of lifelong loyalty to become "a liege man of life and limb" like Prince Philip did? They have to swear loyalty as part of the ancient ceremony - unless Charles is going to abandon that bit.

Well, Harry has been incredibly disloyal, so to take that oath (supposing he would agree to do it) would make a complete mockery of it.

Charles was proclaimed King after the Queen died.
How many in this secular country believe he has to anointed with oil and given his calling by God to be able to carry out his role?
Very, very few.
It is a spectacle for the world, who incidentally aren’t paying for it.
How many will rush home from the food banks to their poor unheated homes, ok it’s summer but you get the point, to watch on tv the obscene affair.
Jewels, clothing, armed forces, entitled visitors from all over the globe while they wonder if their benefits will last to the next payment.

Not at all Glorianny. Regardless of how much H may be influenced by M, this is his family so the ultimate responsibility lies with him.

I'm not sure TBH. I think he may be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. H & M possibly face the same dilemma; damned if they attend and damned if they don't.

Funny isn't it point out any of Charles' huge gaffes and you are immediately jumped on. Suddenly he's a cross between St Theresa and the pope and untouchable.
H&M are now the "baddies"
I'm currently reading "In Defence of Witches" and I just realised that many of you would have had Meghan hung as a witch at one time (they were never burned in the UK). She cast a spell on our prince and spirited him away!

Speaking as a republican I'm with Grany and Franbern.

Speaking as a mother I think Charles is doing the right thing.

I don’t usually say much about these Royal shenanigans, but for Pete’s sake! The right wing press made such a huge meal of H&M not coming to the Queen’s funeral - apparently the ‘public’ thought they should stay away. Well, they came and all was fine. I am sure H&M will attend the Coronation. Why shouldn’t they? If the tabloids and all who follow them had their way, H&M should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. One thing I have said is that Guardian, i newspaper and the Observer give measured responses to what is going on right now. I agree with them that Harry had a point. The media are disgraceful and he’s concerned his own family are in danger - which I think has been recently proved. To VC stir the pot - do we think Andrew should go?

You obviously need help but don’t look for it here. Go to a professional.

Just so rude!

‘Harry & Meghan’ Producers vs. Buckingham Palace: Spat Intensifies Over Netflix Docuseries

trib.al/PaEM6Vb

Not only does this confirm what Harry and Meghan said re palace directly briefing the media. It also shows how quickly lies from the palace can make their way into the media. A WhatsApp group with senior palace staff and tabloid journalists?

Cam hosting a private party with Piers Morgan and other z list celebrities who vilified Meghan in the press

No mention of Charles accepting millions in cash in FM bags from Qatar billionaire who bought up most of London. What did he get in return.

Thanks for that,Volver. My friend was a grannie at 34 and a great grannie before she was 50. My ex son in law’s Mum was 32 and 17 years later a great grandma so similar.

So was I nanna8, but thank you for clarifying. 🙂

You can be a grannie at 32, quite legally. Probably earlier, physically. You don't have to be old.

Just saying.

Charles told us what he thinks of the court of public opinion when he announced that his relationship with Camilla was non negotiable.
He is saying the same thing now about his relationship with his son and daughter in law. Sometimes I think that some members of the great British public behave like the worst kind of mother in law when it comes to Harry and Meghan.