So who is watching the King’s Coronation or are you there

[Pushka]

Quite easy. Amazing is defined as "causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing."

Nothing remotely amazing about an heir donning a crown and cape and being annoited by <redacted>. It was entirely predictable, required no talent whatsoever just pure luck to be born into the right family and not dying before his mother.

But you said you didn't watch it so other than reading about it online, which would be a waste of your time, then how do you know? I'm a republican. Whether I like them or not it's history being made.

 

[Lynda2475]

Just because it will be recorded as a historic fact doesn't mean it qualifies as amazing. I don't have to watch the ceremony to know it doesn't meet the definition of amazing. And if something really unexpected or shocking had occurred it would have been noted in the media and it wasn't, all mentions have been precisely as expected, i didn't seek out coverage but the boring highlights were noted on radio news update in between the traffic and equally boring sports report.

I'm sure other events that I also won't be watching including the AFL & NRL Grand Finals will end up having higher TV ratings here in Australia before the year is out.

 

[dajop]

We obviously have very different definitions of amazing.

Just like with airline, airline lounge, hotel and general travel experiences then. We all have different definitions of what make up amazing experiences.

 

[RooFlyer]

But you said you didn't watch it so other than reading about it online,

fear not, Pushka. Just as all the Republicans fell over themselves to attend the coronation, you can rest assured the others watched it on the telly or sought it out online somewhere.

I mean, who is the most, or one of the most prolific posters on this 'coronation' thread? Protest too much?

 

[Franky]

Just because it will be recorded as a historic fact doesn't mean it qualifies as amazing. I don't have to watch the ceremony to know it doesn't meet the definition of amazing. And if something really unexpected or shocking had occurred it would have been noted in the media and it wasn't, all mentions have been precisely as expected, i didn't seek out coverage but the boring highlights were noted on radio news update in between the traffic and equally boring sports report.

I'm sure other events events that I also won't be watching including the AFL & NRL Grand Finals end up having higher TV ratings here in Australia before the year is out.

Well I doubt that all FTA TV staions won’t be televising the two finals in any event, and I would guess that the AFL MAY rate higher, but certainly not the NRL. And I consider the whole event as Bloody Amazing!!

 

[JohnK]

But there's no reason to make it up. What's wrong with Queen Camilla?

For some reason that doesn't sound right.

Duke of Edinburgh. That's a strange tradition. Males marrying into the British royalty are not referred to as King but females marrying the King are referred to as Queen (Consort).

 

[RooFlyer]

York kicks on !!

 

[OATEK]

That looks like the street in SE26 I used to live in. DFR?
Edit: Have looked on google maps and probably not but I think nearby in Lower Sydenham. New owners have replaced our old front garden with a parking spot too

Yes, nearby but we were in Forest Hill adjoining Sydenham. Apparently local communities can close their street once each year, and over the last 12 months many did so for Christmas or the Queen's Jubilee and so could not do so for the Coronation. So various informal arrangements were made locally to pick which streets closed for which event, and then everyone who wanted to could attend each celebration even though not resident.

 

[andye]

Yes, nearby but we were in Forest Hill adjoining Sydenham. Apparently local communities can close their street once each year, and over the last 12 months many did so for Christmas or the Queen's Jubilee and so could not do so for the Coronation. So various informal arrangements were made locally to pick which streets closed for which event, and then everyone who wanted to could attend each celebration even though not resident.

Posher than us then . The Silver Jubilee tea party in our Camberwell Street was one of the most vivid memories of my childhood

 

[justinbrett]

I would guess that the AFL MAY rate higher, but certainly not the NRL. And I consider the whole event as Bloody Amazing!!

How can you be so certain? Last year it was 3.1 million for AFL and 2.8 million for NRL Both codes vary from year to year (2022 was a bad year for both) and while AFL is usually more, the difference is in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

The ratings for the Coronation have been split by channel but overall look to be in the 2-3 million band.

 

[tgh]

Interesting stuff Skyring.. thanks..

Idealism and pragmatism are restless bedfellows in a political context it seems

 

[VPS]

Camilla's title is changing to Queen, but Prince Philip never got to be king. Here's why


Camilla's title is changing to Queen, but Prince Philip never got to be king. Here's why

 

[Katie]

For some reason that doesn't sound right.

Duke of Edinburgh. That's a strange tradition. Males marrying into the British royalty are not referred to as King but females marrying the King are referred to as Queen (Consort).

Are there other royal families around the world where a male marrying the current or future reigning monarch would be called King?

I've always thought it was to draw the distinction, even more so than using King Consort, that the Queen is the ruler, and the man is her husband, but he does not outrank her. Don't most Western cultures assume a King would outrank a Queen?

Probably too tangential, but I wonder when a royal family might have a married couple of two women or two men as Queens or Kings of the country? And how they'd deal with titles then?

 

[Princess Fiona]

Are there other royal families around the world where a male marrying the current or future reigning monarch would be called King?

I've always thought it was to draw the distinction, even more so than using King Consort, that the Queen is the ruler, and the man is her husband, but he does not outrank her. Don't most Western cultures assume a King would outrank a Queen?

Probably too tangential, but I wonder when a royal family might have a married couple of two women or two men as Queens or Kings of the country? And how they'd deal with titles then?

No I don’t think there would be many (any?)
Denmark.
Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik. He died a few years ago but as she was Queen regnant he was never given the title of King

 

[justinbrett]

It's actually quite progressive when you think about it that European nations (including UK/England) had female monarchs centuries before female citizens could vote.

 

[Quickstatus]

female monarchs centuries before female citizens could vote.

I suspect it's a case of pragmatism in many cases.

 

[TheRealTMA]

It's actually quite progressive when you think about it that European nations (including UK/England) had female monarchs centuries before female citizens could vote.

"There is nothing in written British law barring the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from voting in an election. But, as the Brits might say, it just isn't done. "Although not prohibited by law," the U.K. parliament website says, "it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election."

 

[MARTINE]

Danish Queen's husband Prince Henrik diagnosed with dementia

Denmark's Prince Henrik, the husband of Queen Margrethe, has been diagnosed with dementia, a condition that has affected his behaviour and judgement, the palace said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Regarding the late husband of Queen of Denmark this was quite sad. For many years prior to his death he lambasted his title/did not want to be buried next to his wife and came out with some disparaging public remarks about here. He was actually dementing….

 

[justinbrett]

I suspect it's a case of pragmatism in many cases.

Quite a few monarchies had no such pragmatism - Agnatic Primogeniture and Agnatic Seniority

"There is nothing in written British law barring the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from voting in an election. But, as the Brits might say, it just isn't done. "Although not prohibited by law," the U.K. parliament website says, "it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election."

That's really not what I was talking about, but also yes.

 

[Pushka]

No I don’t think there would be many (any?)
Denmark.
Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik. He died a few years ago but as she was Queen regnant he was never given the title of King

Doesn't the title of King always mean they are the designated Monarch?