Coronated??

I'm hearing the word "coronated" (not crowned) on American news. Found "coronated" in an online dictionary, but also an Australian blog which seemed to prefer "crowned": https://www.writerscentre.com.au/blog/coronated-vs-crowned/.

Which is it??

It's not in any dictionary I own. Probably a lazy back-formation similar to "administrate".

Coronate has been around since 1623.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronated

And crowned since 12th c? English-French-Latin-Greek?
Which word do they use in UK? Both?

Dunzelised or dunzelated seems appropriate.

Britain and its Royals. I'm glad that's not our problem.

Many people seem to be upset because Meghan publicly celebrated Prince Archie's birthday today. Her children are Diana's grandchildren! She was married to the dude who became King today. The crowning should have been done with a frying pan.

Charles is climate-friendly. Hope he can help with that!

>3 Taphophile13: There might be a citation for it in 1623, but it doesn't seem to have been in much use since. I'm still calling it a mistaken back-formation, since that's how all of these people came up with it. They certainly didn't find it in use in modern English.

"Coronated" is certainly not commonly used in the UK, and I'd never heard it until I read this thread. In British one says "crowned".

Anointing with oil--does Church of England consider coronation a sacrament, like ordination?
(Did RC--I don't think it's crowning any sovereigns these days, though?)

>3 Taphophile13:
And grammatical stupidity and ignorance--and excusing it in that manner-- has been around even longer.

In French--the educated language of England for four centuries-- "couronné" (v. intrans.) was the expression of what is today expressed by the English "crowned"; "coronated" is the child of those who know neither good French nor good English. In Britain today, that is the vast majority of the public.

>11 margd:

I think anointing monarchs with oil dates back before the Christian era.

Charles's coronation sure seemed to have elements of 4(?) sacraments: Eucharist, confirmation, wedding, ordination. Anointing may have roots from Solomon's time, and RC entanglements with monarchs (France, Spain, etc.) may have loosened over the years, but British monarch and Church of England still closely bound, sounds like. Other faiths participated for the first time at some level, esp RC and Orthodox, at least, who had responsibility for a couple readings. There was a group of (Buddhist? Muslim? Jewish? Sikh? Orthodox? etc.) reps who greeted the new king in (foyer?). Charles is said to be religious (prays every night), but wanted to be more inclusive: he wanted to be Defender of FaithS, but Archbishop insisted on singular, the Church of England. All the symbolism was interesting. (Music was beautiful!)

{My post may more properly belong in one of the religion threads. If so, apologies. Elements of history, politics, as well as religion, though? May be the last?}

The ritual of coronation has ancient origins – here’s what we can expect for King Charles
Joel Hodge | 12 Oct 2022

...Coronation services were usually performed by a political leader or member of the clergy, such as a prominent local bishop or even the Pope.

Coronations underwent standardisation, development and change across the Middle Ages and gradually declined in the modern period.

The British crown is the only surviving European monarchy that retains a coronation, though there are Asian and African countries that still practise it.

Other surviving monarchies have enthronement (such as Japan and Luxembourg) or inauguration (such as Spain and Sweden) ceremonies which are secular or religious in form.

Coronations like those still held in England are associated with a biblical theology of kingship. The monarch is given a divine and priestly commissioning like Israelite kings Saul, David and Solomon in the Old Testament.

Over time, European coronations shifted from primarily emphasising divine commissioning to responsibilities before the law and to the people. The British coronation retains all these elements.

The coronation of the British monarch is a religious event. It presents the political-theological vision of the British state as a union of nations and peoples under God.

This union is celebrated in the coronation ritual, which occurs in the context of a Eucharistic liturgy...

https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/10/12/king-charles-coronation-ritual/

In the USA, we commonly use crowned to mean awarded in specific contexts. The use of coronated might be an attempt to indicate that this crowning is for an actual royal succession, unlike a prom king's recognition or an American business product. Because we are familiar with the meaning of coronation in fantasy stories.

It's not complicated: "crown" is both noun and verb; "crowned" is a verb form; "coronation" is a noun which denotes the act in its general or specific senses "a coronation" or "the (his, etc.) coronation". Any number of similar verb/noun forms exist and some of them probably lend their example to a neologistic invention, "coronate"--

that people do indeed say, "crowning"--it's a sloppy, ignorant usage which I suppose arises simply because the term "coronation" comes less readily to the minds of many than does simply tacking on "-ing" to "crown".

Many terms have a "-tion" noun form and a verb form which is "-ate"

But-- so far-- no one says, "enthronate" or "enrobate" or "knightate" or "christenate".

