Mega coronation

[GooseberryCinnamonYogurt]

Do we really need it? My first thought is no we don't, the money would be better spent on the NHS!

That’s true. We do live in a constitutional monarch so even things like the Queen’s speech is written by the government. So the monarchy does have a role to play in our constitution albeit a limited one. So Charles will more or less have to go along with what the government’s coronation plans.

100 million does sound an awful lot of money. If it will generate billions more like the weddings of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan, then I guess it could only be a good thing. But a poster upthread mentioned that we’d also lose about 2 billion if we have another bank holiday.

What I’m curious about is where does this 100 million come from? And why does it have to cost so much? It would be nice to have some sort of transparency so we can see where all that money is being used in. Wouldn’t it have been possible to spend just a third of that?

When Jeremy Corbyn spoke about different policies the Conservatives and even mainstream media kept going on about a “magic money tree”. But then all of a sudden have money to throw at things.

I would also like to know about the pledge of £350 million a week for the NHS. When will that come into fruition and how? And if the NHS needs that much per week then I don’t think even 100 million will cut it.

As for Camilla never being Queen, she is the Queen consort, but she’s not the Queen. As for the rehabilitation of Camilla’s public image, from what I’ve seen on a previous thread, it was just to make it more accurate to how Camilla really is.

constitutional monarchy*

It would be fantastic to see a breakdown of the figure.

I would love to know how they work that out - not being provocative by the way. Genuine interest.

Oh my stars. I try to avoid all the royal drama but I need to know the story behind this! A tampon? REALLY? 😂

Okay in context OP is starting to look like the jerk here. I feel like being recorded like that must be really traumatizing…

Bread and circuses, eh?

We've had Pope's retiring as well which was unprecedented until recently. But anyway I'm a republican I will leave it to you monarchists to consider tinkering with the institution. If Charles has any sense he will try to get ahead of that debate himself. At the very least I would be looking for an annual report to Parliament from the monarch of what they have done, the finances, the GVA and what are their plans are for the forthcoming year. Their continuing popularity isn't a given and needs to be earned. He is apparently not keen on BP so opening that permanently as a tourist attraction rather than just a month in summer might be a way to go.

It's customary to invite crown princes and princesses from all over the world to a coronation. Do you really want the UK look like a great big cheap tit for not being able to hold a proper coronation after 50 or so years? As a foreigner I'd cringe for your country if you didn't do it properly. You spent a lot of money on the wedding of Harry and Meghan but don't want to pay for a proper coronation for the guy who waited such a long, long time and who is the actual king.

Sometimes you need to look at the world wide picture. And for all of those wanting to abolish the RF: imagine inaugurating a new president every four years. Is that what you really want? They're going to be people like Thatcher and Boris that will represent your country. I think that the RF does a better job than them tbh.

Uh what? Plenty of other european countries have coronations......

Maybe technically you can't call it a coronation but at the dutch inauguration the crown is present, just not put on the kings head. But the thing is bloody there and it was a big party. The act of not putting the crown on the kings head doesn't make the ceremony any shorter or cheaper.

www.google.nl/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22353152.amp

It was back in 1992 and the conversation was private and being illegally hacked.

Charles: "Oh god. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!"

Camilla: (Laughs.) "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?" (Both laugh). "Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

Charles: "Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck!" (Laughs.)

So even without the context of it being a silly joke in a private lovers' conversation that was being illegally hacked, he actually said he didn't want to be a tampon.

It's fair enough to dislike Charles or be anti-monarchy, but the "he wanted to be a tampon" line is as untrue as it is feeble.

It is a massive waste of taxpayers money. The security alone costs way too much money.

They’re not called coronations.

That they’re called Enthronements and inaugurations makes it very different
apparently…

Even though some are multi day, very expensive events

Irrelevant

The US combine the role of PM and president.

Charles coronation is purely PR for Charles and a remnant of the days when peasants had to be fooled into believing god was giving whatever grifter was next, the nod

It's a COE service . He can twitter on about multi faith all the wants is just more lies
He's anointed as head of the Church of England .
How sincere religious COE individuals feel about that I can only imagine . Oh wait - the defence is he's weak and a sinner like the rest of us ... that's the line isn't it ?

