Talk:Coronation

message: This section, added on November 25, 2017, is without citations, is incoherent, incomplete (what are examples of such gifts?) and the last sentence makes no sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronation&diff=prev&oldid=812090880
--Hugh7 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Coronation gifts

message: Does anyone know what the ceremony is called (if any) where a monarch proclaims his/her heir to the throne?  The heir is not officially crowned or anything (unless to receive a "prince" or "princess" crown); they are only named as the heir.  I know it is probably not practiced now, but was during the Middle and Post-Mideval period...?  — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Something not unlike that took place in Caernarfon in 1969, when the Prince of Wales was installed as such; he even was 'crowned'! It has been called 'investiture' in England/Great Britain/United kingdom. I don't think that there was some kind of such a ceremony for proclaiming the dauphin in France. Mapple 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Before the Coronation

message: There are plenty of monarchies missing, denmark included. Can anyone find this information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.63.34.250 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other monachies

message: "In France, the new monarch ascended the throne when the coffin of the previous monarch descended into the vault at Saint Denis Basilica, and the Duke of Uzes proclaimed 'Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi' (French: 'The [old] king is dead; long live the [new] King!')"
I thought that French monarchs often forgoed coronation completly, or if they did have one they waited until several years into their reign. Ahassan05 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this accurate? 

message: Curious if anyone thinks it would be beneficial to include in this entry the text from the British Monarchy's current ceremony? Since Britain is the most well-known in the "western world", it would be interesting, I think, to know exactly what the monarch says at the time of his/her coronation.
Especially curious, I guess, since the Wikipedia entry for "Monarchy in Canada" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada#Legal_role ) says that the Queen has obligations to her subjects  based on the coronation ceremony. (The Monarch's acceptance of her responsibilities to her subjects is symbolised by the Coronation Oath.)
Can anyone help out here? (I'm not very experienced with how Wikipedia contents are written/organized).
:Text of the Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms' Coronation Oath is included here: Coronation of the British monarch.  Perhaps just a link from this article to that one is all that's necessary. --gbambino 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Monarchy's current ceremony/wording/oath? 

message: What evidence is there the the Russian peasants prayed to the tsar?
:I'm curious as to whether there is any Russian source for this. I've seen it in the writings of several British authors of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but have never seen anything written by a Russian about this. The Tsar was considered the "Abbot" of the nation, and he was often addresed by the familiar diminutive, Batushka, but I don't know of any Russian source saying he was worshipped--unofficially or otherwise--as a god (or even a demigod). MishaPan 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prayed to the Tsar?

message: I think my edit summaries need clarification. Historically many bishops have been styled "dei gratia episcopus" &c (though I'm not sure about the Pope himself). The formula is often used in the preambles of Papal Bulls too, so it may not be wholly accurate to say that it's never been applied to a Pope. Admittedly it's at least uncommon.
However I don't think that was the point of the paragraph. If you read the whole thing, it's clear that what is being said is not that the by-the-grace-of-God formula was used as an argument for absolutism on its own, but also that a belief that "monarchs were chosen by God" and that "the crown was bestowed by God" was used as an argument for absolutism. Now, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls'" and most Catholics believe that Apostolic Succession and the office of Pope were established by Jesus Christ Himself. So even if the Pope isn't actually said to rule "by the grace of God", he is still an example of an absolute head of state whose power is said to derive from God.
Even if you disagree with all of that, I don't see why my edit was reverted, except to try to pick holes in the example used in the edit summary. It's obviously not possible to say that the fact "has ceased to be used as an argument for absolutism" since only one person anywhere in the world need repeat the argument in order to contradict the assertion. My edit was a minor improvement. It's much better to state that the argument "was used" without any pointless and unverifiable claims that it's now never used. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My revert was indeed too peremptory. In reality the two versions are about equivalent: neither offers the reader much on the paragraph topic, which is the historically religious aspect of some corontations. --Wetman 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule by the grace of God 

message: I've hugely expanded and edited this article, but I was unable to find anything definitive about coronations (or lack thereof) for the kings of modern Italy or the emperors of China.  While some sources mentioned coronations in Italy, I wasn't able to find anything that I could reference, nor any details on the ceremonies (if any).  Also, although I referenced info from more than one source saying that Emperors of Austria weren't crowned as such, I have seen some drawings of earlier Austrian rulers (Maria Teresa, etc.) being crowned, so I'm not sure what to make of that.  If anyone has any info on these subjects, or any other part of this article, please feel free to add it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Expansion 

message: Part of the GA review for this article questioned a lack of references in the section entitled "The ceremony".  Much of the information therein was redundant, being mentined earlier in the lead section, or in later parts devoted to specific countries.  Hence, in the interests of length as well as of article quality, I felt it best to simply delete most of it, keeping only the portion dealing with the legal issues involved.  However, if any other editors disagree with this decision, please feel free to reinsert and/or edit it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminating "The ceremony" section 

