To not understand how the UK can afford to pay £250 million for the coronation?

[Kedfs]

When there are people reliant on food banks to survive and we are told that there is no money to pay for nurses and teachers pay rises?

Whatever your thoughts are on having a monarchy, having a coronation is unnecessary and was abandoned by other monarchies years ago. If he really wants one, can’t he pay for it himself, given that he has billions of pounds?

To borrow loosely from the Republic UK website:

The problems we face in the UK can mostly be traced back to our flawed political system, one that puts too much power in the hands of too few, where privilege and wealth is embedded at the heart of our public life.

And to quote them directly:

”The campaign for a republic is about democratic reform, democratic principles and ridding the country of an institution that serves itself and those in power - the few, not the many.

“Most people in the UK believe in democratic values and the importance of democracy in creating a prosperous and fair society. These principles and values matter. So our national institutions should reflect and celebrate those values, and live up to the highest standards of openness and accountability.”

I am not a member of any campaign for a republic btw, but I agree that the presence of a monarch prevents us from having a fully elected head of state who is accountable for every penny they spend and every action they take.

The monarchy is an institution that is, for a start, very secretive and obscure about finances.

And everyone talks about their soft power and agrees it is very useful in an international context, but surely we can all recognise that the soft power and influence they wield at home is much more problematic!

Imho we want a country in the 21st century which is a meritocracy with no room for hereditary titles and positions.

Parliamentary democracies with well respected Presidents like Germany, Ireland and Iceland, and some other EU countries, are by no means perfect but they work well and it’s a model we too could adopt successfully.

It’s not about revolution - it is about democratic accountability.

One last thought. I know this is about the institution and not the individuals involved. But it’s also about the amount of control us citizens or subjects have over who governs us. Imagine if, God forbid, Prince Charles hadn’t survived his polo accident and we were welcoming Prince Andrew to the throne on Saturday? How would you all feel then?

No, it's NOT the Royal Family who has the soft power. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has the soft power.

The Monarch is a part of the apparatus of the British State itself and a part of our soft power alongside other aspects of it, including the Union Jack, British TV, music and so on.

It is not undemocratic to have an unelected Head Of State either. Democracy means what the majority agrees with and on. As has been noted, there is no majority in the United Kingdom in favour of abolishing the Monarchy.

Or for having an elected Head Of State with recurrent elections we'd have to pay for.

There is no appetite in the UK for further constitutional change. This is the time for strengthening the foundations of the British State. Part of that is continuing to put the squeeze on constitutional Separatists since we defeated physical force Separatists twenty five years ago.

Constitutional Monarchies are some of the highest ranked countries in the world and the UK is one of them.

Oh dear. I am trying to keep this conversation polite Downnative there’s no need to be so disparaging. I am trying to answer in a civil manner and if you believe in free speech you should at least allow me that. I am as entitled to my viewpoint as you are to yours. Absolutely no need for comments such as “have you heard yourself”?

You can call it hysterical comment if you like but many more intellectual brains than mine are concerned about the state of our democracy currently.

Many people support:

• a written constitution which can only be changed by referendum
• giving power to MPs to set parliamentary timetable
• scrapping powers currently used by gov, including the Privy Council
• introducing a fully elected upper house
• electing an independent non-political head of state

I would have thought not being able to elect your own head of state is pretty high up there in terms of lack of democratic accountability.

With the current system of monarchy, we never examine how we really want things to run, we remain caught up in our feudal past, with politicians using the institution of the monarchy to avoid facing the full practices and procedures of a modern democracy.

And although the majority of the population currently support the monarchy (perhaps you would be so kind as to supply verified evidence and figures if you are asking me for them?) as I explained below in full, this situation is evolving, and will change over time, particularly if you take in to account the younger generation’s views on the institution. My daughters and their friends for example, can’t even name members of the RF, they are not remotely interested in them, and are far more focused on international affairs.

@DownNative

If a majority of the UK's 66 million people want the Monarchy to be consigned to history or have a referendum at least, they'll be able to make that known.

At present, not one mainstream political party has a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the Monarchy. Opinion polling still shows a majority in favour of keeping the Monarchy. Even the Scottish Separatists SNP said they'll keep the Monarch as Head Of State in any independent Scotland!

During the King's Proclamation, it was only a few crackpots who demonstrated anti-Monarchy views. The majority did not. Simply put, there are NO large scale protests at the continuation of the Monarchy.

And this:

"If they are so sure of our fidelity to the crown why don’t they allow us a say in the matter?"

Is putting the cart before the horse. Circular reasoning which is self-defeating. Since there's nothing to suggest most people want the Monarchy to be consigned to history, why would any UK Government want to hold a referendum?!

