• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla -- US Coverage

For what I assume is the first time ever, the coronation of a monarch of a foreign country will air on mainstream US TV networks early Saturday morning.

MSNBC, Fox News, and HLN will all have coverage starting at 5 AM ET. CNN begins at 1 AM ET.
BBC America begins at 6AM ET (I suspect this is an error in my listings?)

On the broadcast side, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS will all air the coronation. PBS begins at 2:30 AM ET, the others begin at 5 AM ET. I suspect PBS will air a feed from the BBC.
 
For what I assume is the first time ever, the coronation of a monarch of a foreign country will air on mainstream US TV networks early Saturday morning.
Is there any other monarch that Americans have such an interest in?

There are several other mostly symbolic monarchies in Europe, but does anyone even know their names? And there are monarch-equivalents in a number of Arab nations and emirates, but I ask the same question.
 
Is there any other monarch that Americans have such an interest in?
Exactly. And HM Queen Elizabeth reigned so long that I assume any coverage would have been bits and pieces.
 
Will anyone other than British/commonwealth expatriates care? They shouldn't. Queen Elizabeth was beloved by all, because she earned the world's respect. King Charles isn't held in that high esteem.
 
Queen Elizabeth was beloved by all, because she earned the world's respect. King Charles isn't held in that high esteem.
There are a lot of people who, decades later, are still mad at Charles because of the failure of his marriage to Diana, and also believe the idiotic conspiracy theories about the royal family having something to do with her death. Much of this is hypocritical, coming from those who themselves have gone through a divorce.

The Charles and Diana pairing was a forced and terrible match, and it came to an end as it should have. Both were to blame.

Can you imagine what a gong show this coronation would be if Diana was still alive and possibly married to someone else?
 
Lol, I'd imagine there will be interest in the USA, as lots and lots tuned in to watch coverage of both William and then Harry's marriages. Miss Tuned or one of the regular users of Radio Discussions who's located in Europe said that, at least as of a few months ago, there seemed to be more chatter about the coronation in the US media than there was in England.

I'll probably tune in if I'm up. The one thing I'm puzzled about is the double coronation, of both King Charles and Queen Camila, and his telling people to drop her "Queen Consort" title and simply refer to her as the queen. Prince Phillip never got the honor of being made a king. Does this action for Camilla fall in line with tradition?
 
Does this action for Camilla fall in line with tradition?

Kind of. If we go back before Queen Elizabeth II, her parents were King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. After the king's death, his wife became the Queen Mum, to avoid confusion with her daughter, who succeeded King George. The same thing happens after Charles dies. William will become King, and Camilla will become something else.
 
Kind of. If we go back before Queen Elizabeth II, her parents were King George VI and Queen Elizabeth I. After the king's death, his wife became the Queen Mum, to avoid confusion with her daughter, who succeeded King George. The same thing happens after Charles dies. William will become King, and Camilla will become something else.
Camilla would become Queen Dowager if she were to outlive Charles.

But yes, I agree that the title "Queen Consort" would not typically have been used by anything but the most ardent pedants in the 1930s or 40s, the last time there was a Queen Consort.
 
Camilla, the king's former mistress and now wife, will be crowned queen of England. Many former kings have had mistresses, but it is rare that they become queen. One of the most famous in British history was Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's second wife.
 
For what I assume is the first time ever, the coronation of a monarch of a foreign country will air on mainstream US TV networks early Saturday morning.

MSNBC, Fox News, and HLN will all have coverage starting at 5 AM ET. CNN begins at 1 AM ET.
BBC America begins at 6AM ET (I suspect this is an error in my listings?)

On the broadcast side, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS will all air the coronation. PBS begins at 2:30 AM ET, the others begin at 5 AM ET. I suspect PBS will air a feed from the BBC.
The coronation of Queen Elizabeth ran on American networks on same-day kinescope; they were rushed over by fighter jets. Shortening a long and zany story, CBS and NBC raced to get theirs first; ABC won the day by picking up a feed from CBC.
 
Don't get the fascination. Never will. Love Great Britain. It's on my bucket list to go back again, and I respect history. But the monarchy is somewhere beyond absurd in this day and age. The family epitomizes the word dysfunctional. The backstabbing, petty nonsense is the stuff of absurd soaps like Dallas and Dynasty.
 
Lol, I'd imagine there will be interest in the USA, as lots and lots tuned in to watch coverage of both William and then Harry's marriages. Miss Tuned or one of the regular users of Radio Discussions who's located in Europe said that, at least as of a few months ago, there seemed to be more chatter about the coronation in the US media than there was in England.
There's been a ramping-up of TV and radio coverage within the UK in the past few weeks, but it has felt very forced. A poll by a respected pollster suggested last month that most people simply aren't that interested, and the endless trailing of the event on broadcast has felt like a fairly desperate attempt to drum up a bit of interest. The royals are pretty much completely irrelevant to day-to-day life and exist primarily to drum up tourism in a competitive marketplace.

I was at the grocery store while the coronation was going on, and it was no less busy than normal for a Saturday morning.
 
It was telling that the news channels went back to regular programming by 9AMET, and didn't just repeat the coronation, as they did with the queen's funeral.
 
It was telling that the news channels went back to regular programming by 9AMET, and didn't just repeat the coronation, as they did with the queen's funeral.
I think one of the things that stopped people being particularly bothered is that the guy's already been King for months, and this is just a ceremony to confirm something that's been the case for a while. It's like when a restaurant has a "grand opening" with VIP guests six months after it actually started serving.

Some of the coverage has been ridiculous - all the BS they've been pumping out about the humble man who grew up and somehow, goodness knows how, ended up being the King. I saw the book attached in a grocery store ("Little People, Big Dreams: King Charles") a week or two ago. What's it supposed to be teaching kids? That if you just dream big enough and work hard enough, you too could grow up to be the King?!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230420_112304.jpg
    IMG_20230420_112304.jpg
    401.5 KB · Views: 8
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom