It was held over the queen when her chest was anointed. Presumably to prevent overhead TV cameras broadcasting rather more of the queen than expected.
Thank you! Something new learned every day...
Probably what today would be considered a harmless, modest exposure of a small part of the upper chest that might otherwise be fully exposed by an evening gown, perhaps, without scandal. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, but now..."
According to this page on the Church of England website, "Commissioned and authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the coronation liturgy will be available from 22:00 this Saturday." Presumably "this Saturday" means tomorrow (29 April).
Well, it worked twice when I tested the link after posting. Perhaps it was live prematurely and then taken down. Presumably it will work as of 22:00 BST.
“For the Coronation of King Charles III, the oil has been made using olives from groves on the Mount of Olives, consecrated in The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by the city’s Anglican Archbishop Hosam Naoum, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos III. Camilla, the Queen Consort, is also anointed with the oil.”
THH I don’t think a Queen who is queen by virtue of being consort rules over us any more than the Duke of Edinburgh ruled over us by virtue of being prince consort.
THH I don’t think a Queen who is queen by virtue of being consort rules over us any more than the Duke of Edinburgh ruled over us by virtue of being prince consort.
Well, quite. Was HRH the Duke of Edinburgh also anointed?
No,but he was not King Matrimonial. It is ,according to biblical pattern,the King who is anointed
@Forthview , @Bishops Finger , @BroJames , and @Boogie , why do you think it is that Queens Consort are anointed, crowned, and given their own regalia when they do not rule? Is it because historically they were expected to bear the heirs to the throne (not that Camilla will) and so this is religiously setting the Queen apart for royal motherhood? Is it because in some places in medieval times Queens were expected to make many important decisions when their husbands were away from court, and often also acted as regents for underage heirs if their husband died? Or was it tied to the ideas behind matrimony - that by being joined to her husband a wife shared somehow in his kingship (in a symbolic way rather than a legal way, and I’m sure accompanied by some patriarchal notion of headship of the husband meaning that even if husband and wife were one body, their joined “body” was meant to lead by the husband)?
@stonespring - it's no use asking me to explain what goes on - I find it all virtually incomprehensible...
The commentary will be useful, I expect - I haven't checked it out yet, as even the plain PDF is 34 pages long. Quite a few new pieces of music, presumably commissioned specially for the occasion, along with some good old traditional Stuff!
The commentary states it is to consecrate her service to nation, via supporting the king in his service. But doesn’t explain why Phillip didn’t do it.
I'm wondering if there is a fuller explanation of why Queens Consort were crowned many centuries ago when the coronation rites of European monarchs were being developed. Were Queen Consorts always crowned or is this something that was added later? If a Queen married a King after he was already crowned, would she be crowned in a separate ceremony after the marriage?
Interestingly, it looks like a Queen Consort has her head anointed, but unlike the King (and unlike a Queen Regnant like Elizabeth II), she does not also have her chest and hands anointed. I wonder why that is?
For comparison, in RC ordinations (I'm not sure if the C of E is the same), deacons are not anointed, priests have their hands anointed, and bishops have their heads anointed and, at least before Vatican II it seems, their hands anointed again. So if the anointing of Kings and Queens has any relationship to the anointing of priests, one would think that the anointing of the head is the most important kind. But the heads of laity are also anointed in Confirmation, just with a lot less oil and in a much simpler manner than that used when a bishop is ordained.
The parallels with ordinations is striking. The Holy Spirit is invoked, promises are made, prayers are said, he is anointed and finally he is vested including with a thing called a stole.
Indeed there is a striking parallel with the ordination of priests .Handel's music for the royal coronation 'Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon King' recalls
this link with the biblical kings.
Since the coronation of Charlemagne there have been arguments as to who was the supreme protector of the Church. Was it the pope who was its spiritual head or the Holy Roman Emperor (of which there was one in the West and one in the East) .The Emperor was thus invested with a quasi spiritual role.
Not all countries of Western Europe were officially parts of the Holy roman empire but the rulers of those other countries similarly acquired quasi ecclesiastical status and the coronation of the English King mirrored and still does the ceremonies of the Holy Roman Empire, thus the giving of a priestly stole to the monarch.
Theoretically all Christians,by virtue of their baptism ,are priest,prophet and king.
If I remember correctly the late Queen was not given a priestly stole at her coronation,but it was and is customary for kings.
Queen consorts were anointed presumably because they were in fact expected to rule either in the absence of their husbands (Catherine of Aragon famously replused the Scots while Henry VIII was in France) or as regents during the minority of their children. They were also expected to share to some extent the burden of ruling with their husbands and exercise at least some influence (for example Phillipa of Hainault and the burghers of Calais)
The consort remains one of the counsellors of state, acting in the absence of the monarch.
