Coronation

stanthevan said:
Tax payers money that was generated from the income from tourism.
Click to expand...
And I hear US presidents start the job with a cheap buffet and a handshake at a dusty hotel function room. No tax payer funded pomp and ceremony there!

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't be against reducing the tax payer burden of the Royals, slim it down a tad. Does there need to be quite so many houses and titles etc. I'm all for efficiency in the public sector after all ;)

But in general when it comes to this discussion I find it sad some place so little stock in a thread of the country's history that goes back a thousand years through all sorts of fascinating twists and turns.

I will watch the historical bits and value that, but I won't spend the whole weekend glued to the coverage wearing my union colour waitcoast waving my bunting around. There are other things to be doing. But I know some will and that's not doing any harm.
 
Last edited:
All a question of personal preference.

On Saturday I will not be watching the tv. I am not even sure of the times involved for the royal event but I will be making my way to to the Kings Park Cafe as usual. If we have to stand for the anthem sobeit but I won't sing God Save the King I think Charles is a complete t.....r.

No mention locally of any type of street celebration but then I haven't been asked or told.Just continue life as normal Bank Holidays do not affect me anyway.

Those that want to watch the event good luck to them it is their choice.
 
northstandmark said:
And I hear US presidents start the job with a cheap buffet a handshake at a dusty hotel function room. No tax payer funded pomp and ceremony there!

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't be against reducing the tax payer burden of the Royals, slim it down a tad. Does there need to be quite so many houses and titles etc. I'm all for efficiency in the public sector after all ;)

But in general when it comes to this discussion I find it sad some place so little stock in a thread of the country's history that goes back a thousand years through all sorts of fascinating twists and turns.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people may agree but a constitutional monarchy is well past its sell by date. Let’s get rid of the civil list, the state openings, the oaths and ease ourselves into the 21st century with a Scandinavian style monarchy.
 
We don't have to adopt the 'Subjects' label if we don't consider it appropriate..it's not the Tudor Era for Christ Sake....and I doubt QE2 , or Charles now, would begrudge us conferring. 'citizen' upon ourselves !
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Im in the middle ground on this. I think the whole royal thing does bring people here to visit and I enjoy visiting the palaces as much as the next guy. But the idea that we are subjects lorded over by a German family who just happed to be lucky enough to come out of the correct vagina and dont have to worry about tax and have special treatment is just crazy in 2023.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree it is all a bit bonkers but in practical terms it's irrelevant to our lives. The status of subject to me is about as relevant as the legendary laws about mandatory longbow practise. It's no more than a fun little quip for tour guides.

It just tends to be culture war fodder to get Guardian readers all frothy mouthed and then Mail readers frothy mouthed about the Guardian articles.

At the end of the day it's a net economic gain for the country and makes some people happy. Why take that away?
 
Kudos said:
I tend to agree it is all a bit bonkers but in practical terms it's irrelevant to our lives. The status of subject to me is about as relevant as the legendary laws about mandatory longbow practise. It's no more than a fun little quip for tour guides.

It just tends to be culture war fodder to get Guardian readers all frothy mouthed and then Mail readers frothy mouthed about the Guardian articles.

At the end of the day it's a net economic gain for the country and makes some people happy. Why take that away?
Click to expand...
Same with ecstasy;-) just kidding kids, don’t do drugs.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The royals don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit the UK because we have a royal family, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other countries that don't have a royal families, such as France.
Click to expand...

Ah, but imagine how many more visitors they'd get if they did.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The royals don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit the UK because we have a royal family, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other countries that don't have a royal families, such as France.

Other wastes of money are not relevant.
Click to expand...

The counter argument is it's much easier and cheaper to visit Paris / France than the UK for at least 700 plus million (The EU - No borders) excellent transport links, France borders vast wealthy countries.

I reckon if you plonked Buckingham Palace in Paris and opened the doors it would attract just as many tourists, if not more than Versailles. Perhaps stick a Royal in it for good measure.

Allegedly this event according to business experts will attract more money to the economy than its operating costs by some considerable margin (yanks alone £44 million)

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.u...set-for-coronation-weekend-boost-1013619.html

That said the Royals really should pay for it, if not give the same amount (£100 million) to good causes, preferably do both.
 
Slightly off track but about Royals and Palaces.

They certainly have got a number of Palaces in Russia which once were lived in by the Russian Royals.

Went round one incredible one on a cruise ship visit to St Petersburg a few years ago and we were only allowed to stop and look at the artefacts for a few moments and had to move on, our every move was watched by people around each room we visited. That place certainly brought in money from tourists visiting.

Remember as a youth in the early 1960’s on a visit to what was then called Leningrad (St Petersburg ) taken to what we thought was the equivalent of our youth clubs/centres.

As we entered we were greeted to chandeliers overhead (Del Boy would have had a field day), the place had more of a Palace look about it, real eye opener.
 
Last edited:
red_house said:
The counter argument is it's much easier and cheaper to visit Paris / France than the UK for at least 700 plus million (The EU - No borders) excellent transport links, France borders vast wealthy countries.

I reckon if you plonked Buckingham Palace in Paris and opened the doors it would attract just as many tourists, if not more than Versailles. Perhaps stick a Royal in it for good measure.

Allegedly this event according to business experts will attract more money to the economy than its operating costs by some considerable margin (yanks alone £44 million)

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.u...set-for-coronation-weekend-boost-1013619.html

That said the Royals really should pay for it, if not give the same amount (£100 million) to good causes, preferably do both.[/QUOTE
Of course if you plonked Buck House in the middle of Paris it would be very popular. The point is that you don't need the royal family inside.
Click to expand...
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The royals don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit the UK because we have a royal family, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other countries that don't have a royal families, such as France.

Other wastes of money are not relevant.
Click to expand...

Disneyland don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit Florida because they have a theme park, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other places that don't have a giant theme park, such as France.
 
Kudos said:
Disneyland don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit Florida because they have a theme park, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other places that don't have a giant theme park, such as France.
Click to expand...
They only go there for Eurodisney.
 
Kudos said:
Disneyland don't bring in money. Tourists don't visit Florida because they have a theme park, as evidenced by the fact many more people visit other places that don't have a giant theme park, such as France.
Click to expand...

Did this feel like a real zinger in your head because it didn't translate to the screen very well.

Surprised this needs to be said tbh but people visit Disneyland. People don't visit the royals. They go to the palaces and look around historic stuff, like they do in France, which abolished it's royal family some time ago.
 
Hes got a point... Would Disney World (FFS Florida doesn't have a Disneyland! *roll eyes emoji*) be as popular if you couldn't meet actual princesses?
 
One for the older fans.

Do you remember the rush to get out of the cinema at the end of the film before the national anthem was played?

Won’t be able to do that Saturday. :grinning:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;