message: I have concerns about this entire section.  All links are to YouTube, and all footage is presumably copyrighted, therefore subject to immediate removal from YT.  Should we perhaps remove this section, as it's impossible to predict whether or not it will be useful (i.e. dead links) on a day to day basis? Prince of Canada t | c 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concerns; I hadn't considered that when creating the links.  I'm definitely going to keep the Norwegian link, as I was able to change it from a Google link to one directly from the Official Norwegian monarchy website.  I'll eliminate all of the YouTube links, but I'm going to see first if I can't find some other, independent source for these or other coronation videos. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take another look at the section and see if these links are better.  I eliminated all of the YouTube links, replacing them with others (or, in the case of Elizabeth II, I kept a YouTube link that was referenced directly from HM's personal, official, YouTube channel).  Let me know what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great.  I'd be concerned about the AOL link, and the ones to 'yourememberthat' and 'videosoftheworld' for similar reasons to YouTube (except for the Royal Channel, of course). Prince of Canada t | c 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed those others.  Would have liked to have had more links there, but four is definitely better than none.  How does the rest of it look?  I'm about ready to send it back for GA reconsideration. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fantastic.  I'm slowly working through the citations, moving them to cite templates.  Use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged, but WP may move to a different style of citation in the future, so templating all citations will make that change a lot easier. Prince of Canada t | c 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for your efforts on this article!  Please let me know when you think it's ready to go, and I'll send it up for GA reconsideration. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multimedia 

message: We moved most of the images in the article to the right side, per MOS requirements regarding placement of images in sections.  My question is: since we have consolidated the formerly separate country sections into continental sections, would it be MOS-okay to move some of the images to the left within each "continental" section, to create a more "balanced" look to the article?  It's not really a big deal, either way; just an ascetical issue, really. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer not. Prince of Canada t | c 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay to have left-aligned images as long as they are not placed immediately following the section header, or before the first link to an article. --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's equally okay not to, especially when they displace formatting in the next section. Prince of Canada t | c 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Leaving it "as is". - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: Ecjmartin has asked me to look over the article again in light of my comments on problems that resulted in the GA-fail of the article last time.  The article is much improved since the last time I looked at the article, but I still have a few concerns on its readiness for GA.  These include:
* Referencing.  It's much better than last time, but still lacking.  Basically, the way I go about an initial GA review is I look through the article, and when I see a paragraph that doesn't have a reference at the end, I start jumping up and down *grin*.  There are a lot of these spots in the article still, and they will burn you at GA, unless you happen to get a lax reviewer.  They will definitely kill you if you plan to take the article to FA.  
* I'm really not sure what's up with Ref #25.  It may be that (as you say in your comment above) that because it's a .doc it's formatting funky.  I've never had a ref do this to me, and I can't figure out how to fix it.  You may want to post a question on the cite templates talk page asking for help from one of the gurus.
* I would suggest not renoming the article until your citations are completely formatted with all needed information.  At the moment, you have the problem of mixing formats (some templated, some not), as well as quite a few that are missing access dates. I know that you said another editor is currently working on fixing them, so this is more of a reminder comment then anything else.
* The lead looks much better now, and the layout of the article is much nicer, IMO.  Nice job!
* I still haven't done a full review of the prose, so don't think that it's perfect just because I haven't said anything!  I would suggest, before you re-nom the article, that you don't touch the article for at least a few hours (depending on your level of wiki-addiction, this grace period may be as long as a day or two), and then look over the prose as a whole one more time to catch any errors that you may be overlooking.  I know that when I am heavily editing an article, I'm usually only focusing on one section or another at a time, and I get so involved with individual sections that I can lose track of what the article as a whole looks like.  It may be the same with you, or you might have a much better holistic sense of things than I do :) 
Anyways, these are my comments.  Let me know if you have any other questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'm trucking along on the cites.  It's not a quick process :) Prince of Canada t | c 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecj.. I'm having trouble with a lot of the references not really conforming to WP:RS; many of them are personal essays, links to forum posts, etc. I'm moving those ones to the footnotes section. Prince of Canada t | c 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No problem.  Whatever works best is fine with me.  Thanks again for all of your help on this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Pre-GA comments 

message: I'd be interested in soliciting opinions from contributing editors to this article as to whether any of you think it is ready for a crack at "FA" or even just "A" class status.  If you don't think so, what do you think it needs to make that jump?  Thanks for your replies! - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll need much, much more exhaustive referencing to hit FA. //roux   19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Ready? 

message: Why should we have seperate sections for the United Kingdom and Scotland, with no section for England? It now looks like England and the UK are the same, while Scotland is something completely unrelated. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. //roux   19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK ''and'' Scotland? 

