Queen Elizabeth II ascension, coronation and anniversaries of her reign

[cinrit]

The Queen has joined 2,000 guests for a service at Westminster Abbey to mark 60 years since her Coronation.

Some who took part in the 1953 service were among the congregation.

Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, said the event honoured "60 years of commitment".

BBC News - Queen marks Coronation anniversary at Westminster Abbey 

Cindy

[cinrit]

Buckingham Palace
Saturday, 27 July 2013 to Sunday, 29 September 2013

The Queen's Coronation 1953 | Royal Collection Trust

Queen's Coronation Takes Centre Stage in Buckingham Palace's Summer Show

The magnificent coronation robe for which scores of ermine laid down their lives, their snow-white fur and black-tipped tails bordering a sweep of purple velvet embroidered in 18 colours of gold, has been laid out in its full 6.5-metre splendour at Buckingham Palace for the first time since June 1953, when the first television cameras to record such an event tracked its stately progress down the aisle of Westminster Abbey.

There was only one possible subject for this year's special exhibition when the Queen leaves for her holidays and the house opens to the public for two months. It is the events of the summer 60 years ago, when crowds packed the rain-soaked streets of London, and thousands of households spent the price of a very good holiday – around 60 guineas – on their first television sets to follow every detail of Elizabeth II's coronation, from the dazzling gowns by Sir Norman Hartnell to the floral decorations designed by Constance Spry arched across the streets on the procession route. In the wake of the anniversary celebrations and the royal baby hysteria, the palace is expecting record crowds.

Queen's coronation takes centre stage in Buckingham Palace's summer show | UK news | The Guardian

Queen's Coronation Dress on Display (Video)
BBC News - Queen's coronation dress displayed

In Pictures: Coronation Exhibition
BBC News - In pictures: Coronation exhibition

Cindy

[LouisFerdinand]

The present Queen of England is Elizabeth II. Those who knew Princess Elizabeth believed that she had given little advance to her name as Queen because of the built-in implication of her father's demise. She might have chosen to be Queen Mary III. Or she could have taken the name of Queen Victoria II.

[TLLK]

Or she could have started a new trend with Alexandrina(Victoria's first name) or Alexandra(Great-grandmother's name and one of her own given names) or Georgina...

[LouisFerdinand]

If Elizabeth had decided to use Victoria II as a regnal name, a lot of people might have greatly questioned this. Victoria was not even one of her middle names.

[Amabel2]

so why would she use Victoria?

[Curryong]

I don't understand why the Queen would use Victoria either. It was well known in the family that her grandfather King George V disliked the name and agreed with his son Prince Bertie that adding it to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was unnecessary. If her main forename had not been Elizabeth but say Louise or Helen or something, then no doubt she would have used Mary or, perhaps but unlikely, Alexandra. But Elizabeth was the name of a very prominent monarch whose reign had given rise to an age of glory for England.  Why wouldn't the second Elizabeth use it?

[Amabel2]

I don't understand why the Queen would use Victoria either. It was well known in the family that her grandfather King George V disliked the name and agreed with his son Prince Bertie that adding it to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was unnecessary. If her main forename had not been Elizabeth but say Louise or Helen or something, then no doubt she would have used Mary or, perhaps but unlikely, Alexandra. But Elizabeth was the name of a very prominent monarch whose reign had given rise to an age of glory for England.  Why wouldn't the second Elizabeth use it?

I thinks she simply chose to use her own name, the one that everyone knew her by witout any thoughts of previous monarchs.  To tell truth in spite of what the journalists said the second Elizabethan Age has hardly been one of glory...

[LouisFerdinand]

Why did King George V dislike the name of Victoria when Victoria had been the name of his paternal grandmother?

[Curryong]

There were too many of them. After Albert's death especially Queen Victoria pushed the idea of a dynasty formed from her and Prince Albert's descendants in which all males born would have the name Albert as their first or at the least their second forenames and all girls would be Victoria.

She couldn't of course impose this ad nauseum in foreign Royal Houses her daughters and granddaughters married into but she tried her hardest. (And as daughters mattered less than sons most of her descendants humoured the old trout by tagging the name Victoria in there somewhere.)

Then, after his eldest brother, Prince Albert Victor (Eddy) died she pushed for George to adopt the name of Albert (his last forename) as his regnal name. (Bertie and Alexandra had performed a swiftie after George's birth by only tacking Albert on the end. Victoria was not happy.)

After Albert Victor died she became even more insistent. She sensed I think that Bertie was going to reign after her death as King Edward, discarding the Albert. Therefore she badgered George about adopting the name Albert but George remained adamant that he had been christened George and George he would remain.

I think George was quite a stubborn man with fixed ideas and having been surrounded by relatives, cousins and so forth, all his life called Victoria and Albert, by his middle age he'd had enough, and didn't care if he never heard the name again.

[Amabel2]

There were too many of them. After Albert's death especially Queen Victoria pushed the idea of a dynasty formed from her and Prince Albert's descendants in which all males born would have the name Albert as their first or at the least their second forenames and all girls would be Victoria.

