King Charles III Coronation

[najaB]

I really don't care if the royals splash out on big ceremonies, but I'd far rather they dipped into their own pockets to fund it. It's not as if they cannot afford £100m out of their own coffers, is it?

That's rather the point though - it isn't "the Royals" that are splashing out on a ceremony, it's the country. By which I mean, he became King the moment that his mother died and doesn't need to have a coronation.

This is the official investiture of our Head of State, we would likely have some kind of ceremony for a President (cf. the inauguration of the President of the United States).

The advantage of a monarchy is that we only do it once every few decades, rather than every four years.

 

[GusB]

That's rather the point though - it isn't "the Royals" that are splashing out on a ceremony, it's the country. By which I mean, he became King the moment that his mother died and doesn't need to have a coronation.

This is the official investiture of our Head of State, we would likely have some kind of ceremony for a President (cf. the inauguration of the President of the United States).

The advantage of a monarchy is that we only do it once every few decades, rather than every four years.

It's still a tremendous waste of money. Why not just have a small party with tea and cakes? Isn't that the British Way, after all?

 

[Cross City]

Worth noting that the inauguration of a president of the United States can cost around $100 million, which is comparable to the quoted cost of £100 million for the coronation of King Charles III.

As both are state occasions, the cost is picked up by the respective governments, and because a presidential inauguration happens every 4 years, the overall cost to US taxpayers is greater.

Given that the population of the UK is just over 67 million, the cost of this coronation (the first for 70 years) is just under £1.50 per person, and it could be 10 years or more before there is another one.

So the overall cost of the coronation per is peanuts in terms of overall government spending, despite what all the moaning minnies in The Grauniad think.

Doesn't matter what it costs or what the inaguration of a president costs. Until I can directly influence who the country chooses to become the Head of State I will resent every single of my pennies which is being spent on them and not staying in my own pocket.

People can't heat their homes or afford food but we can collectively afford to parade a billionaire around in a golden carriage full of stolen jewels. It's completely abhorrent.

 

[nanstallon]

People go on about who might be elected as head of state, if we became a republic. Most countries in the world are republics, and with a few exceptions choose a perfectly reasonable head of state. Don't you trust the British people to choose their own head of state?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

People go on about who might be elected as head of state, if we became a republic. Most countries in the world are republics, and with a few exceptions choose a perfectly reasonable head of state. Don't you trust the British people to choose their own head of state?

I absolutely do not trust the British people to choose their own head of state!

 

[birchesgreen]

Don't you trust the British people to choose their own head of state?

British sense of humour is the best in the world.

 

[Mag_seven]

Don't you trust the British people to choose their own head of state?

Well we trusted them in 2016 not to choose the worst option and look what they did.

 

[317 forever]

What is odd about the Bank Holiday 2 days after the Coronation is that some employees such as in banks libraries and even some bus drivers will get te Bank Holiday Monday off but not the Coronation Day itself.

I guess Royalists will have booked the day off or requested it off within their shift rota. As someone requested a shift swap giving him the day off instead of the Bank Holiday today, I agreed the swap. I like working a majority of Saturdays but prefer most Bank Holidays off.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==

Germany isn’t a “more advanced” country than Britain, what nonsense. Miserable post redolent of the necrotic state of British republicanism.

It is more advanced if the rail service is anything to go by.

 

[londonbridge]

I had respect for the late Queen, but have little respect for Charles. That said I will be watching with sone interest for the simple reason that, along with everyone else under the age of 69, a coronation is something I’ve never seen.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is more advanced if the rail service is anything to go by.

It isn’t if you know anything about Germany other than its railways.

 

[D6130]

It isn’t if you know anything about Germany other than its railways.

....and its railways are not that great any more either. The amount of delays these days is phenomenal compared to my first visits in the early 1980s, when the efficiency and punctuality of DB ran the Swiss system a close second.

 

[brad465]

It isn’t if you know anything about Germany other than its railways.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows the size of one's economy isn't everything.

 

[nw1]

It isn’t if you know anything about Germany other than its railways.

I've visited Germany a few times but not enough to know the disadvantages in any great depth.

Superficially, it appears also to have somewhat more liberal politics and a stronger economy, more home-grown industry, as well as slightly more openness about public access to countryside (which I realise can be considered either good or bad depending on your POV), and places more value on technical skills. I may be wrong though; I haven't spent any time there beyond 2-week holidays on a number of occasions.

Out of interest what are its key disadvantages? Just guessing: excessive bureaucracy?

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's rather the point though - it isn't "the Royals" that are splashing out on a ceremony, it's the country. By which I mean, he became King the moment that his mother died and doesn't need to have a coronation.

This is the official investiture of our Head of State, we would likely have some kind of ceremony for a President (cf. the inauguration of the President of the United States).

The advantage of a monarchy is that we only do it once every few decades, rather than every four years.

Surely the point the person you replied to was making still stands though? Why does it have to come out of public money? The royal family are more than rich enough to pay for it themselves.

To me (granted someone is pretty strongly anti monarchy) it just comes across as as a massive kick in the face to the rest of us who have to deal with the price of everything going up much much quicker than wages have and us having to deal with governments cutting funding to a huge variety of things, whilst at the same time splurging over 100 million quid on something the King can easily pay for out of change he can find behind the sofa.

Whilst we do spend money, the tourism generated by the king offsets the money we spend. How much money will, Tesco, for example, generate by selling coronation themed bags and things? Millions? Memorabilia alone may offset the coast of the coronation.

That still doesn't answer why the King can't pay for it himself though.

 

[birchesgreen]

Surely the point the person you replied to was making still stands though? Why does it have to come out of public money? The royal family are more than rich enough to pay for it themselves.

