At least £72million on dressing up day

[Notmoog]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/21/obscene-anger-after-cost-of-king-charless-coronation-revealed

Anyone care to justify this?(oh, and no, it didn't bring in more money via tourists etc.)

Well... I know that we will not be without a Monarchy in my lifetime, my childrens, or even my GCs most likely, so I have to accept that, and look at what I think is acceptable in these days and times.

I am liking the sound of William IV and need to look into that more!

Yes, it's a political hot potato.

Although Clive Lewis, Labour MP, refused to swear allegiance to the King when taking his seat in parliament. Newly elected, he was informed he would not be able to take a salary, vote, or take his seat without doing so. He had a second go at it, for the sake of the people who voted for him.

the Labour MP opened his affirmation in the Commons by saying: "I take this oath under protest and in the hope that one day my fellow citizens will democratically decide to live in a republic [a state without a monarchy].
"Until that time I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, according to law."

The trouble is with alot of SM sites is they don't do nuance!

Personally I try to differentiate between the theoretical ideal, which is based on starting from a blank slate, and what is best based on where we are now.

Plus informed, as a history graduate, by the belief that gradual change makes a difference, revolutionary change simply replaces one regime with another that is identical (or worse!). Such as the Russian revolution replacing the oppressive tsarist state with the even more repressive state under Stalin

Yes, I remember Clive Lewis's approach well, @BustingBaoBun

I suppose it could be said that, knowing what he'd have to do, he should never have stood for election in the first place, but for some of us the bigger point is that they're expected to swear allegiance to a person rather than their nation - and for me that's utterly wrong

Sinn Fein candidates have stood for - and won - seats in the Westminster Parliament, then refused to take them as they didn't recognise the authority of Westminster over any part of Ireland.

That's one approach. Another is to take the seat but refue the oath to bring attention to it. Another would be to take the place and the oath, and then vote according to your principles.

I think all are valid and ethical

It’s obscene.

Please explain?

You think having a referendum and voting out the monarchy and replacing them with a head of state is a revolution? Or replacing 'one regime with another'? Like Russia?

Well, I don't think it will make any significant difference to the influences that shape our politics - old Etonian PMs, multi millionaires dominating Parliament and government policy - no.

From what I see the RF are not the cause.

If our elected representatives decided to e.g. have a simple inauguration, or cut their tax benefits, then I suspect the RF would go along with it. If not they would abdicate en masses.

The control is with our elected representatives. And they follow public opinion.

If our elected representatives decided to e.g. have a simple inauguration, or cut their tax benefits, then I suspect the RF would go along with it. If not they would abdicate en masse

Remembering that Charles said he "might as well leave this country and spend the rest of my life skiing" if they so much as banned foxhunting I'd say you're right, @Baital

However while the ban happened (and sadly for some of us he's still here) I very much doubt the end to their tax benefits will happen ... not while they enjoy so much influence

The biggest waste of money EVER was the Harry wedding

While I think Harold's overblown circus is up there, it's also worth noting we spent £15m on a jubilee pageant the celebrant was too unwell to attend.

Whole thing's batshit.

Who decided that spend?

It's a bit like the frothing about 'us the taxpayer' spending £8 million on new portraits of Charles in Town Halls etc when it was the government of the day choosing to offer the money. But people here ( and elsewhere!) getting irate with the RF

Given they're not chained to the BP radiators by 'the government of the day' and that they're happy to intervene when it suits the RF didn't have to accept either suggestion.

Fact is they did.

We have a constitutional monarchy. The government - our elected representatives - decide. By all means hold them responsible.

On the subject of our constitutional monarchy; the Royals have a great deal of soft power plus there have been times when the Queen broke protocol, such as when she told some well-wishers in Aberdeenshire to “think very carefully about the future” shortly before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

And this Guardian article is very interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

It states that, according to their investigation, 1,000 laws were vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles through a secretive procedure before they were approved by the UK’s elected members of parliament:

The investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public.

The documents also show that on other occasions the monarch’s advisers demanded exclusions from proposed laws relating to road safety and land policy that appeared to affect her estates, and pressed for government policy on historic sites to be altered.

To put in in perspective it is £1.11 from ever child and adult in the Uk.

My sons want their pocket money back.

And our elected representatives should be held to account for allowing themselves to give in, just as they should be held to account for changing legislation for any other lobby group. Such as those that bung the party a hefty donation, offer a lucrative non-exec place on a Board etc etc. I am.all in favour of putting strict rules around political lobbying, and applying them to everyone - including the RF.

Charles and the rest really have nothing to worry about. If this forum is a microcosm of what Brits think, they are far too obsessed with waiting for Harry and Meghan to fail than holding the people they pay for to account.

It's not 😂😂😂

Aye, it didn't go into a black hole and nothing to suggest it went fraudulently to a business.

This forum is populated by a handful of individuals obsessed with bringing H&M down, especially Megan. Favourite phrase: Recollections may vary - said with a titter.

They don't seem to like women very much and fan girl over a bunch of parasitical dim wits.

They don't represent the UK population.

And I begrudge paying even that.

King Charles is worth 1.8 Billion quid. That doesn't even include his truly vast property portfolio. He could have paid for the lot and not even noticed.

It was his fancy hat party. He should have paid for it.

Quite. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

And that's without even factoring in the revelations from the recent Channel 4 investigation.

A bright, shining anachronism that needs tearing down.