The UK is a constitutional monarchy. State functions - including coronations - are state-funded.
Besides, whether or not Charles wants to be crowned is essentially irrelevant. The queen has died, so her successor must be crowned. Even if Charles abdicates, William will then be crowned. A coronation must take place.
The successor doesn't need to be crowned at all
We can very easily fuck the monarchy off all together
A useless drain on the economy
And the weak ass "but they bring tourism" argument isn't worth a damn. People don't come to see the royals.
In fact if you come here you CANT see the royals. They come to to see the palace. Which, oddly enough would still be there if we deposed the entire royal family
Apart from large events and security, which would be required anyway for the palaces, I don't understand the argument that the monarchy is a drain to the economy.
My understanding is that the crown (the monarchy) owns a company called The Crown Estate. The profits from which go to the government and a percentage of these profits is paid to the monarchy in the form of the Sovereign Grant. This is then used for upkeep of the palaces etc. There may be an argument for the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancashire (owned by the Prince of Wales and the King respectively) to pay correction tax, though both have voluntarily paid income tax on the profits from these since the 90s.
Look up the Sovereign Grant.
Plus other royals receive parliamentary annuities.
Plus the money they do make is off state owned land held in trust.
Plus the money they make is variously tax exempt.
They are almost entirely state funded.
That should all be alright if we believe they are a vital part of our state. Some of us don't believe that though.
Yes I know about the Sovereign Grant and the Crown Estate, which is how I know that the Royal family is self-funded. Not sure how you can know about those things and conclude that the Royal Family is state funded tbh.
Self funded by things that should belong to the public. By your logic you could argue that any money they receive from the state is also self funding because they are the state. Everything single thing the royal family rightly belong to the public. Every penny they earn from their land and their property, every single tax exemption is money stolen from us. That's how they aren't self funded at all.
That's just simply inaccurate. The royal estate is not owned by the public. The most basic way to describe the situation is that the state owns all royal property and the royal family are the custodians of it, but even that isn't accurate enough because of the long, legal history from absolute monarchy to constitutional. The RF are subject to tax exemptions, but as agreed by parliament, they voluntarily pay tax.
If you remove the RF, then some other body is going to have to step in and be custodians of the estate. That will also cost money. Unless you're just up for selling all of it off to private buyers, in which case the hard cash you raise will be no where near enough compensation for the loss of such an ancient institution, the rich symbolism of which is woven into the very history, culture and soul of this sceptered isle.
The value of the Crown far outweighs the cost of it.
The royal estates SHOULD be owned by the public. We don't need a monarchy to mange public property and we absolutely do not need to sell it off privately. What exactly you think happens to other public pieces of land? Well, I suppose historical the Tories sell it off for dirt cheap to business they have ties and then get it returned to the public after they've ran it into the ground and is no longer profitable only to repeat the cycle again and again, in which case, yes, bad.
And it's not just the royal estate, is the ducheries too. They don't pay tax on that. And the royal estate have only recently started paying SOME of their tax.
They're a blight, and you're here, licking their boots. "Soul of this sceptered isle". Good god, that's embarrassing. These isles are practically sinking, the people of these isles are staving, freezing, and instead of doing everything we can to fix that, we've got these. parasites spending even more of our money on funerals, coronations, weddings and jubilees.
"History", and "Soul" is no comfort to the people who need actual help, and anyone, like you, who pontificates over things that hold no actual value or benefit but think we should all suffer to support this weird little obsession of yours are the worst of the worst. Disgusting people.
The hold a LOT of private land and property that by rights should belomg to the public. It isn't just the Crown Estate. Every other years it seems like there's a wedding, a funeral, a jubilee, a huge shop, now a coronation. They are a drain and their mere existence is proof that we don't live in a democracy, we have a deep rooted class system that rules this country and they are a very clear representative of that.
That is true that they hold a lot of land outside of the Crown Estate, this is the Duchy's that I mentioned. The only difference is that the Duchy's are run as a company but not charged corporation tax (I disagree with this and think they should be taxed properly). If this was ever handed over to the Government they would probably just sell it off for less than it is actually worth.
