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

[tatalan]

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?

Exactly.

Posters say this all the time.
Especially those who are not used to starting 30 threads a day.

Footballers are a bad choice as philanthropists. Some give some money to charity. Most - esp in the Premier League - are monstrously overpaid and have no social conscience whatsoever.
A coronation is needed. It places 'now' into the long line of kings and queens before this one going back to Edward the Confessor and Alfred the Great of Wessex; unites us with our history and our roots. Ancient regalia, ancient ceremony, the making of a sacred person of the king (and his queen). Beautifully done (could have been a bit more ostentatious IMO) and a wonder to the world. No-one does it like us and it was an excellent showcase for what we do and how well we do it. As for the arts, I doubt they made a loss on the coronation and many artists were to perform at the Coronation Concert (not for free, I am sure, but a good advert for them as well as an honour).

I do think it's a bit of a myth that no one does it like we do! Have you ever been to Paris on Bastille Day, (I have once in 80s) that was equally amazing as far as armed forces and pomp. They parade (for 2 hours!), they have fireworks, they have parties... Eiffel Tower lit up, military flyover, marching from L'Arc de Triomphe. Red white and blue from their version of the Red Arrows. No different to what we do apart from far more engagement for the public, free entry to museums, free outdoor operatic concerts in the park, but no gold carriages and crowns...

It could've been more ostentatious for us? Blimey.

Footballers do get paid a lot of money for their talent. Which is limited due to age.

But this is not about how much they get paid. Marcus and a few of them have been doing the government job (via the taxpayer). Should not happen. Any entertainer etc. we should not depend on for doing the most basic needs (feeding hungry dc).

Main thing is that the taxpayer footed a massive bill that should have gone to other worthy causes.

Don't forget Major Johnny! Worth even a Costa Almond coffee 😁

Well, they also did it for less the price.

It was accredited to the military.

I do think it's a bit of a myth that no one does it like we do! Have you ever been to Paris on Bastille Day, (I have once in 80s) that was equally amazing as far as armed forces and pomp

Yes I have, and as you say it was magnificent

Hate to mention it since the regime is so filthy, but the Chinese turn out a pretty good military show too ...

Thanks but no thanks. Who wants to watch a lot of men with guns and tanks. I paid for a gold coach, I want to see a gold coach. And crowns, and ceremonial robes, and ancient bibles and baubles.

I'd quite liked to have seen the shirtified Charles getting daubed with the magic olive oil but it was denied me courtesy of the pleb proof screens.

Poor value 👺

But you got Zadoc the priest!

and Nathan the prophet, and those lovely new pieces of music by A. Lloyd-Webber and others, and Pretty Yende singing in that yellow dress, and Mr. Pappano conducting. If my tax has gone towards any of those it's ok by me.

If my tax has gone towards any of those it's ok by me.

If my tax has gone towards any of the twelve (twelve!) 'lovely new pieces of music' I'll be seething.

Charles is rolling. He should be paying for his own all new playlist but I strongly suspect he hasn't just as I strongly suspect we'll never find out at least until 100 years have passed and no-one's interested

Heads of state don't pay for their own inauguration. And the music is there forever - and Charles may well have paid if he did the commissioning.

Who paid for the blue ribbons on the Windsor Greys and the red ribbons on the brown horses? I enjoyed looking at them. Nearly as good as the heavy horses at a country show.

Someone in the media ( can’t remember where) said the horses looked “quite punk” with their braids 😂

Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/05/2023 17:28
I do think it's a bit of a myth that no one does it like we do! Have you ever been to Paris on Bastille Day, (I have once in 80s) that was equally amazing as far as armed forces and pomp

Yes I have, and as you say it was magnificent

Hate to mention it since the regime is so filthy, but the Chinese turn out a pretty good military show too ...

These comments raise an interesting point. When people object to the cost/ostentatious display of royal pageantry - how do they square that with the fact that other countries, from democratic republics to horrendous tyrannies like Russia, all do this kind of thing?

As Roussette rightly says, the French go in for it Big Time, and of course we're all used to the delightful, macho, tank-infested May Victory Parade in Moscow. That's all very costly and frankly, in the case of Russia, nowhere near as pretty and jolly.

So really is the objection nothing to do with cost at all, and more that it's the Royals? That's valid (although I'm a mild royalist of a Scandinavian type), but I wish people who go on about the vulgarity of it all during a COL crisis would just be honest.

Charles may well have paid if he did the commissioning.

Charles has long been noted for his short arms and deep pockets and that's before we start on the PR puff.

If he'd paid we'd have heard

Is the objection nothing to do with cost at all, and more that it's the Royals?

I can't speak for others, but that's certainly the case for me

The money matters, but if it wasn't wasted on the RF it would be on somethiing else - and would be vanishingly unlikely to find its way to the NHS or whatever.
It's the principle of having a monarchy at all I object to, though even I wouldn't expect them to pay for their own coronations; if that's what the majority of the public want then it's up to us to pay for it

The cost of the coronation is objected to for many reasons
The Windsors being immeanselt wealthy as a result of being 'kings' and 'queens' is one aspect

Their wealth has ballooned further since they changed fro civil list to sovereign grant . So yes there are the optics - as can be seen in most vox pops

Most people object to the monarchy on principle .

Didnt Rosa Luxembourg say better an expensive republic than a cheap monarchy - it's the principle of the thing

She hadn't heard of the Windsors wealth mind you .
We'd save money by getting rid and make money from their palaces

Most people object to the monarchy on principle .

Clearly not the case!

Didnt Rosa Luxembourg say better an expensive republic than a cheap monarchy - it's the principle of the thing

But principles are always a bad idea! This sounds incredibly boring and soulless.

Actually I meant 'most republicans ' rather than most people ( I look at mumsnet when I get 5 mins and do just dash something off and my typos are terrible as a result )

• although it IS most people when you look at younger ages groups