This is the same childish nonsense Scottish and Irish Separatists spout in relation to an IndyRef2 and border poll. Governments have no reason to grant a referendum from a position of strength which is derived from the people themselves.

Excellent post, and one of many excellent posts you have submitted. However, you may as well be talking to your garden fence, because the kind of people your posts are aimed at are sticking their fingers in their ears, and saying 'nah nah nah nah nah!' Because they don't want to hear ANY point of view but their own.

They cannot BEAR it when they don't get their own way. As I said earlier, they are like bratty toddlers throwing their toys out of their pram. One poster asked earlier, 'would you Anti Royalists all shut up if we had a referendum, and the answer was to KEEP the Royal Family?' Another poster responded and said 'even if we did get a referendum and it went in favour of keeping the Royal Family, no we WON'T shut up, because things don't work like that.'

What kind of wanky-arsed answer is THAT? 😆 So, even if you get irrefutable PROOF that the UK want to KEEP the Royal family, by way of a majority vote, you will still bang on and on like a broken record, and won't stop til you get your own way, and get the Monarchy abolished?!

And you claim to be reasonable, intelligent, open-minded, tolerant people who believe in a Democracy? THAT is not democratic, having a vote and pissing and moaning and protesting because it didn't go your way, and demanding another referendum, or that things go your way anyway, (even though the majority voted against it!)

The Anti-Royalist posters are the exact same ones who pissed and moaned when they lost the Brexit vote, AND when the Tories kept getting in. They are very loud and shouty on the internet, AND in real life sometimes. Just like the numpties who were protesting with their wanky #notmyking placards, and posting all over social media about how NO-ONE they know wants a Royal family. Well everyone I know DOES, or is ambivalent (isn't a Royalist, but doesn't mind if they stay.)

The shouty Anti-Royalists are much fewer than they think, as they would find out if they DID get the Referendum to get rid of the Royals. It would go the same way as the Brexit vote. They would LOSE, and would throw their dummy across the room, and throw themselves on the floor, holding their breath til their face goes blue, and start that toddler-sobbing whilst the tears pour down their iccle cheeks.

As you say, there IS no need for a referendum to get rid of the Royal Family, because there is no call for one, as the vast majority of the public either wants to keep them, or isn't bothered either way. For all the reasons listed in your posts, we MUST KEEP them.

And as I said, the shouty anti-Royalists, just like the Anti-Brexit and Anti-Tory posters think waaaay more people have THEIR opinion, because their type are always very loud and vocal. Whereas the Royalists and Brexit voters and people who voted Tory (who make up bigger numbers,) are much quieter. So this is why these shouty people, who rant negatively about the Royal Family and Brexit and the Tories, are always so shocked when things don't go THEIR way.

As someone said on Twitter...

The left-wing controls social media
The left wing controls TV
The left-wing controls the internet
The left-wing controls radio
The left-wing controls the film industry
The left wing controls the music industry
.....They do NOT control the ballot boxes

Nailed it 100% with that!

I understand posters saying that it's worldwide promotion of the UK as a holiday destination and that the tourism revenue we will receive over the weekend from visitors will far outweigh costs but we genuinely can't be sure of that can we? Particularly when it's in excess of 250m cost to taxpayers.

Charles is nowhere near as popular as Queen Elizabeth was, so you can't use her as a benchmark.

I think it's a terrible display of gluttonous wealth when families are relying on food banks and cannot pay their bills. More and more people in the UK are living in poverty. UK residents don't need a street party to cheer them up. They need financial relief.

I generally support the monarchy however this all seems in very bad taste.

I saw photos of the gold carriage he’ll be using in the papers today - it made my heart sink. I’m scrabbling around trying to make ends meet and he’s going to ponce to the abbey in that. It’s just gross.

FFS. Someone on Twitter said. Well, QED. Case closed, Your Honour.

Pub?

It's true though. Look at the general shock in the media and elsewhere when Brexit won. They couldn't believe it had happened, because it didn't reflect the constructed world they lived in.

If it's all about tourism, let's just buy the Loch Ness monster a £250 million tartan bunnet. Would make as much sense, unless somehow no one at all was going to visit the UK this summer unless we splashed out big style on the solid gold carriage.

Or that the markets didn't think it was in anyway sensible. But hey, this country's had enough of experts, and you know, causing such massive fucking upheaval on the basis of a paper-thin majority is perfectly fine because that's what the people voted for and anyone who disagrees with the will of the people should just go and live in North Korea or somewhere.

You either believe in Democracy, or you don't. Democracy means you can't always get what you want. Sometimes people vote for things you don't like. But it's better than the alternative which is Totalitarianism.

We are way overdue a proper overhaul of our "democracy". If our stupid system didn't keep allowing governments that most people didn't vote for to be in sole charge, we'd probably never have had the referendum.