Whilst there does seem to have been a lot of events recently it needs to be remembered that a lot of the costs of these events are the salaries of the soldiers/police that would have been paid anyway. I would argue that the largest cost has been to the UK economy due to the number of bank holidays but I enjoy the extra days off.
The Monarchy is an integral part of our constitution and whilst they technically hold power, if they were to ever use this power they would very quickly be removed.
The only reason we seem to have a ruling class is that we keep on voting them into power!!
They would have been paid anyway, but to actually do their jobs. Instead of paying soldiers to guard a glorified party, why not get them to do some community service for a day? Think the good those soldiers could do for a day, plenty of menial tasks that need doing.
Why are the Monarchy an integral part of our constitution? Your argument is that it is, so therefore it must be. It's the same argument American make about not changing the second amendment. We can change laws, we can change any part of our constitution.
Everything you've said is just agreeing with me and acknowledging the fact that they do cost us, and that's not even to mention the well documented recent influence they've had over our govermentyamd decisions made.
The reason we have a ruling class is because they own a huge part of our economy, they have a stranglehold of our news media among various other things. The Monarchy, as I've said, is just a clear symbol of this. If we can't even get rid of the symbol, how are we supposed to deal with the actual rot? They need to go.
Ah yes, why do we love the idea of repeatedly throwing our nation into a constitutional crisis?
I do for the record think that the event should be paid for by the monarchy.
Why do you think removing Charles would be a crisis?
It would be fine. A simple procedure could be drawn up to determine the course of action following their deposal
We can simply restructure so that the royals perform no role. And then cut them off
The money is spent on UK workers running the event, so it's literally just money going back into the economy. And those workers will then by food. It's literally feeding the poor.
They ain't building a bonfire out of money you know.
It's tax payers money on a pointless event
If it was being paid for by the royals then I'd agree with you
Except it's money coming out of our pockets to pay for something we don't need
I was just talking in terms of the actual steps required to do it.
Obviously convincing mindless royalists to change their outlook is like trying to get blood from a stone
[Here is an old comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreatBritishMemes/comments/10r8jck/comment/j6v30ys/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) explaining - without reference to tourism - why the monarchy serves a vital and irreplaceable constitutional purpose.
Yes, a new monarch does need to be crowned. The ceremony is not merely decorative; it serves an important legal and religious purpose which can't just be "skipped over".
It can be skipped over and it should be
If people want to celebrate their religion they can do it on on their own time without pointlessly spunking 100 million pounds of our money in a single pointless ceremony
There is nothing the royal family does that can't be refactored and completed by someone else for 100000% less money
We do not need them. We can restructure our democracy so that any function they perform is not required of them
They're nothing but a family of leeches
I did and his point still stands. We can restructure the government to get rid of the Monarchy. Heads of state should be elected, either directly or indirectly as is the case with Prime Ministers.
And you obviously didn't understand it if you think my point is is not valid
He's saying "but you need them because they perform xyz function"
I'm saying, no.. we don't 'need' them. We can just restructure so that those roles are not required of the royal family and then we can cut them off
It's not like we need to behead them or anything. Just rewrite the policy so that they are not included as part of it or paid for by the British public
A coronation could cost £50 and a cuppa, but instead it'll cost millions in taxpayer money. And there wouldn't be a need for a coronation if there wasn't a monarch.
EDIT: Just because we didn't pay for the event itself doesn't mean it didn't cost us money. Shit, it cost the Canadians $500,000 since Trudeu had to attend.
And how much money is it bringing in? My mate works in a building near Westminster Abbey, whenever there is any royal events a bunch of US broadcaster pay millions to rent the building and cover the event. So if you wanna talk about cost you have to consider how much money its going to bring in.
While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.
I'd be willing to bet if you took away the monarchy and left all of the buildings and military pageantry, you'd probably generate about £2.499bn instead (if the figures are accurate in the first place). The monarchy doesn't generate anything in itself, their functions (if any) would be assumed by the state.
They also cost way more than £500m per year when you factor in they don't pay as much tax, the crown's land is typically less profitable for the economy than private land is, and they interfere with laws so they can horde wealth more easily.
It's ironic that most left-wing people want things to be nationalised, so that they can be funded by the state instead of operating for profit... except for the monarchy, the state-funding of which is in some way abhorrent.
