God Save Us All....

[Aggie]

...because I'm not particularly enthused with the new King.

Any comments on the coronation? I don't have any particular ill will toward Charles, but wish we could just leave the Queen on our coins.  I didn't mind Elizabeth, who I always thought looked a bit like my gran. She'd been in the role for so long that she was synonymous with it, where Charles's previous life brings a lot of baggage to the throne. The monarchy could quietly fade into the background at this point, at least from my position in The Colonies.

I see that this time around, the public will be encouraged to swear to the King. Do you think "F*ck Chuck" is appropriate? 

[Griffin]

Love F*ck Chuck!  Yeah, more or less appropriate. Some are saying Prince George will never be King. I thought the Coronation was obscene given what is happening in the UK at present with people starving and freezing and an almost non-existant health sevice, not much of a railway system, and small businesses collapsing. And no education. However, I did watch highlights and there is something odd about going through a medieval ceremony. I didn't notice or see the bit where we swore alligience and I think Prince William did it for all of us. Apparently there were about 800 bishops and MPs & Lords who did it in person each one by one in 1953 (I don't remember that part). I'm never sure what the golden orb is for any more than I know what the rod with the diamond is for either. I'm sure they are frightfully necessary but remind me of collecting trophies in computer games. Personally if it hadn't been for Prince Louis (aged 5) I would have been bored.

[Swatopluk]

The orb is the world (under the cross)*. It's the symbol of universal Christian monarchy.
On the other hand 'rod of mercy' sounds like a paradox, unless it's about 'spare the rod, spoil the child' (Camilla got her hands on that piece too but not on the blunt sword).
Charles looked rather fragile. My bet is about 5 years for him as king.
Camilla at times looked almost triumphant. Given how she was treated by the camarilla**, I can fully understand that.
Personally I think Kate looked most regal of the bunch. I have no idea about her as a person but she looks very apt for the part (crown princess, queen-in waiting).
I found it interesting how the show got diversified since last time*** and got surprised that Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a new musical number for the ceremony.
I was also taken by surprise by that Byzantine chant. Fitting the occasion but so completely different in style from the traditional English pieces.
Where I almost blurted out laughing was when the Gospel choir performed not just orally but also bodily.
As for boredom, it dragged in a few places but in general I found it entertaining enough.

Btw, the op-ed in the German daily paper I read remarked that it looked as if the crown had to get screwed on Charles' head (and the BBC commented that it had to get expanded beforehand to fit his thick head.

The loyalty oath was volontary for the majority of the guests, at least I understood the announcement leading into it that way.
On the other hand the stuff Charles had to sign and swear too had countless 'according to the law' clauses. The British still seem a bit paranoid about the monarch getting absolutist tendencies. 

* another proof that 'people in the Middle Ages were all flatearthers' is rubbish and ahistorical.
** Charles was told to 'bed her not wed her' before the court came up with Diana as 'more suitable'.
*** I simply assume that last time they did not choose a person from a different denomination or different religion for every single step not done by the archbishop of Canterbury (who seemed to have the most text of all participants).

[Bluenose]

Just a thought.  In his role a king of Australia, shouldn't Charlie be King Charles the first?  After all, Australia had no relationship to the crown when the last Charles was on the throne?

[Swatopluk]

Depends on the exact nomenclature, I presume.

Is it King Charles III of Australia or Charles III, King of Australia?
In the fomer case, you'd be correct, in the latter the "III." would be part of the name, not the title.

The Swedes insist that their most famous king is Gustav II. Adolf, not Gustav Adolf II. since there was a Gustav I. but he had not Adolf as his second name. They count up the Gustavs only, the second name is an individual addendum.
In Prussia the first king was Friedrich I. who was also Friedrich III, the latter as Kurfüst (Elector) of Brandenburg. There was no earlier king Friedrich (of his dynasty) but two Kurfürsten (among them Friedrich II. Eisenzahn [Irontooth]. Here again the cognomen behind the number).

And then there are the intricacies of prepositions.
E.g. Friedrich was Kurfürst OF Brandenburg but king IN Prussia because formally his kingship did not extend to his home realm of Brandenburg itself.
The British kings were also princes of Hannover but not kings there

[Aggie]

Is it Prince George II of Canada in that case? We already have a Prince George here, although it's not considered to be a regal city. Regina, Saskatchewan is called the Queen City; not sure Liz would have approved of its "Show Us Your Regina" tourism slogan. I don't want to know if Dildo, Newfoundland has any relation to the royals and will leave that to the tabloids.

On the other hand 'rod of mercy' sounds like a paradox, unless it's about 'spare the rod, spoil the child'.

That's an important proverb. Teach a child to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.

_{I gave my nephew a fishing rod for his 5th birthday. He was perplexed by the object. My father's comment to my sister was "Congratulations, you've raised a 5 year old who doesn't know what a fishing rod is."  I still need to teach him how to fish as I don't think he's actually caught anything yet.}

[Griffin]

As if the Coronation wasn't enough (and I refuse to call the horse-woman Queen) we had to survive Eurovision this weekend. Energetic young people throwing themselves around with flashing lights while singing dull boring non-melodic instantly forgetable songs (if they can be called songs). I've no idea why everyone thought Sweden was best, it sounded no different to me. Of course, we came in at our usual low score (last year was an anomaly) which our entry certainly deserved. Why I watch at all is a mystery, but I am not alone as many people say the same. And neither do I understand what Israel and Australia are doing in a European farce, I mean, they want to be in it???

[Bluenose]

As an Australian, I have no idea why we're in Eurovision, either.  Frankly, there is nothing about it that interests me in the slightest. However, for some reason the TV broadcast of the damn thing is immensely popular over here and that is why the SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) which airs it signed a contract for Australian participation.  Fortunately, this is the last year of the contract and I fervently hope for no renewal or extension...

[Swatopluk]

Eurovision is seen (over here in Germany) as a frreakshow watched for what we call "Fremdschämen" (and also trainwreck fascination) mixed with a kind of Schadenfreude (although those 'artists' are not punished and nothing bad happens to them for their participation).
The English term seems to be vicarious embarassment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_embarrassment ).
And we are well aware that winning there rarely has anything to do with artistic merit. That only happens after partcularly cringeworthy events, when some suddenly (and temporarily) become aware that this was supposed to be about music not outfreaking the opposition. Then the next time for once something non-pretentious has a chance.
And there are some 'traditions', e.g. that Austria will never award a single point to Germany.
Germany also seems to aim for last place deliberately.

[Griffin]

mixed with a kind of Schadenfreude (although those 'artists' are not punished and nothing bad happens to them for their participation)

Their participation is the bad thing that happens to them.

And there are some 'traditions', e.g. that Austria will never award a single point to Germany.
Germany also seems to aim for last place deliberately.

The UK generally battle Germany for last place. It is the desired position indicating the contribution is not bad enough to win.