100 000 000+ wasted so a man child gets his magic hat

The crown sits there and there is no coronation because to have a coronation would be religiously and politically divisive in the Netherlands
That's why

It's all v low key . The 'king' had worked as a water engineer
He is currently investigating the Dutch crowns role in slavery and apologising

Here there is only coronation left in Europe . The rest stopped that nonsense one hundred years ago

It is unnecessary , it is feudal , it is embarrassing
The coronation will symbolise all that is rotten on this island

I suppose one argument could be, if they don’t make it a grand spectacle the country might look like it’s poorer than people originally thought. Another thought is, getting your money’s worth, how much will it equate to in terms of years serving one’s country before the next coronation
poor C has been waiting for his day his entire life

If people could just stop seeing it like Charles' personal day and realise that it's an official state occasion, they might realise why we can't just have a small do in the village hall with a few home made sandwiches.

You may still think the monarchy is a complete waste of time and money and maybe you're right. But as long as it exists, coronations are state events, with precedent and protocol, and they need to be conducted as such.

As PPs have said, presidential inaugurations would be just as grand and they'd happen every four years.

No, well the first to be partially broadcast was her father's although hardly anyone had a TV at the time.

www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/may/coronation-of-king-george-vi-and-queen-elizabeth#:~:text=The%20Coronation%20of%20King%20George,using%20a%20mobile%20control%20van.

@Afteebaiv

I hate to break it you but the country is poor and getting poorer

And wasting 100 000 000 on a facade to trick other countries ( who are often laughing at us re the 'royals') ??

The Twitter poll I was following had closed Nearly 41000 responded . Still 95% not interested in the coronation

There is much more unrest re the Windsors than MSM leads you to believe

@ReneBumsWombats
State occasion - that's were you have been tricked

It's not a state occasion

If anything it's a COE ceremony telling the masses that big sky daddy wants Charles as head of his church

It is totally unnecessary. He became king when Elizabeth died .
This a personal PR party and a stunt

Let's have a proper vote on his role
He stay king and pay for things himself if he insists

I saw that poll @Novella4

Bottom line is... will he wear the silk stockings and breeches? That is tradition but he is deliberating at the moment, whether to keep to tradition or update. .

And apparently he will be wearing two crowns (at different times of course!). One of them has 2,900 diamonds on And what Crown will Camilla wear?

It is totally unnecessary. He became king when Elizabeth died .
This a personal PR party and a stunt

Well... that's what I thought but I was told on here that was not the case. I thought him signing at the Accession Council was what was important. Apparently, he became King the minute the Queen died as we are never without a Monarch.

According to HoC... this..
"The Coronation Oath, in which the monarch swears to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms “according to their respective laws and customs” is the only aspect of the ceremony that is required by law."

So the rest is just a spectacle.

We are a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is the official head of state. Yes, we have an official state religion. That's hardly unique to us. There will be heads of other religions present, although as it's on a Saturday, I guess the Chief Rabbi won't be among them. Maybe he'll go to the evening do.

It's a state occasion.

You may disagree with elements of how our state is run, and you may be right, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's a state occasion. And state occasions can't be done like a little tea party.

It isn't necessary to spend £100m to hold a "proper" coronation. Coronations in the past have not been massive circuses historically but this is a massive three day PR circus after the king lied about a slimmed down and less spendy monarchy.

They are a staggeringly wealthy family and are exempt from the bulk of the taxes the rest of us pay (which is largely how they built up the staggering wealth). If Charles wants a three day circus, he can pay for it.

And frankly yes I would prefer a president because a lacklustre or badly behaving president can be kicked out a few years later and doesn't get a couple of billion in tax free estates by default. Money which is now being used by the family nonce to attack victims - easy to do when you have unlimited money behind you.

As for the constitutional monarchy - I do believe the late Queen had a strong sense of duty and did not comment politically in public (although the royal offices were heavy lobbyists to protect their vested interests when it came to land law, tax etc) but Charles has no such compunctions. He has been directly lobbying governments for 50 odd years - the idea that he will change now is a big a lie as the "slimmed down monarchy" lie and the "Camilla will not take the title of Queen" lie.