King Charles III Coronation

[gswindale]

Versailles - 15 million per year

Buckingham Palace (no official tours so no income generated)
Hampton Court 1 million 2021, 4.5m 2019
Windsor - 1.5m
Osborne - 226k
Sandringham - 500k
Holyrood - 300k

One single French palace brings in a massive amount more tourists than all of our most famous royal sites combined. Add in Chambord and Fontainbleu (2m combined) it puts to be this myth that the royal family themselves are keeping British tourism afloat

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==



No because he is not elected.


Should be but he's not.

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

Unelected people should be nowhere near lawmaking.

I was more specifically responding to

I'd like to see a largely ceremonial and fairly apolitical HoS, where the Commons still holds nearly all of the power.

to which I do feel that Charles qualifies.

I would suggest that elected people should be nowhere near lawmaking given the debacle of the last 7+ years, but that's getting a little off-topic

Just out of interest, how apolitical are other countries Heads of State? I would suggest not very in a number of cases (USA, Canada, France, Russia to name a few) - Germany I think is more similar with the Chancellor being the main power holder with the President being more of a figure-head like our monarch.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would suggest not very in a number of cases (USA, Canada, France, Russia to name a few)

Canada's Head of State is His Majesty King Charles III.

 

[D6130]

Just out of interest, how apolitical are other countries Heads of State? I would suggest not very in a number of cases (USA, Canada, France, Russia to name a few) - Germany I think is more similar with the Chancellor being the main power holder with the President being more of a figure-head like our monarch.

That is the case with the presidents of Italy and the Irish Republic....although I believe that the former has slightly more constitutional powers than the latter.

 

[Senex]

Versailles - 15 million per year

Buckingham Palace (no official tours so no income generated)
Hampton Court 1 million 2021, 4.5m 2019
Windsor - 1.5m
Osborne - 226k
Sandringham - 500k
Holyrood - 300k

One single French palace brings in a massive amount more tourists than all of our most famous royal sites combined. Add in Chambord and Fontainbleu (2m combined) it puts to be this myth that the royal family themselves are keeping British tourism afloat

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==



No because he is not elected.


Should be but he's not.

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

Unelected people should be nowhere near lawmaking.

And add in the Louvre — that's a historic royal palace, and it must pull in a fair number of visitors as the home of one of the world's greatest museums and galleries.

 

[najaB]

At least they can be held accountable and kicked out if their popularity wavers.

And therein lies the problem with democracy (and one of the few advantages of monarchy) - a monarch has the job whether they are popular or not. They don't have to do anything to convince people to give them the job and they won't get kicked out over a small period of unpopularity.

Look at the number of times that countries have elected populist leaders who turned out to be... less than ideal in the long run.

 

[Gloster]

I make no secret of the fact that I wish to see the abolition of the monarchy, but what worries me about Charles III is that he will bring about a constitutional crisis. This result could be hurried and ill-thought out changes which end up being the worst of both worlds. I want to see a slow change with all the new arrangements being fully thought through. Other countries have managed to have successful presidencies: we should observe them and consider matters thoroughly before bringing in the changes, which should then be difficult to alter.

 

[adc82140]

If we did have a presidency, I'd want it to have absolutely no executive power. Just a figurehead, someone suitable to walk up the red carpet on state visits and not make any gaffes. A bit like the monarchy really, just cut price.

 

[PTR 444]

On the topic of the Bank Holiday this weekend, are there any organisations/businesses that plan to operate as normal on the Monday?

I do think it was short sighted that the extra bank holiday didn’t coincide with the day of the coronation, since many workers will be getting the Monday off but not the actual day of the coronation which would be more appropriate for this occasion. Conversely, a private school I know well is having an additional exeat this weekend but returning to normal teaching on Monday. Is this the first time an educational establishment has run normal lessons on a bank holiday?

 

[deltic]

If we did have a presidency, I'd want it to have absolutely no executive power. Just a figurehead, someone suitable to walk up the red carpet on state visits and not make any gaffes. A bit like the monarchy really, just cut price.

Do you think it would be cheaper? A presidential election would probably cost as much as a general election which is in excess of £100m to run. The royal palaces would still be the responsibility of the state to maintain and they are the biggest cost. Travel, security, and entertaining will all be the same as now.

