WOW! Thank you for appreciating it! And thank you too for providing George V's proclamation! I thought it doesn't exists until I found yours!

I'll wait for Edward VII's! By the way, is it an actual proclamation or just a reenactment? And does it include "God Save the King"?

@@paolocabling Alas, just a re-enactment and a short section of the full proclamation - and it hasn’t got ‘God Save the King’. It comes from a British television series from the 1970s, which I’ll cut to include the important events of King Edward VII’s accession: the Accession Council, the Proclamation, the swearing in and the Coronation.

You mean "Edward the Seventh" series on ATV? I'm about to binge watching it as if I'm watching The Crown!

@@paolocabling Righty-ho! I’ve got a high definition transfer from the official DVD with bonus features on my channel, but it’s unlisted so you’ll have to click on my channel to see it! Here’s a link to the playlist with bonus features: ukposts.info/slow/PLfHTB7ieJn3sqDfgJgCtb-wKOddQj2m9Y

I'm no Brit but I haven't seen one until that of King Charles. I only watch pre-Elizabethan proclamations on archived reels.

You'd probably have to be at least 78 (and still have good memory) to remember it.

@@DavidSSabb Anyone between 78-90 years old will probably still remember when George VI was monarch of Britain. For them it’s only the second time in their lifetime that they’ve had a king as head of state (first George VI and then his grandson Charles III).

@@stephenmurphy2212 Perhaps they would also remember the brief reign of King Edward VIII.

@@MarvinClarence If they remember Edward VIII they would probably be pushing 100 or well over the age of 100.

That's Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, the 16th Duke of Norfolk who is the Earl Marshal, the master of royal ceremonies such as royal funerals and coronations. (I answered this to the same question asked by a channel here. Copied.)

@@paolocabling he would've been the guy phillip replaced as chairman on the coronation committee in the crown right

@@paolocabling meanwhile the 17th Duke never got to MC a coronation

That's not hard to do when one abdicates and another dies young.

Also Not Really Considering Myself A Monarchist, But Huge Respect For The Institution.

God save the Queen!

@@ryderli1053 she died bro

Actually, there is a full BBC coverage of the 1953 coronation uploaded by Archive of Recorded Church Music on YT. Here's the link: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/bWJ_iKCYqpieyKs.html

There is short contemporary MovieTone film in genuine colour but with very crackly sound, showing highlights of the Coronation. This is on UKposts: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/gnp2iaqPaZV42H0.html There also a lengthy contemporary documentary film with much better sound and consisting entirely of genuine colour footage entitled "A Queen is Crowned". available on UKposts. This shows the processions to and from the Abbey and the service (abridged but containing the main events). The narrator was Laurence Olivier. I find the commentary a bit flowery and over the top but the images and music are impressive: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/r3uroIGup6NimIk.html

@@paolocabling This contains the famous close-up at 02:51:00 when the BBC disobeyed their prior instructions and zoomed into the Queen's head and shoulders at the start of verse 2 of the National Anthem, lingering there, as the procession out of the Abbey was starting. That did not happen in the cinema colour film footage. Richard Dimbleby's hushed commentary was well-judged, fluent and flawless. This monochrome TV version shows the entire service including all the music and all in the right order (unlike 'A Queen is Crowned').

I've watched "A Queen is Crowned" before but I prefer the BBC coverage more than the film. I really don't mind if it's monochromatic, the recorded live events matter more as if you're in the spur of the moment. :)

@@paolocabling My favourite moment which gives me goose pimples only occurs in the full TV coverage. It's at 01:51:14 and is just after the Enthronement when everyone in the queue has finished doing homage and just before the offertory hymn (the arrangement of "Old Hundredth", by Vaughan Williams). Everyone is standing stock-still in their positions gathered around the throne in a sort of tableux made up of the enthroned queen, the bishops and peers in their robes and coronets. Then, out of the silence, there's a drum roll followed by a fanfare (by Sir Ernest Bullock) played antiphonally on trumpets (lots of them) and full organ, based on the Scottish metrical psalm tune "Montrose". There's no other recording of this short but impressive piece.

THANKS!

An omen perhaps?

Lol

@Laurence O'Connor my granny was born during George V's reign, still going strong!

Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!

Insert schlatt here

Thanks.

It's Charles III or Charles the third. Not Charles the III.

Hip hip Hurray Hip hip Hurray Hip hip Hurray ✝️❤👑🇬🇧🇦🇺🇨🇦🇳🇿 GOD SAVE THE KING!!!

VIVA!