The people in the Abbey may well join in (or some of them, at any rate), but I can't see millions of people shouting out the words in front of their TV at home, or the TV in the pub, or wherever...
There is some controversy about it already (as one might expect):
Yes indeed - but I'll be interested to hear the newly-commissioned pieces, too.
The actual Eucharistic liturgy appears to be different from that of the 1953 Coronation, inasmuch as the current *Western Use* format is used, albeit with traditional language.
Those of A Certain Age will remember Series 2 and/or ASB Rite B - that which is now Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language - but it all has echoes of 1549...not that I was around at that time, you understand, though I've got the book of words...
I was very pleased to see it's based on Cranmer's matchless prose - David would have approved.
I'm looking forward to the new commissions too, but the Gloria from the Byrd Mass is absolutely sublime. Glad they're using Gordon Jacob for GSTK as well - if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it (and it does sound magnificent on ceremonial trumpets).
For those who are old enough to remember or have perhaps read in books,the father of Queen Elisabeth II was King George VI who was crowned with his consort in 1937. His wife was a queen consort but was never really referred to as such.She was simply called Queen Elisabeth. (A queen consort does not have a regnal number !) As her husband died when she was 52 and as her daughter had the same name as her this queen consort was usually referred to throughout her 50 years of widowhood as the Queen Mother. This was a new title devised for her.
Those who can remember or have heard of the mother of George VI and wife of George V she was called Queen Mary. During her years of widowhood from 1936 to 1953 (she died just before the coronation of Elisabeth II) she was simply referred to as Queen Mary,sometimes officially as the Queen dowager or by most people as the 'old queen'.
I earnestly hope that FatherInCharge (an ardent royalist) isn't tempted to try to get Our Place's congregation to take the oath, during or after Mass next Sunday, but it's the sort of rather madcap thing he might do...
I find it very weird, I mean shouting "hail to my liege and thane" on the bloody sofa, and hope it doesn't become a Daily Mail thing. My wife suggests bellowing, "long live the Parker-Bowles!" Well, it's more democratic.
I find it very weird, I mean shouting "hail to my liege and thane" on the bloody sofa, and hope it doesn't become a Daily Mail thing. My wife suggests bellowing, "long live the Parker-Bowles!" Well, it's more democratic.
*Weird* is an apt word, and yes, if you don't bellow out your undying allegiance to Sauron the Great the King, the Daily Mail will be after you, to subject you to peine forte et dure...
Apologies for unwittingly opening a non-liturgical tangent, but The Oath does seem to have provoked some comment - along with the reminder that at least one part of the Coronation liturgy harks back to the Bronze Age (to wit, the anointing of Solomon, as recorded in the Bible).
A thoughtful opinion piece, along these lines, in today's Guardian:
I find it very weird, I mean shouting "hail to my liege and thane" on the bloody sofa, and hope it doesn't become a Daily Mail thing. My wife suggests bellowing, "long live the Parker-Bowles!" Well, it's more democratic.
Long liver the Parker Knoll would seem more appropriate from your sofa
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
I find it very weird, I mean shouting "hail to my liege and thane" on the bloody sofa, and hope it doesn't become a Daily Mail thing. My wife suggests bellowing, "long live the Parker-Bowles!" Well, it's more democratic.
Long liver the Parker Knoll would seem more appropriate from your sofa
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd.
Something similar is to be found in the Bible, though:
Nehemiah 2:3
And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
There are other OT references (especially in Daniel) where the wish is expressed that the king might live for ever...
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd. Rather reminds me of the Tisroc of Calormene in the Narnia books - *Here comes the Tisroc! (May he live for ever!)*
That was what came to my mind too, along with Lewis's critique put into the mouths of his characters.
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd. Rather reminds me of the Tisroc of Calormene in the Narnia books - *Here comes the Tisroc! (May he live for ever!)*
Always loved Bree the Horse's comment on that: "I don't want him to live for ever, and I know he's not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not."
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd. Rather reminds me of the Tisroc of Calormene in the Narnia books - *Here comes the Tisroc! (May he live for ever!)*
That was what came to my mind too, along with Lewis's critique put into the mouths of his characters.
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd. Rather reminds me of the Tisroc of Calormene in the Narnia books - *Here comes the Tisroc! (May he live for ever!)*
Always loved Bree the Horse's comment on that: "I don't want him to live for ever, and I know he's not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not."
Hehe...cross-posted with my revision of my post, omitting the Narnian reference! Still, by the time they've dressed Charles in all the ribbons, and bibbons, and loops, and lace, he'll look like the Tisroc...
