I guess it's okay to still have a monarchy. It probably beats the sheer horror of our previous president. But at the same time modern, sane and tasteful citizens of the U.K. must be very uncomfortable having their grown up leaders dressing up like this. Just an observation. Charles in full regal drag.
complaints about the post? See our subscription department...
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
The Visual Science Lab
ReplyDeleteSubscription Dept.
I am shocked and disappointed by the latest post.
Such disrespect for England, The British Isles
and the world.
Please refund my subscription in full.
.... ../s
Forwarding your request to the correct department. We'll need your credit card information, SS # and zip code. Also, which category did you want to select for the reason to end your subscription?
ReplyDeleteHumorless troll?
Misunderstood Brit?
Uni dropout?
Street Photographer?
Panties in a bunch?
Defender of the realm's ermine cape?
King Charles fashion consultant?
Other?
Do Scotland and N. Ireland still count as "British Isles" or are we still waiting on a vote?
ReplyDeleteYou would think they could do a better job when it comes to a formal portrait! You should offer to do a reshoot!
ReplyDeleteEric
I remember watching his mother's coronation back in 1953 or 54, whatever, and we watched all of it on a B&W TV, of course it was the first year we had a TV and it seemed like a big deal to me when I was only 10. I have not seen any of the coronation this time around and sad to say I don't feel like I missed anything. However I would miss you if you decide at some point to move on from your blog, thanks for the memories.
ReplyDeleteIt's the last time we'll have to see him in that get-up. Probably fine with him, too.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the British monarchy. You gotta give them something. But clearly Charles plans to, in his words, "streamline" the royalty. Which means fewer distant relatives and hangers-on. I don't blame him. Chuck 3 has seen the dark side of it all.
ReplyDeleteI think you just don't understand the Euro taste. The height of regal pompiness, old Chaz.
ReplyDeleteI had exactly the same reaction as you did. It's hard to believe they are putting on crowns and robes and holding a staff in 2023. Looks straight from the 1600's. Oh well, who are we to judge. We (although not me) elected Trump, a complete fool, to run our country for four years.
ReplyDeleteYour reasons for subscription cancellation made me laugh out loud. My wife probably wonders what was wrong with me. Thanks... needed that.
I don't mind the British monarchy since the king or queen is mostly a figurehead. After the coronation, all that stuff goes back to the Tower. Then attention goes back to the elected government. It is a nice tie to their heritage. On this side of the pond we can get back to drinking proper tea. With ice and plenty of sugar or sweetener of choice.
ReplyDeleteI have never understood a system that venerates people whose greatest accomplishment is being born to their parents. Having said that, more than one British acquaintance has pointed out the luxury of having a powerless head of state as a unifier separated from sometimes (often) divisive heads of government.
ReplyDeleteWhat is scariest is that modern, sane and tasteful citizens have been arrested for mildly protesting this nonsense, on a number is occasions, in recent weeks.
ReplyDeleteIt's all a load of quasi-medieval pseudo-Ruritanian nonsense and really when the Queen died we should have sacked the whole useless lot of them.
ReplyDeleteAt least rubbish Presidents get voted out, where we're stuck with this guy as titular head of state until he shuffles off this mortal coil which given family history and the finest health care could be another 20+ years. Probably not enough for a Silver Jubilee though.
Advice to any visitors to this septic isle is walk briskly, and carry no chains, padlocks, zipties or pieces of string, as you can get arrested for walking too slowly or having anything on your possession that could be used to attach to anything.
I'm a Brit, who would like to see the monarchy abolished. I avoided the whole saga over the weekend. However...
ReplyDeleteFour or five years ago I got the chance to photograph the then Price Charles for a story on sustainability. It was over several days and I was always the only photographer present. I really wanted to bury Caesar, not praise him. But, he turned out to be a nice guy. Who knew? He was funny and easy-going. Definitely not the person I was expecting to encounter. His staff were really nice as well.
On the last day of shooting, he attended a conference on the state of the oceans. I was tipped off that 'someone special' was turning up. It turned out to be Prince Harry who attended simply out of personal interest in the environment. I was able to photograph the two of them engaging and there was real warmth there. God knows what has happened since then.
So, no fan of the royal family but I like Charlie. Sarah Ferguson, on the other hand, is every bit the piece of work she appears to be.
Finally, the journalist who wrote the story (for the Australian Financial Review) went onto to be one of the screen writers for the forthcoming Lee Miller biopic starring Kate Winslet.
The main argument for the monarchy is the nightmarish thought of what might replace it. There are few countries with presidents that benefit from the fact - presidential elections are generally generators of political poison. Monarchies - ours, at any rate - offer continuity without much political involvement. Best of both worlds. Charles is well-intentioned, not at all stupid, and on a lot of topics he has been proved prescient, far more sensible on e.g. nature conservation, the climate, than most of the politicians.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, coronations are not everyday events.
fuji were tweeting about how the pics were shot on the gfx100s or whatever, didn't quite have the heart to tell them to read the room... a lot of food pantries and similar places missed out on funding because it was used for coronation events instead, the whole things starting to get to people I think
ReplyDeleteYou can criticise the UK as much as you like as far as I’m concerned BUT the past few years under Trump have shown that the USA does in practice have a King and one with more powers than ours.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, we also found under Johnson that the monarchical powers vested in Parliament need re-examination for surprisingly similar reasons given the apparent similarity of our two constitutions.
We cut off the head of a dictatorial monarch but thus far Trump is only getting a slap on the wrist.