As well as iPhones held by viewers on scene.

@@smilgolan6718 hahaha

Viva el rey pero no el de España.

@@carlosmpsenyorcapitacollon6977 por?

His voice cracked throughout his speech.

If you listen to the full recording you’ll catch more of this - for example, ‘our only awful and right- liegeful- liege- rightful liege Lord Edward the Egg-’

Edward the Egg. HAHAHA!!

@@paolocabling And he really became like an egg, easily broken by a widow

It took 7 decades for that!

well who knows maybe another pricess in the tower?

If George has a daughter as his first child, she would become Queen after him.

​@@jamessergeant2136 I did quite specifically say, 'in our lifetimes'. I know George could have a direct female heir (assuming she is the first born, what with the British monarchy now having no preference of male heirs, in more recent times; hence why Princess Charlotte is ahead of Prince Louis in the line of succession) I am aware. What I was saying, was that it will logically take a long enough time for it to be considerably unlikely for a Queen to be crowned in the next hundred years, assuming (reasonably and without being too rudely morbid about it) that the heirs will all have long and happy lives. Charles III could rule into his 90's and that is two decades away. Two decades, going into the 2040's. Then King William V will be in his 60's and potentially reign for another 30-40 years or so. Again, the number you should be thinking of is the combined figure of the reigns of multiple generations. That is the point here. Of course their reigns could be much shorter than a natural maximal figure, but it is reasonable without evidence to the contrary that they will all reach a great age in this modern world. Any number of things could change that but it's grim to even speculate about it and it is moot anyway. King William V could have a terrible illness in his 70's or something from some future sickness we don't know even know about/might not exist yet. We cannot predict all things. Of course there is an undercurrent of risk in speculating who will live 'xyz', 'one-two-three', number of years. Of course nobody can really be sure. That's life. Assuming nothing terrible happens, then it's fair to guess that William would reign for nearly half a century (or just over, if he does extremely well) Yet more likely than passing in his 100's he'll pass in his 90's like with many elderly people these days. Obviously it's rarer to surpass 100. Even Queen Elizabeth II could not, at 96 and 70 years as Queen. The point is that if you think about it, assuming as I say, longevously lived and happy lives, then it will simply be beyond our lifetimes when the next Queen will rule (again, other than if Princess Charlotte came to the throne one day for whatever unforeseen reason; highly, highly unlikely) Again, most likely it will be King Charles III then King William V then King George VII. So at least: - 20 or so years (King Charles III) From 2022. Charles III in 2022 is 73. - 40-50 or so years (King William V) From the mid-2040's. Prince William is 40 in 2022. - another 40-50 years (King George VII) From the mid-2080's/2090's. Prince George of Wales is currently 9 in 2022. Again, assuming full lives, only diminished towards the end by natural ageing, then King George VII would likely be in his 60's by this time, much as his father was (in the theoretical mid-2040's) when he had his own ascent to the throne. To reiterate, I'm fully-aware that those lifespans are deliberately optimistic and purposefully ignore anything to the contrary, like terrible misfortunes or calamities. But there you go. Natural ageing could mean some of those reigns are 10-20 years shorter than I stated. Not everyone ages the same way and some people just happen to live longer. I dare say Prince William probably has lived slightly healthier than King Charles III did in his own youth, thus far. I dare say George VII will be the most healthy living of all princes in history, highly well-looked after by his mother and father even by royal standards. It really depends on how long King Charles III and then King William V reign. Between them, they could reign for another 60-70 years after one another. Assuming 60 years, I'd be 89, or 99 if it's 70 years. I know for a fact, then, that I would almost certainly never see the end of the reign of King George VII, whom might reign 30-40 more years after William. And if his future children happen to be all male or at