Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

The King rejects cut-price coronation in favour of ‘glorious’ pomp and pageantry

521 replies

tatalan · 22/12/2022 11:56

Monarch wants to use ceremony to showcase ‘UK plc’ internationally, despite being deeply conscious of the cost of living crisis

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/21/king-rejects-cut-price-coronation-favour-glorious-pomp-pageantry/

How do you feel about this?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
derxa · 09/05/2023 08:53

His sister is an art curator. Ha ha ha! Harry Lopes is a financier and due to inherit his father's considerable estate. They're not short of a penny or two.

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 09:00

With 400+ million people watching here and around the world, the ceremony and the procession needed to be grand and impressive, and it was. It was slimmed down compared to the late queen, but it was still glorious (in a religious and national sense).

Talking about was it worth the money? Well we certainly don't need this level of national celebration but you can also say let's get rid of theatres and cinemas, and most TV programmes because we don't need entertainment to survive. Ditch all theatre subsidies, ditch the lot and put the money wasted on entertainment into food banks and social housing. Social media isn't needed. Ditch everything that makes people happy. Ditch the monarchy. Ditch the aristocracy and concentrate on equality and we have ....Stalins Russia. Careful what you wish for.

notanotheroneagain · 09/05/2023 09:18

What an ott post.

First of all, why would you get rid of theatres and cinemas which actually bring long term jobs to people in the arts world.

This was one day. A day which probably costs those industries a years worth of work.

In the meantime, you have footballers busy putting their earned money to feed kids.

The best thing would be to just do a small ceremony (possibly private though filmed) and the 249M donated to school lunches for the poor. It would be much appreciated.

Not too clear what SM has to do with anything.

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 09:23

Oh yes, let's get rid of football too. How dare footballers earn hideous amounts of money? It's obscene. That money could go to larger families. The coronation is the first in 70 years, so if you divide the amount by 70, it's probably not a huge amount.

It's entertainment for most people. A religious affirmation for others. Either way something, along with theatres, which we all subsidise, don't forget, we don't need.

Communism here we come.

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 09:31

Stalins Russia? Because people don’t want millions wasted on a party or aren’t interested in having a monarchy? That’s an extremely over the top reaction.

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 09:32
Happy Cracking Up GIF by Regal

Ok this is funny now. Communism!

Roussette · 09/05/2023 09:44

Grammarnut · 09/05/2023 08:46

Definitely scaled back if you view the coronation in 1953. Not especially ostentatious and we are crowning a king and queen, a thing that no other monarchy in Europe does - a tremendous advertisement for the UK as a tourist destination but also as a safe place to do business - no disruptions (yes, I know about the rape alarm rumour and arrests - malicious if it was intended to spook the horses, people could have died) and an obviously stable society. The NHS costs 144 billion per annum so 250 million is not going to upset the budget much, and most is notional. Anyway, it cost about 100 million, including costs that would have been paid anyway. Charles said he would have a scaled down coronation (his mother's took four hours or so) and he did. He is, apparently, a sticker for protocol and tradition so it was simply going to be shorter. What else do you want - just a swearing in (we did that in September) like other European monarchies, which get 45 seconds on a news bulletin? We made millions out of the coronation and it will have boosted the hospitality industry. If people cannot watch something for four hours it is a terrible indictment of modern concentration!

Show quote history

1953 was 70 years ago, times change

And I think we have to ask ourselves why no other European royal house does a Coronation like this.

Your figures are plucked out the air. I could quote you figures far more than that from reports I have read. We will never really know as it's all a bit embarrassing.
Ditto the millions we made out of it.

Roussette · 09/05/2023 09:49

notanotheroneagain · 09/05/2023 09:18

What an ott post.

First of all, why would you get rid of theatres and cinemas which actually bring long term jobs to people in the arts world.

This was one day. A day which probably costs those industries a years worth of work.

In the meantime, you have footballers busy putting their earned money to feed kids.

The best thing would be to just do a small ceremony (possibly private though filmed) and the 249M donated to school lunches for the poor. It would be much appreciated.

Not too clear what SM has to do with anything.

Yep. We're back to Putin again.

One thing comments about becoming Russia does, it gives me a good laugh over my cuppa

It seems the choice is only Putin or Charles. 😂🤣

How on earth do all those European countries manage under their Putin?! Italy, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Greece and more. Weird it hasn't been on the news at how awful it is !

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 09:51

Maybe people are uneducated enough to recognise the difference between Stalin and Putin?

Roussette · 09/05/2023 09:55

Can you link me to the repressed individuals in those European countries without Monarchies I mentioned.

Ta

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 09:58

If that's aimed at me, a) I don't engage with you, b) I have no idea what you're talking about.