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd.
Something similar is to be found in the Bible, though:
Nehemiah 2:3
And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
There are other OT references (especially in Daniel) where the wish is expressed that the king might live for ever...
They have gone very cloth of gold on the vestments. If I’d been doing it, I’d have gone for a base colour of blue or purple or something, with gold ornamentation rather than gold on gold.
Apparently, the more flowy one is a historical piece that is being reworn but the coat is new.
Are there any references to previous monarchs named Charles? Perhaps not Charles I, but perhaps Charles II or even Charlemagne?
Given the current monarch's reported unease about taking Charles as a regnal name due to the associations with previous holders of the name I would be surprised. And comparisons with Charlemagne can only run the gamut from unfavourable to absurd so are best avoided.
I was surprised that the service includes the wish the king shall live for ever - just seems slightly odd, I would have expected long live the king or similar.
Very odd.
Something similar is to be found in the Bible, though:
Nehemiah 2:3
And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
There are other OT references (especially in Daniel) where the wish is expressed that the king might live for ever...
Oh I see, so a direct call back to scripture.
And that particular bit of Scripture is quoted in the aforementioned Zadok the Priest, which will be sung:
Zadok the Priest,
and Nathan the Prophet
anointed Solomon King.
And all the people rejoiced, and said:
God save the King!
Long live the King!
May the King live for ever!
Amen, Alleluia.
What do the Commonwealth nations that are republics, some of which are majority non-Christian make of their names being all over the screen that will be used at the King’s anointing. I know he is supposed to be the Head of the Commonwealth (have the Commonwealth nations had a chance to vote on that yet?), but still, doesn’t being a republic mean not having to be part of a coronation of a King? I’m assuming they all consented to the screen, though.
Also interesting the quote from Julian of Norwich on the screen. I know it’s based on a window the King’s mother inaugurated at the Chapel Royal at St James Palace, but absent that context it seems almost like an endorsement of universalism, or at least a very feel-good spirituality that I know Charles with his New Age tendencies might be partial to - but for whatever reason “All will be well” sounds odd at a Coronation, especially on the screen hiding the anointing from view. Why do we need to be assured that all will be well while Charles is anointed, or in general at his coronation? (Mischievous thoughts fill the mind.)
Comments
It perhaps is now, but it wasn't when I was confirmed in the mid 90s in a MOTR to high parish.
Probably what today would be considered a harmless, modest exposure of a small part of the upper chest that might otherwise be fully exposed by an evening gown, perhaps, without scandal. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, but now..."
Here is the Authorised Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of HM King Charles III.
Well, quite. Was HRH the Duke of Edinburgh also anointed?
@Forthview , @Bishops Finger , @BroJames , and @Boogie , why do you think it is that Queens Consort are anointed, crowned, and given their own regalia when they do not rule? Is it because historically they were expected to bear the heirs to the throne (not that Camilla will) and so this is religiously setting the Queen apart for royal motherhood? Is it because in some places in medieval times Queens were expected to make many important decisions when their husbands were away from court, and often also acted as regents for underage heirs if their husband died? Or was it tied to the ideas behind matrimony - that by being joined to her husband a wife shared somehow in his kingship (in a symbolic way rather than a legal way, and I’m sure accompanied by some patriarchal notion of headship of the husband meaning that even if husband and wife were one body, their joined “body” was meant to lead by the husband)?
The commentary will be useful, I expect - I haven't checked it out yet, as even the plain PDF is 34 pages long. Quite a few new pieces of music, presumably commissioned specially for the occasion, along with some good old traditional Stuff!
I'm wondering if there is a fuller explanation of why Queens Consort were crowned many centuries ago when the coronation rites of European monarchs were being developed. Were Queen Consorts always crowned or is this something that was added later? If a Queen married a King after he was already crowned, would she be crowned in a separate ceremony after the marriage?
Interestingly, it looks like a Queen Consort has her head anointed, but unlike the King (and unlike a Queen Regnant like Elizabeth II), she does not also have her chest and hands anointed. I wonder why that is?
For comparison, in RC ordinations (I'm not sure if the C of E is the same), deacons are not anointed, priests have their hands anointed, and bishops have their heads anointed and, at least before Vatican II it seems, their hands anointed again. So if the anointing of Kings and Queens has any relationship to the anointing of priests, one would think that the anointing of the head is the most important kind. But the heads of laity are also anointed in Confirmation, just with a lot less oil and in a much simpler manner than that used when a bishop is ordained.
this link with the biblical kings.