least a male is born first, then again, there could be no Queen for 150 years. Maybe 200. Maybe 250. It really just depends on who is born after that in the future generations to follow, of course. Even if Charles III only reigns 10 years and William only reigns 30 (in really ridiculously lowball estimates which seem very unconvincing to me) then that itself is 40 years (still long enough for me to be about 69 by the time a theoretically 49 year old King George VII was crowned. More than likely, he'd reign anywhere between 30-40 (maybe even over 50) in that scenario, even in a 'lowball, negative estimates' scenario where the lower figures are used instead. Again, I don't really believe Charles III will only reign 10 years. I'm just showing the difference to illustrate the point. He'll at least reign 20 years in my opinion. Could be wrong but time will tell, as it always does. If William's reign after him is much shorter than we might imagine, then yes, this gives more time for George VII to rule. But the fact that three Kings in a row are lined up to be on the British throne, shows the reality that it's very unlikely for any adult aged people around now to see that time through. It's basically 70 years from now at the earliest/most negative projections, and much more likely (assuming long reigns for all, fairly enough) 90-100 years from now. Maybe people around Prince George's age (9) will logically see those times. But I am two decades older than that and I will inevitably not see out my time as far as that. It is the way of things. Mortality, eh... Nothing and nobody lasts forever. I would like to make it to the 22nd century just to giggle at the futuristic folks in the 2100's, to say, 'my life spanned three different centuries as a child of the 1990's', but the odds of that, even assuming I improved my health and well-being to a great degree as I go forward, are pretty low indeed. I'd have to be over 110 or something. Even if I was 100, I'd die in the 2090's. I wish I could get to the 2100's though just to say I did (historically, there were Victorians whom were born in the late 1890's whom managed to span 3 centuries by making it past the new millennium marker of the year 2000; technically, these luckier people spanned two millennia, as well) It won't be until the 2900's that someone can span two millennia again (by then, the 3rd and 4th millennia) and it is reasonably doubtful that any/all that many spanned the 1st to 2nd millennia back in the 900's AD (with life expectancies being drastically shorter back then; though I imagine a few old timers managed to reach over 100 even back then) Of course, futuristic genetic engineering and other technology could extend lifespans by potentially decades/centuries/even millennia. We cannot now be sure enough to know. Organ replacement, deoxygenation of cells, cybernetics, biological enhancements, de-ageing processes. Who knows what might be possible (without going all 'Dr Lazarus' and things just going wrong) That would really change humanity forever, though maybe only the super-rich could ever have it (which itself would create a moral nightmare which would be hard to justify and divide society more than it already is; morally, I'd argue such technology, if ever made, would have to be for all, not just for the few; all or none at all; and knowing how humanity is, well, good luck with that either way) Point being, we'd be very very very unlikely to see a Queen of England again in our lifetimes. We shall _never_ see Queen Elizabeth II's like again. She was a historical fluke so rare she even surpassed the legacy of Queen Victoria herself (and lived and reigned longer than her, in spite of Victoria being even younger than she was when ascending to the throne; in fairness, though, Victoria eponymously lived in Victorian times, with lower healthcare standards and greater pollution etc so it's still very impressive how long Victoria reigned in her literal own era) I would reason that someone like Queen Elizabeth II only comes around once every 300-500 years. There will _never_ be one quite like her again. Never. Not this side of the year 3000, most likely, if ever (and as many a Republican or Socialist might remind us rudely, perhaps there will _be no monarchy_ by then?) Some Commies now actually believe the British monarchy is 'finished' but I think that is just wishful thinking for sour and rebellious fifth columnists. Queen Elizabeth III would be fascinating, though.