message: Where can I mention that Maria of Hungary, Hedwig of Poland and Maria Theresa of Hungary & Bohemia were crowned kings of their respective kingdoms? In my opinion, the fact that women were sometimes crowned kings instead of being crowned queens is notable. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just to add that information to the appropriate section under the particular country in question. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not easy to do because there is no appropriate section for adding the information about female Kings of Hungary. There is a section called "Austria-Hungary", but mentioning 14th-century people in that section would be a major mistake. The section does not have anything to do with Austria anyway, as nobody was crowned Emperor of Austria. It would be much better to rename the section and leave just "Hungary". Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent observation!  I've taken the liberty of breaking up the "Austria-Hungary" section into two separate sections called "Austria" and "Hungary".  Take a look, and tell me what you think.  Also, in regard to not having an appropriate section for female kings of Hungary, I would opine that since this is a gender-neutral article (concerning itself with coronations and enthronements in general, without regard to the gender of the monarch being crowned/enthroned), you ought to be able to simply insert this information in a separate paragraph within the "Hungary" section.  I, for one, would be very interested in seeing it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female kings 

message: The section is unclear. In the first paragraph it says that he was enthroned, while the second paragraph says that he was crowned. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farouk of Egypt - enthroned or crowned? 

message: I did not remove the image of Peter of Serbia after his coronation because it did not depict his coronation. I removed it because very little is written about Serbian coronations. As there is no enough text, the image of Peter pushes the image beneath it, which makes that part of the article crowded with images. I tried placing one of the images on the left, but it still doesn't look nice. Though I won't insist on removing the image if you think it looks fine. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally (and this is just my opinion; I won't insist on it), I'd like to see it remain, if only because it depicts the coronation (or its immediate aftermath) of a monarch from a country not normally associated with coronations, i.e. Serbia, as opposed to the more "famous" kingdoms (past or present) of France, England, Russia, etc.  But as I said, that's just my opinion; I'm not insisting on it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it remain too. After all, I was the one who added it and it certainly helps the section. It just seems to me that there are too many images in that small part of the article. Perhaps we should move one of the images to the left to make more space? Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should stay. Left-aligning it will, unfortunately, make the article look like hell, so we should probably just deal with it being slightly unpretty as opposed to hideous. Wikipedia/MOS guidelines on image placement are fantastically stupid and largely in opposition to everything known about good design, particularly text flow and breaking up text. Alternating L/R particularly makes text more difficult to read. But gah, try getting that past the ... I can't think of a word that won't get me indeffed... people at MOS. Off topic, I wonder if there's an image available that's more iconic than that of Charlemagne's coronation. There are no photos or footage of the actual moment of QEII's coronation (and I suppose I could be accused of bias there, but she is undoubtedly the world's most famous monarch), and very few other modern monarchs have actually had a proper coronation. Napoleon would be an interesting choice... or someone like him; a coronation that was explicitly about a monarch seizing power for him or herself, and using the coronation ceremony to legitimise it. Surtsicna seems to be the best image-finder; thoughts?//roux   06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it's a problem, we'll keep it. Your question about a better lead image is not off-topic. The section is about images, so feel free to discuss any images in the article. Replacing the image of Charlemagne's coronation with an image of Elizabeth II's coronation would be great. I know there were such images on Wikimedia Commons, but they are gone now. I'm not sure whether the image of Napoleon's coronation is better than the image of Charlemagne's coronation. The former painting is more famous, but the latter shows the moment of the ruler's coronation more clearly. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Despite being the person who removed a bunch of the headings months ago, over the past few days it's become apparent that the sections as they were had far too much text in them, making editing them unwieldy.
Accordingly, I have changed each country to a level 4 (====) heading to give each subsection its own edit link, and have added a custom TOC, suppressing the MediaWiki-generated table of contents (using __NOTOC__). Unfortunately, this had to be hand-coded, as the nearest template available () allows for only 16 custom fields, and we needed more--I didn't think that an alphabetical listing would be of much use to readers. Comments? //roux   06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New TOC/headings 

message: The current monarch of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand was crowned as such on 2 June 1953. Where should we mention this? Creating several sections just to say the same thing in each of them is out of the question (and so is ignoring this fact). Elizabeth II's coronation oath included those realms. This is the link I was given on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Coronation as reference.
Would simply mentioning these countries in the United Kingdom section be a violation of NPOV?
Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Commonwealth realms" could always be used as a neutral heading that covers all the countries of which Elizabeth II was crowned queen. Some other related facts are that Canada - and I believe other realms - sent not only diplomats - i.e. governors general, prime ministers, lieutenant governors, premiers, mayors & etc. - but also contingents of horse guards and the like to participate in the coronation parade. CBC has some video footage of the events. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc 

