King Charles III Coronation

[102 fan]

There better be a bank hoilday. I want something back for having to pay for all this!

Do you mean the Police overtime? I'm sure the Armed Forces are already paid for, and the Abbey doesn't have to be opened especially or the Archbishop paid any extra.

 

[DarloRich]

Do you mean the Police overtime? I'm sure the Armed Forces are already paid for, and the Abbey doesn't have to be opened especially or the Archbishop paid any extra.

No issue with the king but would prefer if he paid his own way out of his own vast resource. Normal working people should not have to subsidise them.

 

[102 fan]

No issue with the king but would prefer if he paid his own way out of his own vast resource. Normal working people should not have to subsidise them.

Ok, if we're talking subsidies, why shoud the railways get subsidies? The coronation will bring many more people into the capital, which will increase the hospitality income, so why is it ok to subsidise one but not the other?

Even if we did away with a Monarchy, and brought in a President, it would simply mean that anything Royal at the moment will become Presidental. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would become the Presidental Palace and Castle, the Royal cars would become the Presidental cars, and the security would be exactly the same. Add staff for residences and that would be the same. And if it's money that concerns you, the 2017 general election cost £140 million pounds, so a Presidental election every 5 or so years would soon add up.

 

[SargeNpton]

No issue with the king but would prefer if he paid his own way out of his own vast resource. Normal working people should not have to subsidise them.

The income from the Crown Estates is ceded to the government - which (in some years past at least) covers the direct expense of maintaining the monarchy.

 

[duncanp]

Ok, if we're talking subsidies, why shoud the railways get subsidies? The coronation will bring many more people into the capital, which will increase the hospitality income, so why is it ok to subsidise one but not the other?

Even if we did away with a Monarchy, and brought in a President, it would simply mean that anything Royal at the moment will become Presidental. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would become the Presidental Palace and Castle, the Royal cars would become the Presidental cars, and the security would be exactly the same. Add staff for residences and that would be the same. And if it's money that concerns you, the 2017 general election cost £140 million pounds, so a Presidental election every 5 or so years would soon add up.

Exactly.

I do wonder what the cost of maintaining the United States presidency is, for example.

King Charles is rumoured to have plans to put many of the royal palaces on a more commercial footing by, for example, opening up Balmoral to the public for longer periods of the year, or turning it into a musuem dedicated to the life and service of the late Queen Elizabeth.

 

[najaB]

I do wonder what the cost of maintaining the United States presidency is, for example.

It is massive, though a lot of the expense is 'hidden' in budgets of other departments. For example, the VC-25s are Air Force assets so they aren't costed separately, and the Secret Service is part of the Department of the Treasury, and they do perform other functions other than just Presidential protection.

But consider just the aircraft costs involved in a typical overseas visit: one VC-25 at $150K/hr, two C-17s at $20K/hr, two SH-3s at $5K/hr and a C-32 at $30K/hr.

 

[DarloRich]

I was actually being slight factious ( and i maintain that i have no problem with the Royal Family beyond having to pay for them) but I am going to have a proper rant now!

Ok, if we're talking subsidies, why shoud the railways get subsidies? The coronation will bring many more people into the capital, which will increase the hospitality income, so why is it ok to subsidise one but not the other?

I like trains. They are useful to my life and to the lives of real people. The Royal family are not. They do nothing for me. You will suggest that the Royal family costs me £2.73 a year or something. I don't care. It is money I want in my pocket not theirs. I have bills to pay and those bills are going through the roof. I don't want to pay their bills thank you. If you want to contribute then you should be able to. I want to withdraw.

The Queen is dead and gone. It is time to talk about why we have a royal family and why we have to pay for it.

Even if we did away with a Monarchy, and brought in a President, it would simply mean that anything Royal at the moment will become Presidental. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would become the Presidental Palace and Castle, the Royal cars would become the Presidental cars, and the security would be exactly the same. Add staff for residences and that would be the same. And if it's money that concerns you, the 2017 general election cost £140 million pounds, so a Presidental election every 5 or so years would soon add up.

You assume that a modern head of state would require the same level of nonsense surrounding them. It could be vastly slimmed down. No palaces, no helicopters, no trains, no planes. An entirely symbolic head of state requires much lower levels of security, transport and accommodation. How much does the, say, Irish president cost? How many bodyguards do they need? How many cars? I bet very few.

I do wonder what the cost of maintaining the United States presidency is, for example.

You are not comparing like with like. The power sits with the PM not the head of state.

King Charles is rumoured to have plans to put many of the royal palaces on a more commercial footing by, for example, opening up Balmoral to the public for longer periods of the year, or turning it into a musuem dedicated to the life and service of the late Queen Elizabeth.

How many palaces does one bloke need? Could he not sell a couple and live on the proceeds?

But consider just the aircraft costs involved in a typical overseas visit: one VC-25 at $150K/hr, two C-17s at $20K/hr, two SH-3s at $5K/hr and a C-32 at $30K/hr.