 

[Gloster]

On the topic of the Bank Holiday this weekend, are there any organisations/businesses that plan to operate as normal on the Monday?

I do think it was short sighted that the extra bank holiday didn’t coincide with the day of the coronation, since many workers will be getting the Monday off but not the actual day of the coronation which would be more appropriate for this occasion. Conversely, a private school I know well is having an additional exeat this weekend but returning to normal teaching on Monday. Is this the first time an educational establishment has run normal lessons on a bank holiday?

No. In the 1970s my public school ignored the Spring Bank Holiday when they couldn’t fit it in with speech day. If I remember, they also ignored May Day in 1978.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is the case with the presidents of Italy and the Irish Republic....although I believe that the former has slightly more constitutional powers than the latter.

The Irish Republic isn’t a country and hasn’t been for over a hundred years. It’s the Republic of Ireland, or just Ireland today.

If we did have a presidency, I'd want it to have absolutely no executive power. Just a figurehead, someone suitable to walk up the red carpet on state visits and not make any gaffes. A bit like the monarchy really, just cut price.

It probably wouldn’t be any cheaper although it would definitely look and feel cheap.

 

[Ashley Hill]

So Camilla’s “crime” is to not be Diana. People really need to get over themselves about something that happened over a quarter of a century ago. It’s also worth noting that Diana was no saint herself.

I’m completely indifferent to either of them. The point I’m making is that Diana was popularly known as the “People’s Princess”. There has been a lot of negativity about Charles and the divorcee Camilla,it just makes me wonder if Diana had become his queen would the people’s feelings be different towards him?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is this the first time an educational establishment has run normal lessons on a bank holiday?

I went to a reasonably well known independent school and every April without fail we’d be given a letter to take home to our parents ahead of May Day saying - and I vividly remember the exact wording - “parents are reminded that the school does not observe this holiday”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

Diana was popularly known as the “People’s Princess”

Only after she died

 

[birchesgreen]

Diana's popularity would have probably dropped when her looks faded.

 

[Cross City]

It probably wouldn’t be any cheaper although it would definitely look and feel cheap.

Yeah it's much better to parade a god-appointed billionaire parasite around in a golden carriage full of stolen jewels.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2023 ==

a monarch has the job whether they are popular or not. They don't have to do anything to convince people to give them the job and they won't get kicked out over a small period of unpopularity.

This is not an advantage.

 

[Parjon]

Yeah it's much better to parade a god-appointed billionaire parasite around in a golden carriage full of stolen jewels.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2023 ==


This is not an advantage.

I don't believe in God so I think he was appointed by accident of birth, and I don't think he's quite a billionaire.

I think what Naja has said is very much an advantage. Those that crave executive power will seek it, and are never ideal for it. Worse still they have the power to rewrite the rules, which we are seeing all the more these days. Democracies once held up as shining beacons of hope have become weak vectors of attack for totalitarian funders, with violence and war becoming more and more likely.

Executive power in the hands of those unable to exercise it sounds ideal to me.

Don't know this king Charles guy, no interest in doing so. As an anti-Trump/Blair device I reckon he's a bargain.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Thank goodness I'll be at the Football on Saturday afternoon and that the TV blackout does not apply, which means at least there's an alternative for a few people Cheer for City or Leeds and ignore the whole charade.

 

[Howardh]

If we did have a presidency, I'd want it to have absolutely no executive power. Just a figurehead, someone suitable to walk up the red carpet on state visits and not make any gaffes. A bit like the monarchy really, just cut price.

We could vote for President, and it would be interesting to see whom would be on the ballot box to represent the UK. Joanna Lumley, Graham Norton? But no-one who has any political background or known leanings!
But please, please not David Beckham. I'd emigrate.

 

[nw1]

We could vote for President, and it would be interesting to see whom would be on the ballot box to represent the UK. Joanna Lumley, Graham Norton? But no-one who has any political background or known leanings!
But please, please not David Beckham. I'd emigrate.

Me, I'd like Johnny Rotten to be our president. Or Richard Fairbrass. Or Roger Daltrey.