Roussette · 09/05/2023 10:03

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 09:58

If that's aimed at me, a) I don't engage with you, b) I have no idea what you're talking about.

You've just engaged with me!

Ooops!

I am only picking up on this from you...
"Ditch the aristocracy and concentrate on equality and we have ....Stalins Russia. Careful what you wish for."

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 10:11

@Roussette Stating I don't engage with you, is not engaging with you.

Roussette · 09/05/2023 10:13

🤣😅

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 10:13

You keep tagging people to say you don’t engage! It’s very childish! I just ignore people if I don’t want to engage.

vera99 · 09/05/2023 10:13

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 09:32

Ok this is funny now. Communism!

No, not communism but Stalinism which would involved mass torture, killings and barbarism, the like of which we have never seen since the mediaeval monarchs imposed their will upon the people and their wives, families and nobles.

Crazy Stalin propaganda film

Even political prisoners love Stalin!Excerpt from the episode 12 "A Brave New World" of BBC's "People's Century".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvYGqi3Dbc

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 10:44

Haven't tagged anyone I don't want to engage with apart from^ because it's so tiresome, so boring, so repetitive, and these people talk endless nonsense, while personally insulting me.

^^ is so desperate for my attention, she keeps endlessly tagging and quoting me. Pity she/you don't take a leaf out of my book and stop engaging with me. State your own POV, that's all you have to do.

I'm know I'm a fascinating and insightful poster, but you can stop now. You have my permission.

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 10:59

polkadotdalmation · 09/05/2023 10:44

Haven't tagged anyone I don't want to engage with apart from^ because it's so tiresome, so boring, so repetitive, and these people talk endless nonsense, while personally insulting me.

^^ is so desperate for my attention, she keeps endlessly tagging and quoting me. Pity she/you don't take a leaf out of my book and stop engaging with me. State your own POV, that's all you have to do.

I'm know I'm a fascinating and insightful poster, but you can stop now. You have my permission.

You’re on a thread where people will respond to all of the many many false claims or points you have. Sadly we can’t block on MN so you can’t control who responds to you. I couldn’t control you coming onto me own threads, neither could MrsMax, where you’d talk about us while tagging any response and saying ‘I don’t engage with you’. It’s simple to not engage. Don’t quote, tag, respond or go to their threads, If you keep doing that people will respond as they wish and you can’t control. People responding to you don’t necessarily find you insightful, it could be because the posts are so full of insults, are inflammatory or harmful or just irritating.

derxa · 09/05/2023 11:17

I couldn’t control you coming onto me own threads As soon as you start a thread, the thread belongs to MN. They're not your threads.

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 11:26

@derxa I realise that, as was my point! We can’t control it like we can other platforms. My thread means the ones I start. It’s common to refer to them that way, as you know. No need to nitpick

derxa · 09/05/2023 11:34

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 11:26

@derxa I realise that, as was my point! We can’t control it like we can other platforms. My thread means the ones I start. It’s common to refer to them that way, as you know. No need to nitpick

In all my years on MN I have never seen a poster refer to threads they started as 'my thread' as much as you do. You keep telling people to stay off these threads if you disagree with their views. It really is quite annoying as it leads to endless petty to and fro.

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 11:37

I mean I’ve only started one thread on this board! And I’ve seen loads of MNetters say ‘my thread’. Come on, don’t be so silly

Roussette · 09/05/2023 11:42

Haven't tagged anyone I don't want to engage with

Why do you @ me then? And reply to posts I haven't quoted you in!

Roussette · 09/05/2023 11:46

I would say 'my thread' if I started one, which I rarely do because of ..well.. let's not go there!
I did start a thread asking for recipes for dips, great responses!

@Whaeanui just tried to keep a thread she started on track, against all odds. Nothing wrong with that!

CoffeeCantata · 09/05/2023 11:47

I think it was scaled back compared to the 1953 coronation - far fewer guests in the Abbey partly to H and S concerns which weren't a consideration then. The cost is mainly due to wages for personnel involved, isn't it?

I'd be interested to know how much money will have been recouped from foreign TV rights. I read somewhere that it was already covered, but I don't know how to find confirmation of that.

My view on this is that pageantry like this is something we do better than anyone else. The show that gets put on is just incredible every time and London always looks amazing. Why don't we stop stressing about the cost (and other matters - see below) and just think of it as something we're good at, a quality product which we export and earn money and prestige from? We should chill out about it.

I'm not much of a one for principles - I'm a pragmatist. Frankly if people enjoy it and the net result is income for the country and prestige abroad, then go for it. We shouldn't get so het up about it. Isn't the cost of the monarchy annually something like £2.95? (But please correct me here.) Would people really rather have that - not quite enough for a flat white - than all the pretty horses, handsome soldiers and gold carriages? Some people would, but I think they're mistaken!