I don't think you are comparing like with like. Why would our head of state require that level of support? Does, say, the Irish President or German President need all of that to travel somewhere?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2022 ==

The income from the Crown Estates is ceded to the government - which (in some years past at least) covers the direct expense of maintaining the monarchy.

Some of the expense of the crown but not all. Personally I think that all of that money should go to helping real people in this country. It should be the contribution the crown make to the nation for allowing them to have an easy life.

 

[najaB]

I don't think you are comparing like with like. Why would our head of state require that level of support? Does, say, the Irish President or German President need all of that to travel somewhere?

Just answering the question that was asked.

 

[david1212]

The 6th May 2023 is a Saturday, so either there won't need to be a Bank Holiday, or they'll just move the May day BH from the 1st to the 5th or 8th.

Probably the most likely outcome is that there won't be an extra bank holiday, just that the holiday on Monday 1st May will be moved to Friday 5th May or Monday 8th May.

Thinking more given the Coronation does not have to fit in with a fixed historic date e.g. back to 2020 VE Day rather than this simply set the date for the Coronation as 29th April. Hence I think 6th May was chosen so 29th April - 1st May weekend would be not be affected.

 

[DarloRich]

Just answering the question that was asked.

I would be interested in your view though.

 

[43096]

The Queen is dead and gone. It is time to talk about why we have a royal family and why we have to pay for it.

You assume that a modern head of state would require the same level of nonsense surrounding them. It could be vastly slimmed down. No palaces, no helicopters, no trains, no planes. An entirely symbolic head of state requires much lower levels of security, transport and accommodation. How much does the, say, Irish president cost? How many bodyguards do they need? How many cars? I bet very few.

So what would you rather have instead? A President? I would say the last thing we need is another post with some elected to it every 4 or 5 years. Given that we can't find a competent Prime Minister from anywhere in Westminster, why do you think having a President would work? It would just be another role for some political done who's sole aim would be to get re-elected. We can do without that, thank you.

In contrast, one place we do have stability is the head of state. Obviously, the Queen did an exceptionally long time, but generally they don't change every 4 or 5 years. When it does come to change, we generally "know" the next monarch - after the Queen died, Charles was already a familiar figure. And with surety about the next person for the job, the heir can be properly prepared and be ready for when that day comes.

 

[HullRailMan]

With the cost of travel for presidents and heads of state, I think there is both a practical security angle and an element of ‘soft power’ attached to it. The US President, for example, is a prime target for terrorists. Air Force One and the attached entourage is as much about theatre and demonstrating the strength of the US as it is security.
It’s difficult to compare the presidents of Ireland and Germany with the UK and US heads of state. Most people could sit next to them on a bus and be non the wiser. By comparison, the Queen was probably the most recognisable woman on earth.
As an aside, the German government has an expensive fleet of jets (including widebodies) for VIP use. It’s not been unknown for the Queen to have travelled abroad on commercial flights, all be it using the full first class section.
I guess my overriding point is that there are costs associated with any head of state, and the image of the country is a key factor and seen as an investment. A UK President may cost marginally less then a monarch, but is unlikely to generate the prestige or profile globally.

 

[najaB]

I would be interested in your view though.

As @Chew-chew says, the VC-25s, etc. are as much about projecting an image of American strength as they are about security. That said, the fact that the POTUS is also the Commander in Chief of the military in addition to the head of government drives a lot of the requirements as well. If the monarch, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were to travel together then we probably would need to invest in a comparable level of security.

 

[DarloRich]

So what would you rather have instead? A President?

Maybe, but I would suggest a president of the type seen in Germany or Ireland rather than the USA. That does not require anything like the cost of the royal family mainly because we aren't paying for all of the presidents family to have a massive house and an army of flunkies. Like I said, I don't really mind having an hereditary monarch as head of state. I just don't want to pay for them.

CLEARLY I would have to pay for a president or other head of state. I simply think that would be vastly cheaper than paying for the royal family.

why do you think having a President would work?

Why wouldn't it work? All they have to do is sign legislation, go on junkets, meet ambassadors, shake a few hands and eat canapes! it ain't rocket science.

EDIT: The location of the powers of the Commander in Chief would require some thought but then what does that really consist of? it isn't the monarch or head of state deciding to have a war is it? That sits with the elected government.

In contrast, one place we do have stability is the head of state. Obviously, the Queen did an exceptionally long time, but generally they don't change every 4 or 5 years. When it does come to change, we generally "know" the next monarch - after the Queen died, Charles was already a familiar figure. And with surety about the next person for the job, the heir can be properly prepared and be ready for when that day comes.

But why shouldn't I have a vote on who is head of state? Why should some guy born into the right family get the gig? It isn't 1247 anymore!

It’s difficult to compare the presidents of Ireland and Germany with the UK and US heads of state.

Why? their roles are almost identical although our head of state lacks the real power of veto that most presidents have. The real power sits with the PM, as it does today.

 

[najaB]

I simply think that would be vastly cheaper than paying for the royal family.

It probably wouldn't. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall put more money into the Treasury than the government pays back out as the Sovereign Grant.