"nobody lives forever". Im not sure about that. No simples person lives forever. There a few relacts of imortals, even thoug we dont know about then. Saint German, for example. Its not possible to say they're as false.

​@@charlesswitzer8378 In my view, the monarchy is not sacrosanct. According to it's own internal theological grounding, then yes, it is, according to itself. I do not see the Constitutional Monarchy as sacrosanct or sacred. Others are entitled to believe it is but I do not go so far. I understand that in a sense, all British Monarchs are 'obligate Protestants' in that they cannot be Catholic to sit the throne of Great Britain, by it's own internal ruling since the 17th century. They don't really have much of a say in it by definition, if they want the throne. Of course, they can keep up appearances and not truly 'defend the faith', but nobody could ever say that was what Queen Elizabeth II was about. She was devoutly Christian and made no qualms about it and was certainly resolute in her public speeches about her faith, especially the Christmas speeches. She wore her faith openly and did not hide it away in spite of the decline in the popularity of Christianity across her reign, in the United Kingdom. While it is still well-represented, nobody could deny it has diminished in status, in the face of the 'social revolution' (more like anarchism and materialistic excess) since especially the 1960's. I respect Queen Elizabeth II for many things, and one of them was her unyielding faith, even knowing that it didn't 'play well' with an increasingly faithless flock. But there you go. I myself do not place much stock in how 'sacrosanct' something is. Naturally, there cannot be theistic monarchy without religion. Yet I am inclined to not care so much about it anymore, in a neutral way. For instance, I would defend vociferously the right of British Christians, whether Anglican or otherwise, to continue to believe what they believe and practice what they like. I was raised Roman Catholic. I respect the values of Christianity and Christian teaching. But not for myself, in all things. I believe mostly in their historical and socio-cultural value to the British people, and yet nuance and temper that with the understanding that Christianity was brought here by invaders and that many, many sectarian conflicts have raged, costing the lives of millions all told, within our shores. Without it's legacy, the galvanising, outwardly pioneering and free enterprising, god-fearing Britons of the Victorian Era, would not have been as they were. I do not ignore the past. It isn't quite sufficient, when describing my views on the place of Christianity, for me to say that I merely tolerate it. I place it on a higher pedestal in terms of the cultural and historical significance of culture. We are a 'multicultural society' (as the anti-monarchists will also shout as they fall over themselves to install a Republic; and as those fifth columnists with no interest in _anything_ British still decide to live here at our collective expense, and do not care for our customs and traditions, only the benefits they can reap) Simply because I value the historical place of Christianity in British history, some progressive would probably say it is favouritism. I consider myself Agnostic for a start, in the original and simplistic meaning of the word coined by naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley. I proudly sit on that fence because I would not deign to know otherwise. I accept the cognitive limitations of mankind and do not pretend to know more than anyone else about the great mysteries of why we are here. I have my ideas and theories, natural philosophies and thoughts. But I am not too proud to admit there is no shame in not knowing such things. Never been an atheist, never will be. Agnosticism is fine by me. I have plenty of reasons in my own life and observations, not to believe in a God. But I do not say there is not one or more. It is not for me to stay. And I make my peace with that. I tolerate theism in general more than organised religion, but it's all relative. I still tolerate religion. However, even just for _acknowledging_ how Christianity is factually, categorically and magnanimously more important to British history than any other religion, that in itself would be deemed, 'unfair' and 'wrongminded' in multi-culti 21st century Britain. Britain has culturally, fallen very far in some ways, while arising in others. I see it as good that Britain is tolerant of many faiths and viewpoints, as a democratic and advanced realm. Yet I do not think we should so lightly allow Christianity to fade away. I say that as a neutral, and a British patriot. My patriotism does not require religiosity or particular piety. It is well-founded in other ways, such as the pride in Britain's place in science, technology and the very fabric of the history itself. The monarchy is a part of our glorious history and our present reality. I believe Constitutional Monarchy should remain, as a wise alternative to many options opted for on the continental mainland of Europe. Intemperate, reactionary and unstable paths, trodden by the idealistic and the tyrannical, leading from one bad situation to another. The British did not have an easy path themselves but due to our maritime power and liberal (as in English Classic Liberal) disposition, and cultural character, so to speak the English Pragmatism of the Age of Enlightenment and beyond, spread out globally to eventually produce the Anglosphere. Of course, the British monarchy was integral to all of that story, as much as British Parliament ever was in tandem. The dichotomy between Crown and Commons, most of all, making for a better Britain. For this reason, and many others, I respect the institution, and cannot see a reasonable alternative in the short-term. Many would clamour for abolition of the monarchy. I see that as a _disastrous_ path to take, even as a relative neutral on the monarchy. I see it as too valuable to British society, too prominent and intertwined with the style of government, to be so lightly and carelessly cast aside. And yet, for all that, many have worried about the future of the British monarchy in Charles III's hands. I think it'll be fine. People like the squawk and worry about things that are mostly far too complicated to make reductive claims over. There is a strong support network around Charles III and he won't just squander everything for climate agendas and activism. However, I do think he is being manipulated by pressure groups into well-meaning but biased perspectives. In terms of his views on conservationism I wholly agree with his charity work around that as Prince. But it should not always be the case that some other activists get to steer the ship from the stern, so to speak (it would be the tail wagging the dog) The point here, is that I understand why yourself and others are concerned about Charles III. I too fear that he will water things down to the point where the monarchy is scaled back enough to become irrelevant. I think that would be a bad thing, for Britain. Even though I do not agree with the theocratic principles inherent in the monarchy, and some of the more silly traditions and quirks, I do ultimately want it to be preserved for what it is; a symbol of British cultural iconography, heritage and achievement. I do not think the great unwashed anti-Monarchists could actually replace it with anything approaching civilised or anywhere near as powerful. Although it is a morally vapid argument, devoid of heart and feeling, the financial argument is clear; the monarchy more than pays for itself (I tire of seeing random prigs crying about 'the cost to the tax payer' etc etc for ceremonial events; the lack of insight and lateral, holistic thinking on this matter is, atrocious; obviously they are bringing in billions through tourism alone and have justified themselves financially many, many times over. That is not the concern. The concern is how every gobsh!te with a social media profile can just pretend as though this isn't true. There is a complete cognitive dissonance. I've argued with people who literally just deny it's truth, and deny it is a thing, when clearly a lot of tourism money generated in the UK is squarely due to the intrigue in the Royal Family. Not all of it is, yet even just based on the amount of visitors to the palaces and the other royal buildings, it is quite obvious massive quantities are being generated by them. They are financially justifiable. They've spent nearly 200 years getting their public image right (with many detractors but plenty of success nonetheless) Yet on a purely monetary basis, they are of course, a net positive to Britain. It's not even close. They cost each taxpayer a few pennies but bring in literal billions and give Britain a more respected soft-power aura. Geopolitically and symbolically, it makes absolute sense to keep them around.

