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

[davideduardo]

Happens all the time in the US. Elected representatives in several states have been kicked out of their legislatures for simply voicing their opinions.

Yes, by disrupting the established order of their assemblies by not following procedure. When I was on the debate team in high school, anyone who interrupted a participant during their turn was also kicked out... and permanently banned. It's in Robert's Rules of Order, I believe.

"For parliamentarians and novice club presidents alike, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is this country’s recognized guide to smooth, orderly, and fairly conducted meetings."

I see the UK passed a 'Public Order Act.' Sounds like the laws states are passing in Florida and other states.

Given the lack of respect and courtesy afforded speakers with different and contrarian opinions in this era, that sounds like an unfortunate but necessary requirement.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, by disrupting the established order of their assemblies by not following procedure.

Hard to follow procedure when the person in charge refuses to even allow you the floor on an issue involving your district.

It's one thing to censure someone for such behavior, but it's quite another to ban them completely from their elected position. In the case on Montana, they objected to language ('blood on your hands'), not behavior. Putin is doing the same thing to people who object to his policies.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Setting aside any attempt to tally a number, it was plenty of places and plenty of over-the-top fawning over this pointless vestige of a long gone era.

Keep in mind that it happened on a weekend. Good filler for what usually is a slow time.

 

[davideduardo]

Hard to follow procedure when the person in charge refuses to even allow you the floor on an issue involving your district.

Again, "Rules of Order". There is a procedure for adding things to any assembly's agenda, whether it is student council meetings or the U.S. Senate.

It's one thing to censure someone for such behavior, but it's quite another to ban them completely from their elected position.

Egregious violations of procedures may make a great news item, but if allowed to occur once, they will have to be allowed again. And again. Misbehavior without consequences foments further misbehavior.

In the case on Montana, they objected to language ('blood on your hands'), not behavior. Putin is doing the same thing to people who object to his policies.

Verbal statements that are not appropriate or which can be construed as insulting or threatening are also part of the overall definition of "behavior".

 

[TheBigA]

But the inauguration ceremony has little show value. No golden carriage, no abbey that has been used for that since 1066, no procession of 10,000 soldiers, no choir, no symphony orchestra, no representatives from a dozen Commonwealth nations.

I've been to a few, and while there is no ostentatious golden carriage, there is a parade and a motorcade following the ceremony. The past few presidents have chosen to step out of their limousines and shake hands with onlookers. It makes for good pictures. There are marching bands and a big reviewing stand that is built in front of the white house. The big issue with the inauguration is that it happens in January, when the weather is usually below freezing.

 

[TheBigA]

Verbal statements that are not appropriate or which can be construed as insulting or threatening are also part of the overall definition of "behavior".

The only thing that made the statement inappropriate was that the majority party didn't like the subject. If the rep had been talking about ripping bloody embryos from wombs, it would have been OK. My point is that the punishment didn't fit the crime. Totally subjective, not laid out in any Roberts Rules of Order.

 

[davideduardo]

I've been to a few, and while there is no ostentatious golden carriage, there is a parade and a motorcade following the ceremony. The past few presidents have chosen to step out of their limousines and shake hands with onlookers. It makes for good pictures. There are marching bands and a big reviewing stand that is built in front of the white house. The big issue with the inauguration is that it happens in January, when the weather is usually below freezing.

Good points, all. The weather and lack of regal Pomp and Circumstance certainly make the two events different.

And the fact that the UK ceremonies have only numbered 13 since 1707 while we have had 58 formal Presidential Inaugural ceremonies, held at about 10 different locations makes one kinda' routine and the other a once or twice in a lifetime event.

 

[TheBigA]

One thing that didn't get much coverage in the US was the post-coronation concert. Charles did a lot of work with popular musicians with his Prince's Trust events when he was younger. Katy Perry and Lionel Richie were there for the concert. I read some complained that Elton John wasn't there. They were likely hoping to hear Candle In The Wind. There is usually a big post-inauguration concert in DC as well. Obama did one at the Lincoln Memorial. I think that one was televised. Outdoor concerts aren't a lot of fun in mid-January even when Stevie Wonder performs.