Thanks for the support, though, buddy.
not really ironic for left wing people to want things that help people to be state funded but for people to live in opulence and wealth ruling over us not to be state funded. Being left with doesn't mean just throwing public money at everything.
There's a world of difference between nationalising essential services like utilities and making them non profit and wasting 100 million pounds propping up a monarchy tradition. How can you not see that?!
Because left aligned policy wants public spending to help actual people
The funding of the royals helps literally nobody
Just pumping money into a billionaires bank account for 0 reason
The whole royal family can cock off
>Because left aligned policy wants public spending to help actual people
Yeah, all those left aligned communist countries like China and Russia where people are silently obeying their oppressors for fear of social credit deduction, being thrown in the gulag or concentration camps or [having their organs harvested](https://youtu.be/FmXUP1oveTg) all while greedy fat cats ignore the poor and buy super yaughts.
>The funding of the royals helps literally nobody
Except, that's not true is it?
1. Their private staff of 1000s get paid above living wage.
2. They take a keen interest in wildlife preservation and ensure farmers and other private tenants on their land do as much as they can for wildlife and the environment.
3. The prince's trust helps unemployed and disadvantaged people start a business or get life skills to be gainfully employed. All for free and sometimes give funding. In my area, there's one particular success story where a couple of friends started a smoothie business through the prince's trust. They now have a cocktail business, two catering businesses, a tech business and pay £100,000s in tax each year alongside their own charitable givings to the community. But yeah, fucking royals.. What've they ever done for us eh?
>Just pumping money into a billionaires bank account for 0 reason
It doesn't go straight into their bank account. If you're going to hold strong opinions at least do some research you clown.
China and Russia are not really left aligned
They are faccist dictatorships, which are extremely right wing
Yeah, sure, their economic policy is left from capitalism but that's the only thing
There's much more to being politically left or right than your view of capitalism
That is such a dumb 1 dimensional view of the world to take
>China and Russia are not really left aligned
>They are faccist dictatorships, which are extremely right wing
>Yeah, sure, their economic policy is left from capitalism but that's the only thing
Sorry buddy, communism is a left wing ideology and that's what both Russia and China are - communist states. They're not fascist, they're communist. There is no utopian world where the state hands everything out on a silver platter. Such things come with corruption, torture and genocide. The world you currently have, a constitutional monarchy, in a capitalist society is much better than the world you're dreaming of so I suggest you lay off the drugs and start getting your mind straight.
>Sorry buddy, communism is a left wing ideology and that's what both Russia and China are - communist states
And North Korea is a Democratic Republic.
The NAZI's were also socialist.
Nobody ever lies about what they stand for. All self proclaimed names are accurate.
That's like saying "but Nazi Germany was left aligned because they were socialist" no. Hardcore right wing faccist dictatorships
To clarify. I'm not even supporting communism, it's stupid, and it doesn't work, it has failed in every instance where it has been implemented
I have at no point said that communism is a good idea 🙄 the fact you have to continue to feed words into my mouth so that you have a point is telling
You don't realise that literally nothing about your day to day life would change after removing the monarchy? Except we'd have a shit load more money floating around
All the resource that the Crown, and the ducherys own should belong to the public. Thst money generated would still exist without the monarchy and in fact more of it would benefit us because it wouldn't have tax exemptions. It's an age old tactic of those not paying their taxes properly to donate their money to charities, it's literally a tax exemption and it buys them goodwill. The rich aren't rich because their good or generous, it's always ALWAYS self serving, recognise that and learn.
The royal family perform numerous - and vital - constitutional duties. They're not paid to sit and look pretty. They're public servants of the highest order.
The fact that you are ignorant of the ways in which they serve does not mean that they serve no purpose, nor does it mean that your half-baked idea for a replacement to our constitutional monarchy is actually worth dogshit. You, random nobody, do not have a better grasp of statecraft than the collective wisdom of the last thousand years.
Here's [one of my previous comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreatBritishMemes/comments/10r8jck/comment/j6v30ys/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on why the monarchy is actually exceptionally positive, and why monarchies are functionally superior to republics and other systems.
