Talk:Coronation of the British monarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Coronation of the British monarch is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2004.

Contents

[edit] older entries

ISTR something about the Queen's Scholars from Westminster School having the honour to be the first to proclaim "vivat regina!" (or "rex", of course), at the moment of coronation. Accurate? Worth adding?
James F. (talk) 00:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From what I have read, they made the proclamation "Vivat! Regina Elizabetha!" as the Sovereign walks into the Abbey. But I'm not sure if they should be included; there must be scores of individuals with minor privileges. -- Emsworth 01:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Their right to be the first to shout this has been incorporated into C. H. H. Parry's setting of the 122nd psalm, sung at the last coupla coronations; there's a little two-page bit in the middle of the anthem timed for the moment the queen enters the theatre. And I think it's a much more prominent and famous privilege than who gets to carry the spurs. Doops 06:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've rm'd After Pope John Paul I abolished the Papal Coronation in 1978, the United Kingdom became the only monarchy to conduct coronations rather than simple inaugurations. I'm fairly sure this is not true: the Thai kings, for one, are still crowned [1]. Markalexander100 09:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming that nobody has ever taken up the hereditary champion's challenge; if someone can confirm this, please mention it in the article — otherwise the reader is left in suspense. Doops 05:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) [later slightly edited]

I have to say that I'm very surprised this article has been featured. So much of what seems obviously appropriate for inclusion has been left out; so much obscure detail, seemingly calculated to turn off the casual passerby, has been crammed in. (On the one hand, shouldn't an article of this length include some mention of music at the coronation? of the state entry into Scotland? of the blooming STONE OF SCONE? On the other hand, who really cares about the rights of the barons of the cinque ports? or how many seals can dance on the hem of a robe?) I'm sorry to whine; I know I should just shut up and do something about it. Doops 06:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the word "purported" ("purported rule of Jesus Christ") replaced by some other more neutral word, or even just plain deleted. The article makes it abundantly clear after all that the Coronation is a rite steeped in Christianity; it is not abandoning Wikipedia neutrality to acknowledge that -- and "purported", meaning "asserted to be true (but not really true)" goes too far in the other direction. What about it, Powers That Be? Bill 22:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Purport" is not used in a negative sense; the American Heritage Dictionary gives "Assumed to be such; supposed" as the definition. Another dictionary gives a somewhat less favourable meaning: "commonly put forth, or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" (I am sure we can agree that no-one can conclusively demonstrate that Christ does indeed rule the World). But, I do not use the word in an Anti-Christian sense; one may replace it with "alleged," "reputed" or "supposed." To remove the word entirely, however, would be inappropriate: it would imply—whether rightly or wrongly—that Jesus Christ does indeed rule the World. -- Emsworth 00:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You know, the dictionary definition of a word doesn't always capture its connotation quite right. Could we just insert the formula with which the orb is presented in quotes rather than paraphrasing it? That way, the somewhat snarky quality of "purport" can be excised without placing Wikipedia's imprimatur upon the idea that Jesus Christ rules the world. Cf: "...The orb, symbolizing (according to the liturgy), 'The power and empire of Christ our Redeemer'..." Sumergocognito 00:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Note that I deleted the word "purported" as redundant a few days ago before seeing any of the talk discussion. The sentence reads that the orb represents the rule of Jesus, which should be sufficiently tentative -- we're describing the symbolism of the orb, not making a theological statement, and the symbolism is what it si regardless of whether or not we agree with it. Stating that it represents the "purported rule" would actually be incorrect, as it would be a claim that the symbolism itself is tentative. -Ben 17:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Former rites (presents...)

I know the Lord of Mann had to present a peregrine falcon to the king in earlier times. Were there more rites like that? Are similar presnts still given? This would be interesting in this article.--Hun2 08:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See the Grand Serjeanty section of Serjeanty for examples--George Burgess 20:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Marquess of Anglesey

Does anyone find it odd that The Marquess of Anglesey is depicted here carrying the crown as a rather upright peer when he'd had his leg shot off at Waterloo?

[edit] Ampulla and spoon

The spoon is indeed older than all the other crown jewels. The ampulla, however, was created in 1661 together with all the other crown jewels to replace the items that were destroyed during the commonwealth. "In the inventory of goods taken to the Tower of London to be sold in 1649, the ampulla appears as 'a Dove of gould sett with stones and pearle' weighing 8.5 ounces. The new Ampulla of 1661 is also in the form of an eagle[...]." Source: "The Crown Jewels", Royal Historic Palaces, 2002. It's the official guide book sold at the tower, which I brought with me from a visit to London a few years ago. --134.130.57.172 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a replica of the spoon which was sold as a souvenir in 1937. There is a note in the box which basicly says the same thing.--Wehwalt 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Gazette refs

I've updated the Gazette refs to use {{LondonGazette}}, this is primarily for ease of future maintenance. The gazette website was recently completely revamped, breaking all existing references (and someone's currently running a bot to work out exactly how many articles are affected...). Hopefully the template captures sufficient parameters that if they change it again, all we neeed do is fix the template, and all articles using the template will magically be fixed. There are a few slight differences as to how the result is formated, but hopefully nothing that will offend any other contributor to this page. David Underdown 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I noticed when adding inline cites to this article recently that the Gazette website had changed, so I started quoting the issue number and global page number for exactly this reason. A template is a good idea and will hopefully prevent any problems in future. Dr pda 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)