Public ceremony for a public role comes out of the public purse. Seems pretty normal to me.

Doesn't anyone know if the King actually wants all the ceremony anyway?

 

[Pete_uk]

There will no doubt be a big surge in tourism from abroad after all this which will help the economy.

I expect the tills are ringing already in London.

 

[philosopher]

I had respect for the late Queen, but have little respect for Charles. That said I will be watching with sone interest for the simple reason that, along with everyone else under the age of 69, a coronation is something I’ve never seen.

I will be watching, but only out of curiosity.

I do suspect this will be last coronation of a British monarch as I reckon future monarchs will dispense with the tradition all together and perhaps replace with something far simpler more akin to an inauguration.

 

[Bevan Price]

People go on about who might be elected as head of state, if we became a republic. Most countries in the world are republics, and with a few exceptions choose a perfectly reasonable head of state. Don't you trust the British people to choose their own head of state?

No. Just as Russia chose Putin, Germany chose Hitler, Italy chose Mussolini, in the 1930s, UK might have chosen Oswald Mosley, who I gather was a rather nasty fascist who would have probably "cooperated" with Hitler.

 

[londonbridge]

I will be watching, but only out of curiosity.

I do suspect this will be last coronation of a British monarch as I reckon future monarchs will dispense with the tradition all together and perhaps replace with something far simpler more akin to an inauguration.

Charles’s reign obviously isn’t going to be that long, I’d be highly surprised if he reached his silver jubilee (though I myself may very well be gone by then if he did get there), so there will be another new monarch sooner rather than later, do you think William would not want to be crowned?

 

[najaB]

Surely the point the person you replied to was making still stands though? Why does it have to come out of public money?

Because it's a State event, not a private function for the Royal Family.

 

[Cross City]

There will no doubt be a big surge in tourism from abroad after all this which will help the economy.

I expect the tills are ringing already in London.

France is the most visited country in the world and their former royal sites bring in roughly 10-15x more visitors than ours do. They haven't had a king in 230 years.

The monarchy is irrelevant to tourist numbers and spending.

 

[adc82140]

France is the most visited country in the world and their former royal sites bring in roughly 10-15x more visitors than ours do. They haven't had a king in 230 years.

The monarchy is irrelevant to tourist numbers and spending.

Really? Can you point me towards a source for that? 10 to 15 times the combined Visitor numbers for Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court, Osborne House, Sandringham, Holyrood house sounds a lot.

 

[Gloster]

Really? Can you point me towards a source for that? 10 to 15 times the combined Visitor numbers for Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court, Osborne House, Sandringham, Holyrood house sounds a lot.

But would the numbers decline much if there was no monarchy? Most people are coming for the associations and would continue to come. You might lose a few id**ts who think that they will see and be able to touch the monarch (*), but not that many.

*- Something that would get them face down on the tarmac with a couple of burly Special Protection Unit officers on top of them

 

[87electric]

France is the most visited country in the world and their former royal sites bring in roughly 10-15x more visitors than ours do. They haven't had a king in 230 years.

The monarchy is irrelevant to tourist numbers and spending.

Completely agree. This myth of tourism linked to the monarchy is minimal. A myth. People will spend money on holiday and generate business anyway. Tourist tat made in another country to sell here? Very homegrown and British.

 

[adc82140]

But, as I asked earlier, what's the alternative? I'm no fervent royalist, I tend to be ambivalent about the whole thing. But President Boris Johnson? No thanks!

 

[Ashley Hill]

Had Princess Diana not separated from Charles and subsequently die in an accident would Charles have been more popular? King Charles and Queen Diana I feel would have captured the world’s heart and respect in a far bigger way than Camilla ever will.

 

[43096]

Had Princess Diana not separated from Charles and subsequently die in an accident would Charles have been more popular? King Charles and Queen Diana I feel would have captured the world’s heart and respect in a far bigger way than Camilla ever will.

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.

 

[Cross City]

But, as I asked earlier, what's the alternative? I'm no fervent royalist, I tend to be ambivalent about the whole thing. But President Boris Johnson? No thanks!

Somebody we vote for...

Give me a President Boris (please don't, but you get my point) over an unelected theocrat. At least they can be held accountable and kicked out if their popularity wavers.

I'd like to see a largely ceremonial and fairly apolitical HoS, where the Commons still holds nearly all of the power. So long as they're elected I don't care. Even somebody like Prince William could stand and I dare say he'd poll quite favourably.

 

[gswindale]

Somebody we vote for...

Give me a President Boris (please don't, but you get my point) over an unelected theocrat. At least they can be held accountable and kicked out if their popularity wavers.

I'd like to see a largely ceremonial and fairly apolitical HoS, where the Commons still holds nearly all of the power. So long as they're elected I don't care. Even somebody like Prince William could stand and I dare say he'd poll quite favourably.

Well that's what Charles is surely? The role these days is pretty much ceremonial and should also be out of politics - I know he has made his feelings clear on certain things in the past, but did he not also state that he knew that he wouldn't be able to be quite so outspoken once he become Monarch?

I'm not sure what would be better - an elected president who only lasts 4/5 years and then we go through the whole palava again with the costs involved on a relatively regular basis (I saw upthread that the US Presidential inauguration costs similar to the coronation here), so surely a non-political monarch who may go on for 20+ years is better value for money than going through 4 or 5 Presidents?

Thankfully we'll be heading out of the country on Saturday so won't be subjected to the ridiculous TV coverage that this event will do doubt get.

 

[Cross City]

Really? Can you point me towards a source for that? 10 to 15 times the combined Visitor numbers for Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court, Osborne House, Sandringham, Holyrood house sounds a lot.

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 ==

Well that's what Charles is surely?

No because he is not elected.

should also be out of politics

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.