javasaurus: (Default)
javasaurus ([personal profile] javasaurus) wrote2009-09-29 03:24 pm

quetion about coronations

What is the importance of a coronation of a queen? Henry only had two of his wives coronated -- what are the implications?

[identity profile] faireraven.livejournal.com 2009-09-29 09:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the first two only. Three wasn't around long, four was even less, five wasn't long, and six, well... He'd probably worn himself out over the whole danged thing by then.
dawntreader: (discussion)

[personal profile] dawntreader 2009-09-29 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
okay... here's what Wikipecia has to say. apparently it's mostly ceremonial. rough translation, "sticking a crown on a person's head." you can rule without the coronation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation

i read elsewhere that he couldn't AFFORD to throw Queen Jane a coronation. heh. and after that, well, he (and everyone else) probably felt "why even bother?"

[identity profile] blueeowyn.livejournal.com 2009-09-29 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, IIRC Jane's coronation was delayed because she was pregnant then she died. It had been in the planning stages. Had any of the subsequent queens had a son, I think she would have been coronated.

I think the coronation is a symbolic transfer of sovreignty to the monarch. I recently read that Elizabeth I wasn't considered a ruling monarch until after the funeral of Mary was finished and her symbols of power (and those of her highest councilors) were broken and caste into the grave). Then as part of the coronation the new monarch is vested with the power of state ... or something like that.