Katy Perry, Lionel Richie and more perform at King Charles III’s coronation concert

The British monarch, who was officially crowned the UK’s new sovereign at Westminster Abbey Saturday, was seen waving to crowds at the star-studded soiree.

pagesix.com

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Again, "Rules of Order". There is a procedure for adding things to any assembly's agenda, whether it is student council meetings or the U.S. Senate.

Egregious violations of procedures may make a great news item, but if allowed to occur once, they will have to be allowed again. And again. Misbehavior without consequences foments further misbehavior.

Verbal statements that are not appropriate or which can be construed as insulting or threatening are also part of the overall definition of "behavior".

Oh please. “You have blood on your hands” is not threatening. Hell, it’s a fact.

The “rules of order” are one more way to avoid acknowledging the suffering and the legitimate anger at slaughter after slaughter after slaughter. To silence only the voices they don’t want to hear, they use a fig leaf of decorum, but the same people have precisely zero issue using their power and platform to insult, to harass and to demean anyone who isn’t them.

Maybe people are p—ed off about the kids being massacred in classrooms. Maybe the LGBTQIA community is p—ed off about being called pedophiles, groomers and the like (never mind it happens to be an issue that actually permeates the GQP).

We get it. The Republicans don’t like to be challenged. Their business of stripping away rights of women and minority populations to be interrupted. Their unbridled worship of guns to be diminished. That’s what this is about.

 

[bpatrick]

Setting aside any attempt to tally a number, it was plenty of places and plenty of over-the-top fawning over this pointless vestige of a long

Re Joe Biden not being in attendance: we traditionally do not send the president to the coronation of a British monarch.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

In fact, no sitting POTUS has ever attended the coronation of a British monarch.

 

[TheBigA]

Re Joe Biden not being in attendance: we traditionally do not send the president to the coronation of a British monarch.

I saw that it's also customary not to send a gift to a new monarch. So Jill came empty-handed.

They've posted the official photos of the new king, and in his crown & robes, he looks a lot like his mom.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh please. “You have blood on your hands” is not threatening. Hell, it’s a fact.

Only if you believe that nobody should have a weapon for personal defense.

The “rules of order” are one more way to avoid acknowledging the suffering and the legitimate anger at slaughter after slaughter after slaughter. To silence only the voices they don’t want to hear, they use a fig leaf of decorum, but the same people have precisely zero issue using their power and platform to insult, to harass and to demean anyone who isn’t them.

No, the rules of order do not silence anyone. Read them. They establish procedures for opinions and discussion, and the cases being cited here did not follow the procedures.

Maybe people are p—ed off about the kids being massacred in classrooms. Maybe the LGBTQIA community is p—ed off about being called pedophiles, groomers and the like (never mind it happens to be an issue that actually permeates the GQP).

We get it. The Republicans don’t like to be challenged. Their business of stripping away rights of women and minority populations to be interrupted. Their unbridled worship of guns to be diminished. That’s what this is about.

OK, you have your perspective and others have theirs. Are we losing our ability to accept that there is nearly no situation outside of absolute science where there are not multiple points of view?

Not all, and maybe most, Republicans believe the prejudiced things you are applying to everyone, and not all Democrats believe in some of the things the ultra-right attaches to that party's members.

Example: the number/percentage of Hispanics registered as Republicans has more than doubled in the last two decades. Anecdote: when a friend who was an announcer at one of LA's Spanish language stations got her citizenship, she asked the owner about party affiliation now that she could vote. He responded "if you want to follow others, become a Democrat. If you want to forge your own destiny, become a Republican." The owner was not just Hispanic, he had written huge "Golden Era" hit songs, been a professional bull fighter and a long-time operator of an LA radio outlet.

Oh, and after being attacked in the parking lot of the #1 LA TV station, she bought a gun and got training from the LA Police media liaison officer and his delegate.

So please allow others to have their personal opinions and acknowledge that none of us is 100% right all the time.

 

[davideduardo]

In fact, no sitting POTUS has ever attended the coronation of a British monarch.

That has only been practical twice in history: the coronation of the late Queen Elizabeth in 1953 and the one last Saturday.

