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?

Apparently the government income pa is c. 800 billion, c. 2.2 billion per day. If say the coronation costs 2.2 million that is 10% of one day's income.

As a household we earn 60k pa, £164 per day, 10% of which would be £16. Are we going to be spending more than that on our daughter's wedding this year or would people say that's too much?

250 million sounds a lot but wouldn't even finance the NHS for one day.

Pay rises cost far more than the Coronation and increasing doctors and nurses wages would increase inequality as they earn more than most people already. Particularly doctors.

Exactly, pay for it themselves even.

Interesting you've gone quiet on your example of Prince William's visit to the Caribbean when faced with the successes of the King's own at home and abroad.

Obviously fell flat.

The Royals are a big part of UK soft power. See here:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2022/06/30/royal-soft-power-the-british-royal-family-as-public-diplomats/

Mind you, I'm uneasy about the exercise of it in relation to Provisional Sinn Féin, political wing of the Provisional I.R.A and still controlled by the Provisional Army Council. That's because the Provisional Movement still says violence is "legitimate" (Adams), "justified" (McDonald) and "inevitable" (O'Neill). They have not, in fact, rejected violence.

Yet it's an example of British soft power aligned with had power in the defeat of the Provisionals.

No country in the world does State events like the British State. It's a big part of why we're second only to the United States. As Obama noted, the American people prefer British Royals over US politicians.

The Royals as part of British soft power:

https://www.e-ir.info/2022/10/16/queen-elizabeth-iis-soft-power-and-britains-place-in-a-post-elizabethan-age/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/11/europe/united-kingdom-queen-soft-power-intl-cmd-gbr/index.html

https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/elizabeth-ii-charles-iii-triumph-british-ceremonial-and-soft-power

That says it all, really. British pop stars and actors do not have this level of influence - certainly not for 70 years.

Bollocks.

It won’t boost tourism. People who come would have come anyway, just not necessarily this week. And for U.K. attendees, they’re on,y spending discretionary spends they’d have spent anyway. It’ll just be all in London instead of over the U.K.

@IcedPurple you misunderstood me. I realise it’s a state event but it doesn’t have to be. He could have had a small event for himself and donated the money. He says one thing but does another. 🙄

Does royal family / coronation really increase tourism? Last time I was in Paris, I went to Versailles. Didn't bother me they haven't had a royal family since 18th century

People want the Coronation to be a big deal, not just a quiet event. Part of the appeal of the Royal Family is the grandeur, the spectacle, the pageantry.

I think you're looking at that very narrowly. As soon as I heard it was a bank holiday weekend last year, I booked a long weekend away. I wouldnt have done that if there was no bank holiday

So an airbnb owner has got 3 nights booking they might not have had, the local shops and businesses will have business they wouldnt have had from us

Im sure people have booked to go away as well as come to the UK.

Of course it 'has to be' a state event. It's not a birthday party. It's the Coronation of a King, the Head of State.

And what 'money' are you saying Charles should 'donate'? The British government pays for the Coronation. It's not Charles' money to give away.

And this was a completely extra holiday? The money spent on it would have been saved offshore otherwise?

There’s no requirement for a coronation. He’s king with or without. The coronation is about giving legitimacy as ‘ordained by God’. It’s bonkers b

It's not required, that's true. But my point is that a Coronation isn't a personal celebration like a birthday party that the person would be expected to pay out of their own pocket. It's a state event and as such is funded by the government.

Im not quite sure what you're asking me, what do you mean saved offshore?

Do you mean this was an extra holiday for me personally that I booked or do you mean it was an extra bank holiday?

Try booking a hotel room in London that weekend. Or a restaurant. Check out the prices.

Those places will be employing extra staff to cover the demand. At the Queen's funeral the security guards were lining the streets, about a metre apart, which must have required thousands and at least that many, if not more, will be employed on Saturday. Police will get overtime, and some ambulance crew, I'm told. Extra trains, buses, coaches and taxis will be required, all needing drivers. Extra rubbish collectors. Street cleaners. Portaloo provision, cleaning and removal. Barrier and signage erection and removal. That represents a great deal of money that will be going straight into the pockets of normal people.

Then most of them will pay tax at 25% - more revenue for the government.

The £millions aren't being torn up and destroyed, they are, to a great extent, being spent on employing workers, many of whom wouldn't otherwise have been working and earning that day.

It's fine though. It's the Royals. They need it.

I wan a trip away you wouldn’t otherwise have made - rather than you just picking this weekend for a trip you would have made at another time.
And in terms of ‘saved offshore’ I mean would the money you are spending in this otherwise be completely removed from the economy - or saved here/used for something else, which would mean that without the trip the economy would still get the benefit. In short, the coronation makes very little extra contribution to the economy.

It’s personal in that he’s personally decided to hold it. The state diesn5 need it. It’s exactly like a personal celebration.

The state doesn't 'need' lots of things. That doesn't mean they aren't state events. Did Germany 'need' the state visit of Charles and Camilla last month? Probably not. But it was still a state event. It's not at all like a personal celebration. The idea of asking Charles to pay for it himself is as silly as asking Biden to pay for his inauguration, which isn't really 'needed' either. He could just be sworn in in the White House.

The official Parliament website makes it clear that the Coronation is a state event paid for by the government.

"As it is a state event, a coronation is paid for by the UK Government. Organisation involves ministers, the Royal Household, the Church of England and the Commonwealth Realms. A Privy Council “Coronation Committee” is usually formed to oversee the planning, and its Executive Committee is chaired by the Earl Marshal. This can take several months. A monarch also has significant influence on the form a coronation ceremony takes."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9412/

No its an extra trip we wouldnt do at a different time.

The money came out of my savings which is where all my holiday money comes from so I have no idea how to answer that.

I know you're trying desperately trying to make out that there isnt benefit to the economy but there is.

This^^

Speculate to accumulate eh?

£250 mill is a drop in ocean compared to annual NHS budget of £180 billion. We generate a lot of tourism and other revenue from it and it's not like if they cancelled it they would suddenly have loads of money for food banks..!? It's called tradition and we are well known for our events like this across the world.

If you’d have spent that money anyway, there isn’t.