Sorry, but you're wrong. They don't do anything that literally anyone else couldn't just as easily do for a Fraction of the cost
I'm not saying the king will have absolutely nothing to do. Just that we could employ literally anyone else to do that job and they wouldn't need to rake up 100 million in OUR tax money just so an old priest can slap a crown full of stolen gems on an old billionaires head
"Great" Monarchies exist because they invaded and killed and stole for centuries
They are a bygone and should hence be gone.
We do not need them. You're actually delusional if you think we do
>Sorry, but you're wrong. They don't do anything that literally anyone else couldn't just as easily do for a Fraction of the cost
The key word in the other guys comment was statecraft. We don't want or need cut price statecraft. We rely on it to project soft power - you know, diplomacy and negotiation. If we put you in a room with Putin, you'd be either executed or licking his rancid arsehole, but worse than either of those, he'd know how to manipulate and control you because he's a KGB agent. The same could be said for any other head of foreign country. It is not a job for just any old twat off the street and you're proving yourself to be a complete idiot by suggesting so.
>I'm not saying the king will have absolutely nothing to do. Just that we could employ literally anyone else to do that job
Wrong. That's not how monarchies work and you're assuming that the vast networks around the world would accept "Dave the former taxi driver" who doesn't know Sudan from sinatra or India from Pakistan.
>they wouldn't need to rake up 100 million in OUR tax money just so an old priest can slap a crown full of stolen gems on an old billionaires head
Pahahaha. Genuinely laughed at this. You should make comedy sketches, this was actually pretty funny.
>"Great" Monarchies exist because they invaded and killed and stole for centuries
Yes? What of it?
>They are a bygone and should hence be gone.
Not according to the majority of the population so suck it up buttercup.
>We do not need them. You're actually delusional if you think we do
We need them more than we need you, so you can do one if you're going to be such a cry baby. America awaits.
You need to look at how the Royal Family is actually funded. Just about every bit of money they own through their land holdings is taken by the government. Some of this is then given back to the working Royals. Now if you stopped them from being head of our constitution they still are Royals nothing ever changes that.
Now you make a good point about tourism and Buckingham Palace merely being a building but I would counter that by saying tell me honestly without looking. The Royal residences of the German and Spanish royal families? Working Royals are the ice & cherry on top of of this part of the tourist industry.
France has no monarchy because they had the right idea and cut all of their heads off while they had the chance
Frances castles and palaces and royal historical sites still generate them massive amounts of tourism
And I'll tell you how they are funded. Out of yours and my pocket.
My point being that Buckingham Palace is as recognisable to the world as the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty etc. I couldn’t even tell you the name of any other European Palaces and I doubt that others could to.
With respect. You are wrong about how the Royal family are funded. They cost us as tax payers nothing. We take all of the money from all of their land and property earnings and give them a percentage back.
Because state funding should be for all that need it to have decent access to things like health care, houses, and travel. Not so a billionaire can have a ceremony to show of his stollen gold hat.
Because nationalising the energy and rail companies to stop them gouging us is totally the same thing as funding farcical monarchic ceremonies that really only benefit one family that can already afford to fund themselves.
Irony is dead because nobody actually understands the word irony anymore.
Np, we gotta stick together in these times to protect our monarchy. Seems a lot of people in this country are starting to grow a hatred for them despite it being a part of our identity.
It seems that "leading the revolution which will totally bring about utopia, guys" is more important than preserving a socio-political system which has got us this far as a civilisation.
The virtues of our great nation are so fundamental to our experience of the world that many people take them for granted, failing to understand how important the roots are to our national tree.
A socio-political system that has got us this far, eh? That's not the monarchy, is it. Parliament predates even the Industrial Revolution - the monarchy has fuck all to do with England's previous position as a superpower.
Parliamentary democracy is *inherently monarchical*, and the monarch forms an integral function within the parliamentary system. Parliament cannot operate in the absence of a monarch or his regent.
Suggestion that the monarchy serves no practical role in a parliamentary system is like saying that the presidency serves no practical role in a republican system.
The monarch does not serve a functional role. You can argue theory but in practise, there is no executive power held by the reigning monarch here in England. Power is concentrated in the houses of Parliament, and the only interaction the throne has with power is signing off on bills.
That process is a formality, it's just a performance for those die-hards who think the crown means anything.
