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.)

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 exactly this ☝🏻

Yes. Sadly.

Children going hungry, going to school with empty lunch boxes pretending they are eating.

It’s fucked up.

I just don't understand how anyone can be so gullible that they think it's ok.

I thought that was a pretty modest amount for an event on that scale too.

And those calling it a 'dressing up day' aren't as funny and clever as they think. It was a state occasion of historical significance. And as others have pointed out, the money was not 'wasted' in the sense that it will have gone into the pockets of so many artisan crafstpeople, event planners, security workers and the like. It probably made back money in tourism and 'soft power' too, though these are difficult to quantify.

To read some of the posts here, you'd think Charles and Camilla held a bonfire in the yards of BP and set fire to £70 million for the fun of it.

And saying 'I'd prefer if it went to the NHS' is a bit silly, because that's not the way state budgeting works.

exactly this.

Things like the gold coach already exist. We are / were not paying again.
Maybe it had a bit of a clean, and apparantly it is incredibly uncomfortable as it does not have proper suspension.
Secondly, the crown jewels already exist and can be seen by visiting the Tower of London (I think theyre still there?). So maybe there was some alteration of size.
It is also hard to quantify wether or how many extra people visited London at that time.
Personally, I found it a bit embarrassing, but quite like the idea of these things being used.
The robes etc may have been made, but Im not sure who paid for that.
The soldiers get paid the same anyway, though there may have been some extra overtime payments.
I believe the biggest cost would be security, etc., especiallly for the foreign dignitaries, and foreign royals, etc.
The one good thing about a hereditary monarchy is that the last coronation was over 70 years ago, so it does not come round very often.

Do posters believe there wouldn’t be hungry children if we didn’t have the RF?

do posters think the parents of the hungry children should be directly contributing to make a billionaire wealthier?

Who pays for Kier Starmer travelling round the world? Who pays for the security when you have all these big conferences which leaders of country attend? Do any of these events actually result in anything?

How was Charles made wealthier as a result of the coronation?

right, for the last time , Starmer was elected. Whether you like him or not he was elected.
His children will not automatically become pm, neither will his ancestors for the next 1000 years.
Can you really not see the difference? Really?

You’re welcome. 🤣

They usually aren't worth billions though, what a comparison 🤣

@Notmoog if you haven’t got enough money to buy food for your children then the chances are you aren’t paying much, if any, tax so probably not contributing to the RF. if you don’t have enough money to feed your children you are more than likely not a net contributor money wise to the economy and you are possibly, ironically, benefiting from the taxes paid by the RF

The problem with debating this is it mainly comes down to whether you want a monarchy or not.

If you don’t want a constitutional monarchy as your parliamentary system then any amount of money is going to be unacceptable.

I do prefer the constitutional monarchy option. I don’t think this sum was extortionate for a historical state occasion but some elements of the ceremony did seem a bit weird in the modern context.

One of the issues this time around was having the jubilee, followed by a massive state funeral, followed by the coronation so quickly.

I imagine that both funeral and coronation will be smaller the next time around.

christ, you really believe the drivel about them don't you. Amazing

Diplomatic visits are part of a process that has resulted in tangible benefits such as arms limitations treaties, trade agreements, pollution restrictions, and mutual aid relationships. Diplomatic missions have ended wars, fed the starving and assisted those in need.

Charles wore a gaudy hat in a church while a bunch of lackeys mooned over him.

Gosh, what a difficult choice!

@Notmoog what drivel. I am just stating a fact that if you have very hungry children the chances are you are not in the percentage of families who are net contributors when it comes to tax. The RF do pay an element of tax, not as much as they could, but they do pay some and therefore if you are not a net contributor you benefit from other taxpayers which include the RF.

Much more money is wasted by the Government that probably results in hungry children than is spent on the RF. If we didn't have a RF would things improve for lots of people, I doubt it. There are more important things I worry about than whether we have a RF.

@HowardTJMoon other countries would have paid for their leaders to attend Rf funeral/coronation, by your argument what benefit did they get from that?

" If we didn't have a RF would things improve for lots of people, I doubt it."
would improve for all the people who don't want to pay for them

@Notmoog and you think the money saved would be spent wisely?

wouldn't be being spent on scrounging billionaires which would be an improvement

Apart from vast swathes of land the Duke of Buccleuch retained the mineral rights of a house we used to own.

Coronation mugs in Duchy of Cornwall shops?

@Delphiniumandlupins which he would then pay tax on!