Since the coronation of Charlemagne there have been arguments as to who was the supreme protector of the Church. Was it the pope who was its spiritual head or the Holy Roman Emperor (of which there was one in the West and one in the East) .The Emperor was thus invested with a quasi spiritual role.
Not all countries of Western Europe were officially parts of the Holy roman empire but the rulers of those other countries similarly acquired quasi ecclesiastical status and the coronation of the English King mirrored and still does the ceremonies of the Holy Roman Empire, thus the giving of a priestly stole to the monarch.
Theoretically all Christians,by virtue of their baptism ,are priest,prophet and king.
If I remember correctly the late Queen was not given a priestly stole at her coronation,but it was and is customary for kings.
The consort remains one of the counsellors of state, acting in the absence of the monarch.
There is some controversy about it already (as one might expect):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/30/minister-defends-offensive-coronation-day-oath-to-king-charles
The choice is there - at least it's not compulsory.
I think "Queens consort" is the correct wording.
The actual Eucharistic liturgy appears to be different from that of the 1953 Coronation, inasmuch as the current *Western Use* format is used, albeit with traditional language.
Those of A Certain Age will remember Series 2 and/or ASB Rite B - that which is now Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language - but it all has echoes of 1549...not that I was around at that time, you understand, though I've got the book of words...
I'm looking forward to the new commissions too, but the Gloria from the Byrd Mass is absolutely sublime. Glad they're using Gordon Jacob for GSTK as well - if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it (and it does sound magnificent on ceremonial trumpets).
Those who can remember or have heard of the mother of George VI and wife of George V she was called Queen Mary. During her years of widowhood from 1936 to 1953 (she died just before the coronation of Elisabeth II) she was simply referred to as Queen Mary,sometimes officially as the Queen dowager or by most people as the 'old queen'.
The temptation to bellow "no king but Jesus" is growing.
I earnestly hope that FatherInCharge (an ardent royalist) isn't tempted to try to get Our Place's congregation to take the oath, during or after Mass next Sunday, but it's the sort of rather madcap thing he might do...
*Weird* is an apt word, and yes, if you don't bellow out your undying allegiance to Sauron the Great the King, the Daily Mail will be after you, to subject you to peine forte et dure...
Apologies for unwittingly opening a non-liturgical tangent, but The Oath does seem to have provoked some comment - along with the reminder that at least one part of the Coronation liturgy harks back to the Bronze Age (to wit, the anointing of Solomon, as recorded in the Bible).
A thoughtful opinion piece, along these lines, in today's Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/bronze-age-coronation-rites-seem-to-speak-to-a-modern-love-of-the-sacred
Long liver the Parker Knoll would seem more appropriate from your sofa
Very good.
Very odd.
Something similar is to be found in the Bible, though:
Nehemiah 2:3
And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
There are other OT references (especially in Daniel) where the wish is expressed that the king might live for ever...
That was what came to my mind too, along with Lewis's critique put into the mouths of his characters.
Hehe...cross-posted with my revision of my post, omitting the Narnian reference! Still, by the time they've dressed Charles in all the ribbons, and bibbons, and loops, and lace, he'll look like the Tisroc...
Oh I see, so a direct call back to scripture.
Apparently, the more flowy one is a historical piece that is being reworn but the coat is new.
On a practical note, maybe the gold vestments will show up on the telly better than darker ones might do?
And will Horrible Histories be able to make as good a song for Charles III as for Charles II?
Given the current monarch's reported unease about taking Charles as a regnal name due to the associations with previous holders of the name I would be surprised. And comparisons with Charlemagne can only run the gamut from unfavourable to absurd so are best avoided.
Zadok the Priest,
and Nathan the Prophet
anointed Solomon King.
And all the people rejoiced, and said:
God save the King!
Long live the King!
May the King live for ever!
Amen, Alleluia.
What do the Commonwealth nations that are republics, some of which are majority non-Christian make of their names being all over the screen that will be used at the King’s anointing. I know he is supposed to be the Head of the Commonwealth (have the Commonwealth nations had a chance to vote on that yet?), but still, doesn’t being a republic mean not having to be part of a coronation of a King? I’m assuming they all consented to the screen, though.
Also interesting the quote from Julian of Norwich on the screen. I know it’s based on a window the King’s mother inaugurated at the Chapel Royal at St James Palace, but absent that context it seems almost like an endorsement of universalism, or at least a very feel-good spirituality that I know Charles with his New Age tendencies might be partial to - but for whatever reason “All will be well” sounds odd at a Coronation, especially on the screen hiding the anointing from view. Why do we need to be assured that all will be well while Charles is anointed, or in general at his coronation? (Mischievous thoughts fill the mind.)