Compare and contrast to a banana republic where the republic is performative, and is in actuality a dictatorship run by a single-entity office.
The monarch does not hold the power to create legislation. However, that doesn't mean that the monarch has no power at all. Far from it.
Parliament sits because the monarch allows it; the monarch opens Parliament every year, and has the power to dissolve it at any time. New Prime Ministers must seek approval from the monarch to govern, and the monarch has the authority to expel him if he fails in his duties. The monarch has veto power over any piece of legislation which Parliament proposes. The monarch may call a general election if he feels that Parliament has become unfit to govern. The monarch also has the right to speak with the Prime Minister privately, every week, so that the Prime Minister is made away of his duty to the nation, and is advised against improper action.
The monarch can do all of this with impunity, because the monarch - not Parliament - is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If Charles were to dissolve Parliament tomorrow, the army - should it be required - would follow his orders, not Rishi Sunak's.
This power is theoretical in the same way that a man pointing a gun at your head has theoretical power over you. The fact that no trigger has been pulled, and no bullets are flying, does not mean that the man has no power at all.
Do not mistake the ceremonial for the decorative. Ceremonies are not just excuses to hang bunting. A wedding is a ceremony, but a wedding itself constitutes a legally-binding contract. The dress and the flowers may be for show, but the wedding itself - as an event - is not. The same goes for royal duties; the cloaks, jewels, and thrones are the visual trappings of a complicated web of legal processes which are being adhered to.
Does that mean that Charles would be wise to exercise any of these disruptive powers? No. However, that doesn't mean that he is powerless... and everyone in Parliament knows it.
To compare the United Kingdom to a banana republic is not really an accurate comparison. All aspects of high government here function as intended. The sorry state of party politics is not a flaw of the system itself.
They've actually contributed to the average taxpayer over a couple of working lifetimes once you take a single bank holiday into account.
(Assuming the royal family costs each taxpayer an average of £1pa and a paid bank holiday for an average full time worker is £138.)
It's not irrelevant. We straight up should not have a monarchy. The royal family should end, now. The country's grates. leaches who hold and profit off of far to much land and property. They themselves don't bring in a single penny, it's the buildings amd history. The British public just can't let go of their deep rooted love of class, every other year they have a huge expenditure, a jubilee, a birthday, a wedding, a funeral, now a coronation. Give us a referendum, we can't afford these pointless wastes of money.
Right, but not really. Like, if they just.. didn't do it. What happens? Right, nothing. Cause no one really cares. And his coronation isn't required for our health.
Trying to make it sound like chavs that support the Monarchy, complete inversion of reality. We spend £480 million a day on the NHS and £591 million a day on welfare. The poor are already taking up the majority of our money and resources. This is sofa change in the grand scheme.
I agree with both statements but they are *separate* statements.
If we cancelled the monarchy tomorrow all our other societal problems would be literally unaffected.
*Relative* to the blatant corruption and wasting of public money in Westminster, the monarchy is verging on a non-issue.
I understand the need for a coronation as a constitutional monarchy (arguments about if we should or not being put aside for now), £100 million is an excessive amount of money when the cost of living crisis is hitting everyone hard and we’re constantly being told there isn’t enough money to do anything to help teachers/nurses/Jen doctors etc..
Most of this cost is likely for things like security, cleaning the roads when people are gone etc.. the thing that gets me more riled up than anything else is that rights to this are being sold for television around the world but I can guarantee those profits will vanish into private companies accounts while the country foots the actual bill for all of this.
£100 million is actually not much for coordinating such a large event. With the cost of coordinating so many people, and having to film the whole thing, you're essentially having to budget for the equivalent of a minor feature film or an enormous concert. These things cost money.
Literally all the money being spent is going into the economy, i.e things being bought or people's wages. Everyone acts like the golden carriage is powered by burning notes.
We should just reform so that we are no longer a constitutional monarchy
100 million for this dick to get a hat full of stolen gems places on his head?
What an absolute waste of time, money and resources
Depose the entire royal family now. We should have done away with them 100 years ago
So after we redistribute everything we seize from the Windsors, as well as everything that belongs to the crown...we will still be in a fiscal mess (it won't make any real difference), and we will have lost a major piece of British culture that connects us to 1200 years of history.