I dont see what the problem would be.  Look how many Louis's there were in France... 18 kings.. I think that giveing the "called by" name to so many Victorias was a bit much, but I dont see why they should not use Victoria among all the names that royals had in those days...  if you have 5 given names why not tag on Victoria or Albert, somewhere in there?  Look at the Danish tradtion of calling the heir Christan or Frederik.. I think that's far more rigid.

[Curryong]

No, but I think it's clear that for one reason or another George V took against the names Victoria and/or Albert after his grandmother had been dead for a number of years. Maybe because it was the nagging from her about changing the regnal name from George. I do think that at one stage she was contemplating with some satisfaction a future King Emperor Albert Edward followed by a King Emperor Albert Victor.

There were no more Alberts followed by other names for future Princes and Victoria really fell out of favour as well among the main line descendants. It also influenced the rest of the family. The Yorks didn't give Vic as one of Prss Margaret's names, nor did Prss Anne receive it. I know Sarah was apparently going to use it for her first daughter instead of Beatrice at one stage but didn't, so really it has dropped out of contention in the main line of the BRF and in fact became much less popular in the extended family as the years went on.

[LouisFerdinand]

The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II became the first major international event to be broadcast on television.

[Curryong]

Yes, but the idea of a televised Coronation didn't exactly find favour with the QM, many courtiers or with more elderly government ministers, who felt it would be sacrilegious and cheapen everything if commoners were allowed to gawk at the monarch being crowned. The Queen was persuaded that it would be a good idea by Philip (who had been put in charge of a planning commission for the event) but she did not want closeups of herself during the ceremony so that was not allowed.

[Amabel2]

is it definite that Sarah wanted to use Victoria?  I've heard one of these stories that she wanted to use it but was told that if Charles and Di had a daughter they mgiht want to use it so she had to settle for Beatrice but Im not sure if that's true.
I think that Victoria has had a long rest now and it might be nice to have it used again.. Albert is a  name i've never liked (nor Albert himself) but that has come back again like a lot of Victorian names...

[Curryong]

Heaven only knows what is the truth, because Royal correspondents are really only journalists who happen to be assigned to the Royal round. They sometimes hear whispers and they get expanded into full blown stories. All I can remember at the time were stories of Sarah being mad about the Victorian era (as you know she later wrote a book about Victoria and her holidays and was a consultant on a TV film of the Queen) and that she wanted to pay tribute to Queen Victoria by calling her first child after her.

Queen Elizabeth was apparently frightfully pleased with the news. Then the name was suddenly changed to Beatrice and some more stories came out that Charles and Diana had stated that if they had a daughter they had first dabs on Victoria. It seems a bit odd, as personally I have never heard or read that Diana was enormously fond of the name Victoria, though Charles may have been. As Diana had the final word on kicking names Albert and Arthur to the kerb after her sons' births, I hardly think she'd give way over a daughter's name if she wasn't keen on it.

Plus, even by mid 1988 I think that the Wales marriage was in serious trouble, Charles was with Camilla, Diana with James Hewitt, and I think they'd stopped talking about having more babies, even though Diana really wanted a daughter. So, as with much that comes out about the royals, who knows what the truth is. Maybe Sarah and Andrew just changed their minds and went for another unusual choice in Beatrice, considered deeply oldfashioned by many people in 1988. I like it though and I like Eugenie. Victoria may be chosen by Eugenie if her coming baby is a girl, who knows!

[Amabel2]

I agree that it was  probably a nonsense story. I doubt if Charles and Di were thinking of having babies and Diana certainly would not have liked the name.  I think that Sarah chose Bea and Eugenie which were old but royal names.. because she wanted to show off how much she knew about Victoria and her family... and the queen would probably have liked old fashioned names anyway...

[Amabel2]

|Its just occurred to me that if Eugenie has a girl and calls her Victoria, she'd probably be Victoria Eugenie, which is of course the name of Beatrice's' daughter who became Queen of Spain.. And its also the name of Bonnie, Scarlett's daughter in Gone with the Wind.

[LouisFerdinand]

I like the insistance of the article's statement.   
All the Different Names (and Nicknames) Queen Elizabeth II Has Had   
Elizabeth, however decisively kept her own name, unused for a queen regnant since Elizabeth I in the 1500s.

[LouisFerdinand]

The plan of the Coronation   
The plan of the coronation described by the Right Honourable David Eccles (1952) - YouTube

[Blue Clover]

Sixty years of service to England is very impressive!

[LouisFerdinand]

Queen Elizabeth II's proclamation to Accession on February 8, 1952     
The proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II - YouTube

[LouisFerdinand]

The Coronation service used for Queen Elizabeth II descends from that of King Edgar at Bath in 973.s

[LouisFerdinand]

Coronation Crowd   
Crowds lined around Pall Mall and Trafalgar Square.       
Crowds lined around Pall Mall and Trafalgar Square, central London,... News Photo - Getty Images

[LouisFerdinand]

High Street decorated to commemorate the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II   
http://www.flickr.com/photos/southworldmuseum/35007842926