Well, I hated the coronation…

[TheColourofspring]

I can see I am in the minority on here but I found yesterday to be distasteful on a gigantic scale. To watch the most privileged people travel in gold coaches & be decorated with diamonds and gold that is priceless in the face of millions of people struggling to eat/heat their homes just feels so wrong.

Our primary school has just opened a food bank. There are kids & families in crisis- children coming into school hungry & smelly as families can’t afford to wash clothes (I am not joking) - living in Dickensian conditions. Some of the teaching staff use the foodbank.

Yesterday was a display of obscene wealth. The royals didn’t even pay for it- we did. How can we find money for that absolute nonsense yet we can’t find money for large swathes of the population to feed themselves.

While Charles was sitting there in his gold costume holding these priceless items, plenty of families weren’t eating. It made me really angry.

I am tired of all the arguments for a royal family- how somehow these displays are quaint. Yesterday was an obscene display of wealth, inherited privilege and everything that’s wrong with this country. Seems a conversation about the royals is long overdue.

I heard that in regards to cost we had broke even . The revenue brought in from TV deals etc was the same as the costs so if that is true that is good to know.

The U.K. supposed to be the bastion of democracy. Except we ain’t.

That's the Chile of Pinochet, Allende and Victor Jars is it?

I must have missed the history lesson where (in the 1970s) the British Royal Family were fascist dictators and rounded up the opposition to shoot them inside a football stadium.

Sure, they're doing better than many these days. But their recent past is hardly to be held up as how to be a democracy.

*Jara

Get back to me when a Pinochet marches us into Santiago stadium and massacres thousands.

That was over 50 years ago. I am talking now.

@TheColourofspring so the ending of the Royal family is going to make all these aristocrats sell their land so we can build social housing on it?! There’s already land available to build social housing on, and it can be compulsory purchased where there is not. It’s a change of policy that we need. No more selling off Council housing and ensuring that the housing stock that has been lost already is replaced.

But what on earth does this really have to do with the monarchy. I'll say it again... the Government decide how people are taxed and how wealth is distributed. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp and yet most of your arguments against having a RF demonstrate a blatant lack of understanding of it. If the public and the government didn't want people living in property then they could do this with or without a RF.

*didn't want people living in poverty sorry

Ah, I see what your post is really about now. Another post about our role in historical slavery….. That wasn’t done in their name, nor in mine. It happened in a time long past, and our morals and values have moved on and changed massively since then.

Now you say? Ok ....
The Nicolás Maduro government and its security forces are responsible for extrajudicial executions and short-term forced disappearances and have jailed opponents, prosecuted civilians in military courts, tortured detainees, and cracked down on protesters.(Human Rights Watch 2022)

If you want more money, you have to put energy into making that happen. You have to consistently make choices to make it happen. You improve your chances with every decision you make. . It won't be easy but it is the only way. The alternative is you waste your life bitching about the royal family

Apparently the you missed the history lesson on the difference between monarchy and government.

Pinochet was a dictator not a democrat.

I agree with this, and for that reason I was disappointed rather than resentful, as I don't think it lived up to expectations really.

In particular, Charles having to read his responses from cue cards as he was being crowned, like some doddery old guy.

You'd think for the gravitas of the situation he could at least have learnt it off by heart!

Tbh I blame 13 years of Tory incompetence plus brexit and a pandemic for families being unable to feed themselves.

its shit but your anger is misdirected OP. If there hadn’t been a coronation it would have made no difference to struggling families. They royals aren’t the huge drain on the countries resources that some seem to think they are. Whether you like them or not (tbh I’m fairly indifferent towards them) you can really moan about them costing loads when people are going hungry.

m what I find far less tasteful is the Tory government making policies their family meme era can profit from when proper are going hungry. Now that is truly disgusting. British traditions not so much.

The coronation was a net cost to the economy not a benefit.

As a minimum the windsors should pay inheritance tax. The queen left about £700m to Charles but he didn't pay a penny, because he's 'royalty'.

Instead he sits on £1.8bn of inherited wealth and we give him £86m a year.

But yeah, let's all feel good about a chance to get the bunting out.

Apparently this trend isn’t showing with millennials. At least not yet.

Yes and I would guess largely because younger people when they get to their 30s and 40s are still poorer than their parents - it used to be the younger generations would be better off then their parents - my generation is the first to be poorer than their parents - the boomers...

@inamarina

No, that's old hat thinking ( appropriate re the 'royals')

The old theory that the rebellious young become staid 50 year olds was based on boomer economics

The young aren't benefiting and don't have the same stake in society
The trends aren't changing

The demographics are a real problem for the 'royals'and squashing peaceful dissent hasn't helped
Appalling

In countries where the prime minister is head of government and the president is head of state - like RoI - the campaign for president is a low key affair. (And in RoI every 7 years)

This is probably why the R0I is so often - and not unreasonably - held up as an example

Good luck expecting the monarchy to go meekly though, even if the majority of public opinion supported it. Clearly those who declare them powerless simply haven't looked into what they're able to do in sufficient depth, or perhaps just don't want to know

Amusing to still see amounts they "bring in" stated as facts though. I'd ask for evidence - including the never-disclosed cost of security - but nobody ever answers and I doubt they ever will

OK Nicholas Maduro is President Venezuela, a different country altogether. Venezuala is not a stable country. Chile is. Google isn't your friend today!

I just object to a poster writing off the whole of South America. Very rude.

Biggest landowner in Scotland - Anders Holch Povlsen (actually I think he's possibly now the largest landowner in the UK). Many of the biggest landowners in the UK are large overseas owned companies like Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings.

Hitler was elected. Allende. Putin.
The pretence of democracy does not protect against tyranny.

@TheColourofspring I am really not out of touch, just honest. I too have done a lot of work at food banks, in an very poor area, and most of the volunteers and workers are quite open that most of the need is because of budgeting problems, not poverty in an absolute sense.
The problem with not questioning the ethics of handing out food for free to people probably earning £30+ a year is that it could quite possibly mean someone in real need is missing out.
It is deeply unfashionable to question anything these days but I think it is not unreasonable to challenge whether food that has been donated and distributed by volunteers should be going to people who most certainly should not need it (regardless of the whataboutery always brought up on here).
The problem is hyperbole like you are spouting fits your agenda and apparently critical thought does not.