That I don't know but that was interesting to know!

Yes.

They did it the 96 -gun salute the day before

Edward the EGG! (BOOM!)

Thanks! God save the King!

And those damned guns cutting him off…😂

Queen Elizabeth II God save our gracious queen Long live our noble queen God save the queen Send her victouris Happy and glourious Long to reign over us God save the queen

This is the best that I could find including the playing of the anthem.

@@paolocabling I don't fault you. Archival footage is hard to find.

Oh they know it well.

Why are you mentioning this coin?

Historical values of the British Colony in Malaya and Singapore with The East India Company. The Straits Settlements comprised of Penang, Malacca & Singapore. Gone were the days when a big 'ice-ball' costs only 5 cents. Well, now 75 years i begun to think of the "good old days'' with the winking of an eye passed me by. Once in a lifetime!

Born not borned

Ohh So you are old?

I don't know about the headgear that he wore. Sorry cannot answer that. But you're right. That's the Garter King of Arms!

Tradition, I suppose. Garter King of Arms is the highest-ranking herald.

@@gidzmobug2323 Sorry: I expressed myself ambiguously! I wasn't comparing the Garter King of Arms with the other heralds and pursuivants at the same (George VI) proclamation. I was comparing the headdress of the Garter King of Arms at the George VI proclamation with what the Garter King of Arms wore for Edward VIII's (earlier in the year) and Elizabeth II's proclamations - a different type of hat for George VI so perhaps not following tradition?

It's the glitch and quality of either the recording or of the microphone.

That's Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, the 16th Duke of Norfolk who is the Earl Marshal, the master of royal ceremonies such as royal funerals and coronations.

Yes.

His name was Sir Gerald Wollaston.

I am also irked by that! Also irking me is the removal of ‘gentlemen of quality’. If they wanted to be more ‘inclusive’, they could have changed it to ‘ladies and gentlemen of quality’ or ‘personages of quality’ instead of ‘and others’.

CORRECTION: The speaker in 2:30 and 4:25 is not the same as the one in 5:41. And their role was Garter King of Arms.

​​@@paolocabling is that prince Albert Frederick Arthur George (Future George VI) in the left in 4:25?

Hello. I only used iMovie on MacBook.

I'm only in mobile

More of a film. There's a full film of that on UKposts. Just search it. A rendition of "God Save the King" is also there.

The title of this fanfare is simply "Fanfare Royale". It exists on UKposts.

Thank you so much Paola

That's the best source I could find.

Contemporary standards?

​@@paolocabling the title of george VI doesn't mention *Emperor of India* while all the previous proclamations did which is Quite strange .

​@@Shkk That's because at the old times, some footage needed to be cut and as the mystery of why didn't mentioned *emperor of India*, We can't have evidence. But i think that George VI is one of the most bravest British monarchs. GOD SAVE THE KING- EMPEROR OF INDIA

It's the recording. You're talking about the cheers, eh?

It's real.

Why? Are you German?

It's "Fanfare Royale".

No idea but I have to find it po. (edited)

Here it is! It's "Fanfare Royale". ukposts.info/have/v-deo/jHeSgaepnHxetI0.html

They started the fanfare a few seconds too early in 2022 - did not allow time for the crowd to respond ‘God save the King.’

None of it exists on UKposts. It's hard to find.

For what purpose?

For my content

I want upload now

@@paolocabling to my content please

Tidak.

Which part?

What do you mean?

@@paolocabling when I saw the photo of King George it made me jump lol

Which George? The V?

@@paolocabling no VI

That is because this is video is about the proclamation of a new monarch. This is not about monarchs who died.

Why's that?

I remembered every monarch in British history.

OK but why you want to say "God Save the Queen" rather than "...King"?

Sorry but the original one was "God save great George our king".

I think you don't understand my point.

What is your point?