Didn’t we have a referendum no changing the voting system?. It lost

So people didn’t want that either

We have a multi party system. There's never going to be a party that gets over 50% of the vote. The alternative is to have a system where people are forced to hold their noses and vote for the party they hate least in a runoff, like in France. Or a system where there are only 2 parties, like in the USA.

Without launching into a long rant, which no one wants, my problem with democracy is that it is held up as the sacred cow we must not question. The will of the people. It's not the process per se, it's the way we use it. Consider Brexit. A hugely divisive and difficult issue no one in Government really thought through (Exhibit A: Northern Ireland) got pushed through full steam ahead on the slenderest of margins. If it was such a great idea, one most people could get behind, there'd have set a threshold at the very outset, say, 75% in favour on an 80% turnout. Something like that. But no. Hence the shambles we have now. The bitterness, the recriminations, the lack of acceptance, the accusations of sour grapes and bad losers. Democracy is a fine tool, sadly the powers that be lack the smarts to use it with thought and care.

No, a majority is enough. It'd be ridiculous to have nearly three quarters of voters wanting things one way, and just over a quarter wanting things the other way, and the minority wins. If that had been required for us to join the EU in the first place, we'd never have joined.

The gold carriage is an antique carriage built in 1831 for William IV’s coronation, and has been used for every coronation since then. It wasn’t newly bought for King Charles.

So if 50% plus one votes in favour or something, we should all accept the result and proceed? Surely if there is no clear, significant majority it means there is something wrong with the proposal, or those putting it forward have not sufficiently addressed people's concerns. It should be about winning the argument, winning hearts and minds, not winning a vote by the skin of one's teeth.

Yes, because that's democracy. Majority rule. Otherwise where does it end?

50% +1 is democratic and so is a double majority.

I'd have to accept a 50% +1 vote for a united Ireland should one ever come to pass. Republicans definitely won't agree to a double majority.

But 50% +1 is democratic albeit on the lowest possible standard. In an ideal world, a double majority would be favoured by most.

So, you do have to accept that even if you don't like it. I do vis a vis a united Ireland and/or independent Scotland.

I don’t feel passionately either way about the monarchy. At the moment, I think the contribution they make to ‘Brand Britain’ is just about enough to justify keeping them. And that contribution includes the coronation and all the ridiculous pomp and ceremony that comes with it. I work just off Trafalgar Square and have no doubt that the increase in hospitality from the coronation will cover the cost, the place is absolutely buzzing at the moment with tourists both domestic and international.

They are really still in place through consent. If the majority of the UK population decides they don’t want a monarchy anymore (we are polled on this regularly), then one of the main political parties may well decide to campaign with a monarchy referendum as one of its pledges. If that happens and the public vote to abolish the monarchy, then they go. Charles knows it, William knows it. Public support is still there at the moment but is reducing. Think they need to modernise or face being erased.

So whilst at the moment I think they (just about) justify their existence, it’s tight. Charles would be well advised to have a good think about which family members still get funded by the tax payer and how his vast personal fortune looks to the general public.

Funny isn't it, how people are all for democracy, until 'democracy' means they don't get their own way! Then it's 'oh we need to REFORM it...' LMFAO. You can't just chop and change the rules to suit yourselves. Grow up FFS.

It's 2023 and the world is changing and we are evolving so maybe time this circus was abolished.

Not likely any time soon as constitutional Monarchies are amongst the most successful and stable democracies in the world today.....

50% plus one isn't a decision. It's the opposite. It's indecision. It's saying the population is absolutely divided. The country doesn't know. The people can't decide one way or the other. With very narrow margins you might as well flip a coin. You could have the same poll a week later, and everything could be exactly the same except a big shower of rain in Aberdeen around 2 o'clock affects turnout just enough to swing things ever so slightly, so you get a different result, but again with a margin that's tighter than a gnat's arse. What does any of it prove?

And where does it end? Who knows. More reasoned debate, maybe. Compromise, cooperation, a bit of give and take, politicians who work in the best interests of society as a whole. What do we have now? We're right, you're wrong. We're good, you're bad. We're the best, you're a bunch of twats. I can't hear you LALALALALA...

La La Land indeed.

My point is, if you're going to do BIG STUFF (Brexit, Indyrefs), you should only go forward is there is sufficient support in favour. You need the people saying "Fuck yes, LET'S DO THIS!!!", not "Ooh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not..."

You could vote me Queen of the World, but if my winning margin is 0.00005% or whatever, I'd be a bit concerned about the legitimacy of my rule. But that's just me.

Feel free to argue this among yourselves. Those fish fingers aren't going to cook themselves you know. Over and out. Peace.