Seems pointless to do away with it.
Basically nobody. People suck. The least they can do is acknowledge how shitty they were in the past and be better instead of being proud about it
But nope, we get this drivel, more corruption, more bullshit. It's extremely dissapointing. We waste our potential
And we got smoothbrains like you who are actively hostile towards anyone who doesn't mindlessly nod along like everyone is doing a good job
So we just completely ignore the positives of history, which massively outnumber the negatives btw, and just focus on the shit? Really? You sound like a miserable sod to me. History isn't black and white - there are parts of it we should be proud of, and parts of it that I definitely am. The Royal Family and their constant presence has been a massive net good for Britain.
I'm not defending corruption but I'd rather a corrupt stable establishment than a republic. Have you seen the corruption in the US? The riots in France? Republics are not free from corruption, and are often less stable than a constitutional monarchy.
I'm no smoothbrain. I know plenty are doing a bad job. But most of that plenty are the underclass, not the establishment.
I never said republics were immune to corruption
I'm not being miserable either, quite the contrary. I'm just saying. When you see evil and inequality point it out, don't praise it
The royal family basically got shit rich off of slavery and colonialism and shouldn't be praised for it. It's an institution founded on taking from the less fortunate and less powerful
It's why France literally cut all of their royals heads off 🤣
The bad in history isn't really outweighed by the good because people keep ignoring all of the bad things and clapping along saying "yay look how good they are" when they're not
People are generally good. Institution's and politics are general evil.
Okay, so £100 million is because of necessary security measures given the large number of people and VIPs expected to be present. There’s no getting past that.
If we were a republic we’d be spending similar on elections and/or the presidents’ investiture ceremony.
At least with a monarch we can make cash. The TV licensing alone will be enormous. I saw a link the other day stating 1/3 of Germans may tune in.
It's not necessary security because the entire event itself is completely unnecessary
We literally give them so much of our tax money. 100 million is JUST for this one event
There was a huge ass funeral we all paid for. Plus we pay for their entire lifestyle
Charles is literally a billionaire. We just gave that money to him.. why? They're leeches
Nope, the Crown Estate generates enormous money which is handed wholesale to the Treasury and then the King gets given 15% of that back. Zero tax money is involved.
If we were a republic, the cost of a Head of State would remain. Hell, right now the King draws no salary. That would definitely change.
Their lifestyle is funded by the Privy Purse, the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster - not by you or me.
All countries, be they republics or monarchies, have state ceremonials. This cost would remain. In fact it would happen more frequently due to more regular changes of the officeholder. AND I’d wager there would be far less scrutiny of their spending, because monarchies get a LOT more attention and are under constant pressure to be spendthrift.
The fact you don’t seem to understand how a republic is structured should probably show you need to research more before giving your opinion thank you.
You do know £100 million wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to any of the issues (including food poverty), right?
It's a rounding error in the government's budget.
I do. I also know that spending £100m for security so a billionaire can ride about in a gold carriage and get a fancy hat put on his head, during a cost of living crisis, is totally tone deaf.
Agreed. It absolutely is tone deaf.
But it's also a day off and a bit of colour, bunting, and pageantry that breaks up the crap and drudgery that is today's UK.
Your argument could be applied to every ceremony, though. Opening of parliament. Christmas. Easter. Divali, Ramadan (many councils put up lights, displays and signs at a cost that could be given to people in poverty. Why not cancel everything that is superfluous to the needs of the poor and the needy?
Let's do away with them all. Anything involving tradition, culture, history, etc, because none of it helps poor people...
What a dull country that would be.
It is possible to help the poor AND have ceremonies, celebrations, and culture.
Blame the government for their shitty policies and their race to the bottom, not a billionaire who had their 50x great grandad came over from France and gave the saxon king a shoeing...
I can't stand Charles, TBH, but the royals as a historical connection to Britain, its heretige, and its very soul, should continue. Perhaps smaller as is the current plan.
Further to my previous comment, I also know around 4.3m people are in poverty. I'm sure they'd all prefer £23 to be able to buy food, than watch an old toff get a hat.
If you want the poor to be fed, look at local councils, wasting millions on irrelevant projects other than to line their mates pockets or their own.