 

[Senex]

I like trains. They are useful to my life and to the lives of real people. The Royal family are not. They do nothing for me. You will suggest that the Royal family costs me £2.73 a year or something. I don't care. It is money I want in my pocket not theirs. I have bills to pay and those bills are going through the roof. I don't want to pay their bills thank you. If you want to contribute then you should be able to. I want to withdraw.

The Queen is dead and gone. It is time to talk about why we have a royal family and why we have to pay for it.

I know it's not advancing the debate, but I'd nevertheless just like to say "Hear, hear" to that — I'd wholeheartedly agree with every sentence.

 

[duncanp]

I know it's not advancing the debate, but I'd nevertheless just like to say "Hear, hear" to that — I'd wholeheartedly agree with every sentence.

But how much would the cost of maintaining a presidency be compared to the cost of maintaining a monarchy?

The difference in the cost (per person per year) between a monarchy and a republic (if there is a difference at all) is hardly likely to have a significant effect on people's lives.

Does anyone know, for example, what the cost of maintaining the presidency of the Irish Republic is, in terms of Euros per person per year?

In any case, King Charles is looking to slim down the size of the monarchy and to generate more revenue from the existing royal palaces, thus reducing the net cost of the monarchy to the public.

 

[birchesgreen]

I was thinking t'other day. There is a reasonably good chance that in 2066 we will have a King William on the throne, which would be very neat history wise.

 

[Magdalia]

Probably the most likely outcome is that there won't be an extra bank holiday, just that the holiday on Monday 1st May will be moved to Friday 5th May or Monday 8th May.

There's a problem with a 5 May Bank Holiday because of counting of results of local elections being held the previous day.

 

[duncanp]

There's a problem with a 5 May Bank Holiday because of counting of results of local elections being held the previous day.

So Monday 8th May seems to be the most likely day then.

 

[nw1]

The 6th May 2023 is a Saturday, so either there won't need to be a Bank Holiday, or they'll just move the May day BH from the 1st to the 5th or 8th.

I'd create a Bank Holiday for the coronation on the 8th and keep the 1st too.

Remember the 1st is May Day, so removing it could have negative anti-left connotations. Plus, there really needs to be an extra holiday - not just moving an existing one. They did that for the recent Jubilees, after all.

Means 3 of May's 5 Mondays are Bank Holidays, but hey, it's May, the weather will be relatively nice and the flowers will be out. April and May are arguably the nicest months in the UK.

 

[Gloster]

Remember the 1st is May Day, so removing it could have negative anti-left connotations.

Which would be a bonus for the current government, even if May Day is less of a political festival in this country compared to some others.

 

[nw1]

Which would be a bonus for the current government, even if May Day is less of a political festival in this country compared to some others.

Wouldn't make them look good though.

 

[Gloster]

Wouldn't make them look good though.

Compared to how they are looking now, it would hardly be noticeable.

 

[Graham H]

There better be a bank hoilday. I want something back for having to pay for all this!

Lucky you. Not everyone has a 9 - 5, five day salaried working week any more where a BH is a day off with pay. A lot of us working in retail/hospitality/shifts/self employed do not get BH paid. We either have to take a days holiday or just suck it up and lose pay.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2022 ==

Although we have the advantage that a bank holiday is a day off. In some countries the holidays fall on a specific date and if that date is a Sunday, that’s it: you don’t get Monday off instead.

Yes, I like the way we do it that a BH is always a Monday so every time its a long weekend (except Xmas day) . Other countries do have more but as you say, they have them on a specific date so if it falls on Sat/Sun you just dip out that year. Spain used to have local holidays too so if you lived in Town A but worked in Town B you would actually be entitled to both, wonder if that still happens

 

[najaB]

Spain used to have local holidays too so if you lived in Town A but worked in Town B you would actually be entitled to both, wonder if that still happens

Scotland still does. However you generally only get the one for where you work.

 

[DarloRich]

Lucky you. Not everyone has a 9 - 5, five day salaried working week any more where a BH is a day off with pay. A lot of us working in retail/hospitality/shifts/self employed do not get BH paid. We either have to take a days holiday or just suck it up and lose pay.

That's your choice, not mine. Change it if you aren't happy.

 

[Graham H]

That's your choice, not mine. Change it if you aren't happy.

Change what ??? Just pointing out that a Bank Holiday doesnt mean a paid day off for a significant number of people and for some means an actual loss.

 

[duncanp]

Change what ??? Just pointing out that a Bank Holiday doesnt mean a paid day off for a significant number of people and for some means an actual loss.

You can't please everyone.

Some people (both businesses and individuals) complain that Bank Holidays cost them money, and yet other people, such as those in the trade union movement, want us to have more bank holidays, as they do in other European countries.

 

[johnnychips]

In Spain there are some religious ‘bank holidays’ on unalterable days. If that happens to be a Thursday they get, without question, the Friday off as well as it is ‘un puente’ - a bridge - to the weekend.

Mediterranean countries might not be quite as rich as us, but they know how to live.