message: There are, it turns out, quite a few published sources on the coronation ceremony there: , , , , , , , . It will just require a little work transcribing and citing them. - Biruitorul Talk 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tahiti

message: This article, although very informative, is way too big and large. I would propose removing the largest part of sections that have their own articles, instead of repeating information that is already there. Gryffindor (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been resisting this up to now, but I (reluctantly!) think you have a valid point.  I'd be open to your suggestion.  If there's stuff in here that's missing in the main articles (Holy Roman Empire, Britain, etc.), we could check to see that it's all there first, then remove everything but the reference to the main article.  I wouldn't have a problem with that, given how big this article has become (and it keeps getting larger--but that's a good thing, I think, other than the repetitiveness pointed out here!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of trimming down the sections of this article that have their own "Main Articles" referenced herein.  I'm not sure if I trimmed TOO much out of the "France" section (please feel free to add back or take away anything as necessary there--or anywhere else!), but I think the others look pretty good now.  Let me know what you think, anyone! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with that, if we kept section headers in the new, reduced "Coronation" article that would provide direct links to each newer page.  The main "coronation" article would then contain just general info on coronations in general, then give section headers as above, each of which would link to the appropriate (separate) article for that section.  Let me see what I can do over the next few days, if someone doesn't beat me to it.  Can't do it tonight, but I can try to work on it tomorrow, if nobody else minds...  Sound good?? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: See below section, on "Major-league reorganization". - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article too large 

message: To me, the article - whilst very informative - is still extremely long & unwieldy. I'd suggest drastic action, such as removing the following to their own articles:
* Coronation in Africa
* Coronation in Americas
* Coronation in Asia
* Coronation in Eastern Europe
* Coronation in Western Europe
* Coronation in Oceania
The remainder would be IMHO a manageable length for an article. 
What do others think? Trafford09 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, if we kept section headers in the new, reduced "Coronation" article that would provide direct links to each newer page.  The main "coronation" article would then contain just general info on coronations in general, then give section headers as above, each of which would link to the appropriate (separate) article for that section.  Let me see what I can do over the next few days, if someone doesn't beat me to it.  Can't do it tonight, but I can try to work on it tomorrow, if nobody else minds...  Sound good?? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: See below section, on "Major-league reorganization". - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 

message: I removed the image from the Portugal section because (a) it purports to describe an event that is itself only legendary, unsubstantiated as to its authenticity (see article on Peter I of Portugal), and (b) its inclusion leaves a large "blank space" in the article.  I liked the image--liked it a lot, actually, as the story is quite interesting, but due to its unsubstantiated nature (and the big blank space), I felt it would be better to remove it.  If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert my edit; no offense taken.  I'm going to put that image into the article on Peter I (where the incident is clearly shown as legendary). - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of image from Portugese section 

message: I authored a huge chunk of this article, originally, and I wholeheartedly agree with the previous writer and those others who have weighed in on this subject: it's just too long.  Hence, I did as the previous writer suggested, and broke down the specific nations' coronation ceremonies into smaller articles arranged by continent (or region, in the case of Oceania).  However, in the process of creating a couple of the new sub-articles, I jacked up some of the references, and since I know nothing about that kind of referencing, I'd like to ask if someone who does can go in behind me and fix those, if you would.  Any other editors or readers are welcome to weigh in with their comments, observations, or suggestions. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work on the re-org & splitting. As for the problems with  <ref>s , I think I've fixed them - they just seemed to need the 'Notes' section adding. Trafford09 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's awesome!  I took a brief look (I'm at work, right now!), and they really looked great, except for the Coronations in Antiquity one--could I please ask if you might do with it, the same as you did for the others?  I'm going to go in this evening when I get home, and re-arrange a few pictures, etc. to "dress them up" a bit more, so if you could take care of that last article, that'd be wonderful!!!  Thanks for all your help!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   :) Trafford09 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major-league reorganization and reduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Coronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004145520/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Coronation to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Coronation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905061158/http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/coronations.html to http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/coronations.html
*Added  tag to http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/article/why-is-it-said-that-only-a-brahman-is-capable-of-creating-an-ideal-king.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227120929/http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/ahb.cfm?a=S000116 to http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/ahb.cfm?a=S000116
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would this be an appropriate place to discuss the role of oaths of office in republics which essentially replaced coronations?  In the US the President can't take office until he takes the oath.  Emperor001 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Oath of Office

message: This is incorrect. The investiture of the Prince of Wales is not a case of the coronation of an heir during the lifetime of their parent. The investiture is just that, an investiture. It is properly an example of the investiture which formerly (until the early seventeenth century) was used for all peers of the realm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.127 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles was crowned with headgear representing his position as crown prince. That's a coronation of an heir. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investiture of the Prince of Wales