One is "knighted", "crowned", "enthroned", "enrobed", etc. (verb forms) of the nouns "knight", "crown", "throne", "robe".

Yes, there are
"calculation", "calculate",
"abrogation", "abrogate",
"alienation", "alienate"
"stimulation", "stimulate"
"regulation", "regulate"

but where the term is at once verb and noun, as with "crown"
there is no "-ate" verb form.

we don't say "ferment", "fermentate", we say "fermentation".
nor "hibernate", "hibernatate", we say "hibernation"; nor "elevate", "elevatate"--it's "elevate", "elevation"; nor "stagnate", "stagnatate"-- it's "stagnate", "stagnation".

Only our common grasp of English grammar is "stagnatating"--or, more accurately, it's not "stagnatating", it's "degeneratating".

The English language is clearly not stagnating, as people are continuing to change it to suit cultural needs.

I understand why this might bother readers in the UK/Europe. But in the USA, I think it's more that the word has different meanings. The majority of Americans don't know or care much about royals except as a fictional concept.

>17 aspirit:

"The majority of Americans don't know or care much about royals the good use of their native language except as a fictional concept." ("Royals"--- the collective noun is "royalty".)

..."people are continuing to change it to suit cultural needs."

Degrading one's language is not some "cultural need"-- unless laziness and ingorance in grammar use are to be deemed some "cultural need". What "culture" "needs" a widespread degraded and ignorant use of a formerly better and commonly understood language-use?

I'm an American.

>18 proximity1: "majority" does not mean a single individual. You might want to look through your English language references again if that's confusing you.

You could be the Alabaman visiting the UK for Charles' coronation who's featured in the news. Millions of people on seeing "crowned" would still likely think of Burger King hats before visualizing what's meant for Charles' head.

Haha. This is a break from the serious conversation but might be funny to others here.

I wanted to see what comes in an internet search for "Burger King hat" today. Result: "King Charles Declines Offer to Wear Burger King Crown" in Germany earlier this year.

https://www.foodandwine.com/king-charles-burger-king-crown-germany-7373796

I like how the news using "crowned" in headlines or leading lines show the actual crowns, because they aren't what I imagined. (They are pretty, like chess pieces.)

"King Charles III and Queen Camilla officially crowned in coronation ceremony"
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/coronation-live-coverage-king-charles-iii-c...

I'm also surprised Camilla received a crown. I thought it would only be Charles.

NPR Photos: "Britain's newest monarch has now been crowned."

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2023/05/06/1174464290/photos-the-corona...

Of course Charles wouldn't accept putting on a Burger King crown-- or any other kind of ersatz crown. And, though there are many types and forms of crowns for royalty's authentic ranks-- crowns for barons, viscounts, earls, and dukes and princes-- and, though he used to wear a prince's crown at formal state ceremonies where crowns were worn, you won't find Charles, as king, wearing any of those, either. The odd part, or perhaps not so odd, everything considered, is that Charles' dignity--given the relatively low degree of esteem with which a good many Britons regard him--wouldn't easily bear or recover from his being seen with a Burger King crown on his head.

Elizabeth II took her dignity as a member of royalty very seriously. I don't think she necessarily felt a particularly inflated sense of herself as a human being--that is, I don't think she lived under any illusions that she was, in her essence, any different from what all other human beings are by birth-- with their particular strengths, weaknesses, triumphs and failings as people. Her feelings could be hurt and she knew it; she could be wrong--and she had to know that even if she admitted it far less often than was warranted. Charles, over the course of his life, gained a reputation-- deserved, I think-- for having nothing like the dignity which Elizabeth II presented without straining herself to do it--because, I suppose, it was evidently sincerely felt by her.

Still, I see very little to envy Charles for in his having had the parents he had--both Elizabeth and Philip together or or either of them individually; and still less would I ever envy either William's or Harry's having had Charles for a father.

I expect Charles neither can nor shall do anything significant to raise the royal family in the esteem of those Britons who are not already avid fans of royalty. Camilla can't help in that, either.

... I'm also surprised Camilla received a crown. I thought it would only be Charles."

Camilla (Rosemary Shand) had a crown at least since the time she was Duchess of Cornwall -- 9th of April, 2005; that mess of a person, Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, succeeds Camilla as the Duchess of Cornwall.



(P.S. What do I do to adjust (shrink) this photo size down to something much smaller? I recall there's a function which I thought was something like "W=n, H=n" .)

>17 aspirit: Yes, linguistic innovation is certainly not evidence of stagnation.
If anything this suggests to me that some people on the internet write more than they read. This is fun to tut about, I suppose, but not really such a big deal as our more elitist friends would make it out to be.