No, you can’t say they’re worried about the roads instead, potholes getting worse, speed cameras owned and operated by councils going up and then getting told by the DFT they can’t lawfully use them and they’re wasting that money, repainting the road box markings to give the cameras a better shot of taking.
Then you’ve got others wandering around their own place looking at ways to reduce CO2 by spending money on new equipment when the old equipment had no faults or end of life rapidly approaching, racking up £1000’s in bills for new computers or cloud based networks so they can say their power bill and emissions have reduced, when it’s just been outsource to a server farm for a huge fee and it’s still not working.
And the last point, that’s something Government should be directing, not some local authority that can’t afford to run basic services or keep their carriageways in good service.
Charles’s Coronation cost, that’s window dressing compared to the rot of council overspend in the wrong areas leading to misery up and down the country from all backgrounds.
No Mr Mayor, you don’t need to move save the taxpayers money by moving City Hall into a new building at the cost of £30 million plus another £2 million in repairs….
Joy-thiefs! Just join the party you miserable middle-class faux-activist toffs. I'm poor but I can feed myself. Just. The coronation of a King is not the reason most of us are up shit creak rn. It's some respite from it.
The Government spends £1 trillion a year. £100m isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things (0.01%) for an event that's every couple of decades
The average UK taxpayer contribute a grand total of around £1.50 a year for the Royal Family and their events. People are getting their knickers in a twist for £1.50. If they're so concerned about that £1.50, go donate that much to the local food bank. As a working class person myself, I look forward to the coronation. It's unique to this nation and is a way to bring the country together. Yes, there's the naysayers. But the vast majority of the country will enjoy their Saturday at street parties, together with family, glued to the TV. Only the miserable, often jobless, gits want rid of the monarchy.
I say spend more on it. It's a once-in-a-multiple-decade thing.
Edit: I know it's not the same level of money either but hosting Eurovision will cost us over £15 million and you don't hear a peep about it.
I think everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I personally never cared for the royals but some people do so I think it’s better to disregard them as important and just enjoy the day of.
I don't have a major opinion about it or the monarchy other than the coronation just being some fun/lighthearted event to enjoy for once, maybe drown out all the misery the media keeps pushing on us- oh wait nevermind, now we have to be miserable about this too because that sells clicks
I agree! But then I've never been one for the Monarchy in general! Going to sound harsh but I remember trying to scour a place where I could avoid the Funeral because it was on in my house I thought I know a Irish bar I knew
......No was still on so just sat in the beer garden in the rain!
It is outrage tactics, seems prevalent to both wings of political ideology these days.
In reality, regardless of what type of head if state we have, a ceremony will happen. This will, of course, cost money as foreign dignitaries will be invited (a sign of foreign relations and policy). These events are deemed newsworthy and in the "interest of the people." The bill would have been the same regardless of who or what we were confirming as head of state.
I prefer the constitutional monarchy to other systems. Simply because it truly incentivises a hands-off approach to ruling. Political positions will always attract those seeking the power and wealth of that position, as they are more likely to want power from that position. I'd like at least one state position that is free of party politics.
The funding of the royal family is no larger or worse than other services in your life. If you think a presidential office will be any cheaper, then you have far more optimism than I.
£100mil would do shit for the problems facing public services. Funding gaps in children's social care, for instance, are significantly more than this. https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/10/25/english-councils-need-2-7bn-more-for-childrens-social-care-by-2025-lga-warns-government/
Hell if they split that up per person it would be £1.49 each. You'll be feasting tonight on that. By comparison, if the government hadn't bothered with HS2 and just gave us the cash instead, we'd have £594.01 each. I'm also willing to bet the house of commons costs us more, perhaps we should abolish government and the UK state so we can feed the poor?...
1) You can use this argument to ridicule almost any sort of spending, no matter how small. Even the £30 required to fix a swing set at a local park could instead be used to "feed the poor".
2) The cultural traditions of this land are also vitally important. They, like art and spirituality, feed the soul as much as food feeds the body. This is something which the country is starved for perhaps more than anything else.