Seriously, I am completely neutral on the whole monarchy-versus-republic thing. Don't really care which we have, as long as we don't have a President with too much power (think UK Trump).

While I am not a monarchist and don't go in for adulation of the royals, King Charles doesn't annoy me, because he isn't trying to (badly) dictate our lives and lifestyle. People like Johnson, Truss and Sunak annoy me infinitely more than any member of the royal family.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The Irish Republic isn’t a country and hasn’t been for over a hundred years. It’s the Republic of Ireland, or just Ireland today.

Interestingly, the BBC Style Guide still accepts the use of the Irish Republic. They also specifically refer to the Irish President rather than the President of Ireland for some reason.

I have no idea why, especially when the "Republic of Ireland" is perfectly allowed to describe the State.

 

[J-2739]

Thank goodness I'll be at the Football on Saturday afternoon and that the TV blackout does not apply, which means at least there's an alternative for a few people Cheer for City or Leeds and ignore the whole charade.

I've identified the problem.

 

[Gloster]

Interestingly, the BBC Style Guide still accepts the use of the Irish Republic. They also specifically refer to the Irish President rather than the President of Ireland for some reason.

I have no idea why, especially when the "Republic of Ireland" is perfectly allowed to describe the State.

It may be one of those narrow bits of interpretation, but Ireland is an area where words can have an awful (the word is chosen deliberately) significance. Ireland could be interpreted as referring to the whole geographic island, part of which is not a republic and does not have a president. The Irish Republic could be interpreted as that part of the island of Ireland that is a republic (but not the part that isn’t a republic). The same applies to the Irish President: the President of that part of Ireland that has a president, but not of that part that doesn’t. However, if the country decides to call itself Republic of Ireland, that in normal usage becomes the official name when the official name is appropriate.

(I think I will now lie down.)

 

[najaB]

Interestingly, the BBC Style Guide still accepts the use of the Irish Republic. They also specifically refer to the Irish President rather than the President of Ireland for some reason.

I think that they accept "the Irish Republic" when used as an adjective but not as a proper noun.

 

[nw1]

I went to a reasonably well known independent school and every April without fail we’d be given a letter to take home to our parents ahead of May Day saying - and I vividly remember the exact wording - “parents are reminded that the school does not observe this holiday”

Really not good. Right-wing political dogma and indoctrination laid bare-face for all to see. And the right-wing press are always complaining about lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids...

And that's before we even consider the often extremely limited public transport opportunities early on Sunday mornings (May Day having a Sunday timetable in my schooldays). As it happens, looking at the timetable current for the May Day of my first year at secondary school, there was a train that early, but it would have meant arriving at school an hour before the school day started. I suspect some places would have had no train at all. Thus, it really is grossly irresponsible to pretend that May Day isn't a holiday, and drag people into school.

I also went to an independent school but there was no such dogma there, thankfully. We always had May Day off.

 

[Cross City]

Executive power in the hands of those unable to exercise it sounds ideal to me.

I think what Naja has said is very much an advantage.

So we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us and we should just accept that we have these unelected people in charge just because, and we need to sit there and take it like good children.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I've identified the problem.

City, Leeds or the King... tough choice for some. Maybe boo them all?

 

[deltic]

So we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us and we should just accept that we have these unelected people in charge just because, and we need to sit there and take it like good children.

they are not in charge of anything

 

[Cross City]

they are not in charge of anything

Apart from the government and the armed forces no.

 

[AlterEgo]

So we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us and we should just accept that we have these unelected people in charge just because, and we need to sit there and take it like good children.

If you ever need to know why English republicanism doesn’t make many inroads it’s because it too often sets its stall out negatively and passively. You’re not too stupid to know what’s good for you but you might be too miserable to take anyone else along with you.

Apart from the government and the armed forces no.

The monarchy isn’t in charge of either, but rather both act in their name vice the people. In the same way, in a republic the president is the guarantor of both armed forces and democratic government but in lieu of the people.

 

[Parjon]

So we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us and we should just accept that we have these unelected people in charge just because, and we need to sit there and take it like good children.

I'm not no. But there are more of you than there are of me.