While I am not personally interested in King Charles III I thought I would chime in here. Yes Scotland and Ireland are part of the British Isles, that constitutes the islands, the United Kingdom is the formal state including Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. As to the monarchy, I think Queen Elizabeth II made a great case for the good example a monarch can set, a statesman or ambassador that is well respected and can foster relationships over decades. Of course they also embody the customs, history and culture of a country as well, and while we live in a revolutionary era that believes the past should be torn down, King Charles III is the son of the woman that reigned over the men and women of the British empire who fought against the rise of the Nazis and Marxist communism, who was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria whose reign ushered in the modern world, and who’s Navy ended modern global slavery, we can even go back to Queen Elizabeth the I who resisted pressure to imprison Catholics in the run up to the naval war with the Spanish armada funded by the Catholic Church to rein in England. Queen Elizabeth in that moment formalized the idea that your nationhood superseded your religion, a concept that was carried over to the new world etc.
ReplyDeleteI won’t go on more, but the dislike of a crown worn by monarchs for over 5 centuries (in various forms) is to want modernism for modernisms sake. I would take a monarch and crown over fashions and sensibilities of today.
Keep Well
Abraham
Wish you had shown a picture of Penny Mordaunt instead (the sword holding girl at the coronation, in case you do not know her).
ReplyDeleteDear Pissy Readers (again, the minority of commenters) Where the F did I disparage the monarchy, slag the king or insult the system of government? I made the specific point that he was dressed like a buffoonish clown --- not that he was one.
ReplyDeleteSure he may be smart and sweet. So is my dentist. And dozens of my friends. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be king.
Trump sucks. Bad costuming on old guys who are kings also sucks. Not making a judgement about the king himself or the (arcane) system of government.
Reading comprehension falls prey to false agendas....
It’s just a traditional formal portrait and not intended as a work of art. Charles does look uncomfortable so I’m not entirely sure it serves its purpose.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see your argument that he’s dressing like a buffoonish clown. Surely it’s the other way round and the clown is dressing like a king?
I have little problem with some other place having a king, but I'm happy we don't have one, and threw the whole bunch of them out in '76. What I do have a problem with is that a king gives a kind of legitimacy to the whole idea of an inherited aristocracy, of one (rather large) group of people being better by birth than the rest of the population. And it's not just a notional thing; when you travel to London, you'll often see in the tabloids stories about the bad behavior of the children of the Earl of this or the Duke of that.
ReplyDeleteSo that aristocratic status actually gets some notice. It would piss me off if I lived there. I have to say that I agree with your judgment that the outfit Charlie's wearing makes him look like a fool, perhaps because here in the US we don't uncommonly see cartoons in which somebody is dressed up in somewhat similar garb and he IS a quite literally a fool. Better to do what the Queen of Denmark does, which is wear a nice dress and walk around looking queenly and patting children on the head. By the way, the queen of Denmark is a descendant of Gorm the Old and Harald Bluetooth. Bluetooth in the tenth century. Who knew?
I think the cancellation request came from the Charles (the third) himself...
ReplyDeleteKind regards
Peter
"I don’t see your argument that he’s dressing like a buffoonish clown. Surely it’s the other way round and the clown is dressing like a king?"
ReplyDeleteAh, Richard. Now I get it and totally agree. Now where did I put my codpiece and powdered wig? I've a formal shoot to get to.
We'll cover heraldry and genetic weak chins on the next go round.
Nothing like a few sweeping statements to muddy the waters.
ReplyDeleteThe British did not fight the rise of the Nazis. In the 30s we engaged in a policy of appeasement. It is also clear that the former King Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser.
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/historians-believe-the-duke-of-windsor-actively-collaborated-with-the-nazis-during-the-second-world-war-1.6635225
I don't know even know what Abraham's comment on fighting the rise of Marxism is meant to refer to. Is this why Groucho didn't get a knighthood?
As for the slave trade, the royal family and the family of the former Queen Mother were involved in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/27/direct-ancestors-of-king-charles-owned-slave-plantations-documents-reveal
To his credit, Charles has initiated investigations into this.
The Emperor has clothes!
ReplyDeleteThey are terrible, but he has them.
TSK! TSK! TSK! Mr.T, you do know how to start a dust-up. And when did all this "coronation" thing happen?
ReplyDeleteThey crowned Camilla Queen? REALLY???😳😲
Kirk, I am and was reluctant to make political comments on your blog but just to offer a contrary view to some of your commenters,I would offer up that I see the present USA as approaching a feudal society with most of the wealth increasingly being concentrated in a few hands. It’s true you don’t have all the old titles but you’ve replaced them with new ones, also mostly inherited, such as “high nett worth individual” and “trust fund kid” etc and, as I wrote earlier, you came close to having a monarch with Trump. Quite a lot of hereditarily in Congress too and the other arms of government in the State legislatures.
ReplyDeleteMy last word echoing another’s: “Nobody’s perfect” (Joe E Brown)
Almost, an Alfred E. Newman grin.
ReplyDeleteFrom the New York Times, a feature about how the portrait of King Charles was made:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/arts/design/king-charles-coronation-portrait-hugo-burnand.html
From the New York Times, a feature about the King Charles portrait:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/arts/design/king-charles-coronation-portrait-hugo-burnand.html
There is some point to traditions and there is some point in abandoning some.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of royalty in this day and age is silly. Almost as silly as celebrity culture.
It would be no surprise that King Charles' ancestors were involved in the slave trade, but who wasn't.
ohh … he looks so much like his mother
ReplyDelete