In 1953, the President was occupied in the preparations for the armistice of the Korean War, which was signed just a month after Elizabeth was crowned. A long flight on far less safe aircraft and days away from Washington was not appropriate in the midst of reaching a peace agreement in Korea.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

No, the rules of order do not silence anyone. Read them. They establish procedures for opinions and discussion, and the cases being cited here did not follow the procedures.

These aren't arcane debates over fiscal policy and the like. How inconvenient of the kids in Uvalde, Newtown, Parkland, Columbine, Santa Fe, Nashville, Oxford MI et al to not realize there are parliamentary procedures to suppress the critics by deliberately limiting what can be said and when for the sake of decorum. People are actually furious and terrified by the failure at all levels and in every branch of government to actually tackle this issue honestly, frequently hiding behind "proper times and places" arguments. Because, unremarkably, it seems never to be the proper time and place according to the process.

 

[davideduardo]

People are actually furious and terrified by the failure at all levels and in every branch of government to actually tackle this issue honestly, frequently hiding behind "proper times and places" arguments. Because, unremarkably, it seems never to be the proper time and place according to the process.

There is a word missing here. It is "some" and it goes in front of "People" because there are many who believe that gun ownership is not the root problem; they believe that violence is a social, family and educational issue involving areas ranging from mental health to the disintegration of the nuclear family.

In the recent specific instances of interruptions of parliamentary procedure by legislators, there is ample opportunity to introduce topics in an agenda. There is no tolerance for being rude and disruptive with the only intent being to garner press and Internet views.

 

[TheBigA]

No, the rules of order do not silence anyone.

The rules don't, but it's the people using them to disenfranchise taxpayers and citizens.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

No, the rules of order do not silence anyone. Read them.

Yes, please do read Robert's Rules. Great for those nights when the baby is fussy and you can't sleep.

In the recent specific instances of interruptions of parliamentary procedure by legislators, there is ample opportunity to introduce topics in an agenda.

No. Roberts Rules give the majority (50%+1) of the assembly complete control of the agenda.

In practice, for legislatures, that means the speaker/president/chair has absolute control of the agenda, because they are also the leader of the largest political party in the legislature. That gives the chair significant influence to keep their members from defecting on votes.

 

[Mikey Radio]

The family epitomizes the word dysfunctional. The backstabbing, petty nonsense is the stuff of absurd soaps like Dallas and Dynasty.

And Harry's legal case against the Daily Mirror has brought forth testimony that further supports that dysfunctionality. Harry had long held that Camila (who he once referred to as the "wicked stepmother"who he implored his father not to marry) had leaked damning items to the tabloids and press to injure the reputations of Harry and others, while at the same time, trying to elevate and bolster her own image. He's also accused others from the Royal Family of leaking to the press. Looks like that may be proven true during this court case:

Prince Harry’s Legal Case Proves That He Was Right All Along About Royal Family Media Leaks​

Prince Harry's Legal Case Proves That He Was Right All Along About Royal Family Media Leaks

Now will somebody apologize to Prince Harry?

www.sheknows.com

Prince Harry is probably kicking back in Montecito, California today, thinking to himself, “I told you so,” after being vindicated in his latest court case. His memoir, Spare, and the Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, revealed exactly how the palace operates with the media — often selling family secrets for positive headlines about themselves. And now, one member of the Royal Rota confirmed what the Duke of Sussex already told us.
In Harry’s lawsuit against the Daily Mirror for “unlawful information gathering” about his life from 1995 through 2011, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) Andrew Green KC admitted that Prince Harry was telling the truth all along. “Many [articles] came from information disclosed by or on behalf of royal households or members of the royal family,” Green noted in a written statement

Queen Camilla’s notoriously close relationship with the press, particularly Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan, is also believed to be a part of her image rehab. While MGN has issued an apology to Harry, but no one from the royal family has yet — perhaps they don’t want to acknowledge the optics how they are actually doing business with the tabloids.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Good for him--good for anyone--fighting back against that kind of sleazy behavior. The sheer level of dysfunction is (bleep)ed up enough. The adoration of the (bleep)ed up figureheads is just bizarre.