Coronation on the 6th May

[ajandjjmum]

Presumably as this will coincide with the May Day bank holiday week? Going to be a busy time in London.

So now royalists are suggesting elections are too expensive?

I bet you'd love that....

The massive ( and hard to pin down exactly -funny that) 'royal 'security costs that you try to skip over wil NOT be same for a head of state
An extended family will not be guarded round the clock
The 'royals' have all their 17 palaces guarded round the clock empty or otherwise

The waste of money associated with these useless 'royal' dimwits is a scandal especially as the UK is tumbling down the ranks internationally

Actually all this debate has been rehearsed again and again on here
To any royalist attempt at an argument ( there is no legitimate defence for the UK royalty )) there is really only two words needed to refute :

'Prince' Andrew

Still there , stil protected, still funded

Novella4 · Today 08:42
'Prince' Andrew
Still there , stil protected, still funded

And still not convicted of anything.
I agree he is a complete pain in the arse for many many reasons - but what can they do

@Novella4

I wouldn’t ‘love that’ I live in a republic (ROI) but pretending elections are free is rather silly, and undermines all your arguments

and frankly looking at the ‘prime ministers’ voted in, your whole system needs reform.

i’m in ireland with proportional respresentation and a president. It’s looking like Gerry Adams and Bertie Ahern will be running for president 🤯

but that’s for another thread 😀

@Novella4

As I’m in Ireland I’m not as familiar with British prime ministers (the focus was on Irish interactions) but I’m working my way through the rest is history podcasts to increase my knowledge

We booked our hotel rooms when the date was announced - looking forward to absorbing the atmosphere and hopefully seeing something of the Coronation procession at some point. I'm afraid I'm too lightweight to camp on the Mall though, but hats off those who choose to.

I'm in my early 60's and various recent events have reminded me that I'm getting older - this is probably the only Coronation I'll ever have the opportunity to see 'in the flesh'. I shall make the most of it.

Is our system perfect? No. But I can't see any other that would be better. So far I see the King trying to do the right thing, and working hard into his 70's and beyond. Not many people would be willing to make that commitment.

This isn't something I need to shout and argue about, I've made my decision whilst respecting that others feel differently, which they're quite entitled to. Don't understand the need for constant shouting and telling me what I should read though. Have the say, on this subject, I don't think 'Republic' is the best source!

Good for you ajandjjmum · Today 10:02

I'm constantly surprised at how many poster seem to demand that "royals" should be "better" than us, more moral. Why? Our elected representatives certainly aren't for the most part.
This coronation will certainly be my last, unless Charles pops off very quickly. I was around for the last one. Still jealous of my grandfather who saw Edward 7th; George 5th; George 6th and Elizabeth.

I'

@Novella4

i do fear saying all this money will be saved is the republican version of all the savings going to the NHS from Brexit on the side of the bus.

I’m sorry to be a cynic

@Novella4

i was an avowed republican despite living in the U.K. (never visited Buckingham palace or any palace or Tower of London in 6 years) , but admired the queen’s work ethic and admired her after her trip to Ireland. I don’t think she was perfect.

@Ohnonevermind

The money saved ( and it will be - enough to make a difference) is a side issue

Republicans object on PRINCIPLE

As I quoted Rosa Luxembourg before ' better an expensive republic than a cheap monarchy'

It's also about corruption and Windsors being above the law

The queen is irrelevant . It's Charles and William for the next 50 years.
( probably not though thank god)

And really all defence of monarchy can be destroyed in just two words
'Prince Andrew'

@Ohnonevermind

I never said elections are free??
Why would I ?

I said a monarchist complaining about the cost of elections is revealing

So you are Irish?
Another 'monarchist ' who wo t have a vote in the issue !
So many posters defending the royals who aren't in the UK!
How very ....revealing

Have a word with yourself

Not convicted?

Protected from questioning
Andrew vowed to speak to the FBI any time of their choosing
And yet we are still waiting

Novella4 · Today 08:44
And really all defence of monarchy can be destroyed in just two words
'Prince Andrew'

That really is beyond ridiculous! We are talking about an hereditary Head of State, not a candidate for canonisation. Why must s/he must be more moral than the population in general?
Granted the Queen probably was, but its not a requirement.

Would you be OK being refused a job because your brother was a noted offender?

@BadgerB
Sigh.

Refused a job I had applied for and competed against others for you mean ?
Well chuck hasn't even met that basic requirement has he ??

The 'royals' have protected Andrew and continue to do so. All that bullshit about 'reducing his allowance ' - how stupid would you have to be to believe that ?

I see you admit he's an offender !

That's progress from a royalist !
They usually spend their time finding wheedling excuses for Andrew

I guess there is a lot you have to be ok with to be a royalist these days ...
Cash in bags- (now being investigated CPS )
Interfering in the democratic process to suit your own 'royal' preferences - (only revealed by investigative journalists not so called 'royal rota ' )
Sex offenders - Andrew and Mountbatten

All fine with royalists

Or religious and taking her Coronation oath seriously?

Andrew vowed to speak to the FBI any time of their choosing

At the risk of being counted among those who defend Andrew - which I'm most certainly not - nobody can be forced to speak to the FBI/the Met/whoever, and it may well be that his lawyers advised him not to

However most would then have to face any consequences which followed and that's where it all falls down, because there's simply no way Andrew would have been allowed to get anywhere near a judicial process

He wasn't forced

He pledged to speak to FBI Siri this BBC interview ' at any time of their choosing '

How many days ago was that ? 1500+??

He pledged to speak to FBI ... at any time of their choosing

I know, Novella, but then he said a lot of things, many of them on his car crash Maitlis interview, and they mostly turned out to be lies told in the hope of making himself look better

Another family trait it seems ...

Novella4 · Today 13:08
Refused a job I had applied for and competed against others for you mean
Well chuck hasn't even met that basic requirement has he ??

Not a basic requirement at all. Have you never been offered a job that you hadn't applied for? I know I have.
And I seem to remember that some Greek philosopher (possibly Plato - or maybe one of his mates) said that the only man who should be given the job of Leader of the Nation is one who didn't ask for it

We are talking about an hereditary Head of State, not a candidate for canonisation. Why must s/he must be more moral than the population in general?

In an alternate universe not so very far away, the tawdry Andrew could well have been the royal Buggins.

Are royalists OK with that?

I'm just wondering how twelve (twelve!) commissioned and all new set pieces tie in with the long touted slimmed down monarchy.

Not to mention how long they'll prolong the placing of a sparkly hat or who's paid for them.

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 21:05
In an alternate universe not so very far away, the tawdry Andrew could well have been the royal Buggins.
Are royalists OK with that?

Even if the Epstein stuff had never happened Andrew's general nastiness would have made him unacceptable. Perhaps a hired assassin....?