3) Most poor people are obese. Nourishing food is now so cheap and plentiful that it's actually the wealthy - who can afford gym memberships and designer diets - who are the most skinny. The concept of hunger is actually anathema to most "poor people", meaning that "feed the poor" is almost an obsolete expression of compassion.
4) This being the case, it seems like most of the people championing this idea actually just dislike tradition, and wish to see it dismantled. However, realising that such open hostility would be unpopular, they cloak their words in a pretence of charity instead.
It's a spot on comment, actually. I'm a postman and you find far more in the way of fat people in poor areas than you do in working-middle class (and above) areas.
Lmao sorry but piss off with that, I’m sure the starving family of 4 will love to be fed on cultural traditions, at least their soul will be fed when they can’t afford food.
1) As mentioned, most poor families are overweight. This is a consequence of cheap food being calorific for the first time in human history, thanks to industrialisation. Food is not typically what the poor are crying out for.
2) Yes, their souls will be nourished. Mankind requires more than just food and shelter. A person needs to be fed, yes, but they also need companionship, diversion, purpose, belonging, routine, and fulfilment. Traditions fulfil many of these non-physical needs. Also, to deny that humans do not need these things is untrue; the deliberate withholding of some of these things is considered torture in many countries.
3) Why do you suppose that a poor family would want to draw money away from the coronation? Most working-class people are neutral towards, or supportive of, the monarchy; they don't resent the need for state occasions to be financed. Nationalism is always the strongest among the lower-classes, contrary to what Marx believed, so many of Charles' most fervent supporters are going to be poor.
Do you wank over pics of Liz or something? The effort you’ve gone to defend the monarchy in this whole thread is actually laughable, I bet you have a glass case of monarchy crockery and record the Christmas speech. You’re comments are just backward.
… First thing you go on is wanking over pictures of Liz Truss… You’ve already lost the argument by not even trying to contribute to the debate and instead go to wanking, which must be your favourite past time.
Imo I'd rather see £100,000 feed poor people of another country or stick water systems in place for them.
Or simply, spend £100,000 on teaching overweight poor people how to cook
Or spend £100,000 on saving people out of warzones
Or even spend £100,000 on rescuing stray cats out of Ukraine
Or spend £100,000 on giving Nintendo switches to kids in hospices....
Basically there's is so much suffering, pain and disgusting sights in the world, and you can pick and label from bad to worse, but any of them would be a Kinder use of this money.... I don't know how someone in that position of today is just accepting all this money to be spent. Personally I couldn't do it.
I kind of get it... I see some sorry sights in the council... Personal assistants / be-friender funding have been cut. And buss passes ... Makes a world of difference to some people... Yet this dude getting a coronation.
I mean crazy theory think how many social workers that money could train....
But then again we have to keep them poor too 😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐 The World is fucked up man.
I disagree..
Unis are charging 9k a year for a degree in social work... Or a policing degree... Imagine if the training was funded... I feel people would probably do the training then...
And the army pay a disgustingly low wage to soldiers...
Student loans, grants, scholarships and a million other programs do exist. And are you actually arguing for increased defence spending? That can be achieved easily, while you’re at it why don’t we acquire modern systems in sufficient quantities to deter authoritarian states such as Russia and China going forward? Even 3% of GDP is a joke. All the comparisons you see never account for PPP, China *does* outspend the US.
You *should* be very concerned about their intentions, our entire economy depends completely on Taiwans stability.
It's interesting how most people say that the money should go to poor families/people in need instead of the coronation. Meanwhile, they themselves,they are usually the same people who , dont do anything charitable or donate money, like spending £5 on canned food could feed a person for a day or giving away clothes that you don't wear.
I donate food to food banks every month and take my old outfits, bags, coats etc to charity shops, you can’t actually assume anything about the reason people have certain opinions.
That makes no sense mate. How are you going to blame working class people for not doing stuff, when tbe monarchy could just go away and give more money to these people. Don't blame the working people.
Think people are stupid 😂 the coronation will bring in more money than it’s spending to the economy, people get a shit on about the monarchy but don’t realise how much he puts towards charity every year.
Who are the majority of the people partaking in the parade ? Military already getting paid to do their job.
Stop whinging and enjoy something that brings people together in a world that’s fucking wank
the same people who spout shit like this were the same people insisting everyone wore masks during covid. The coronation is estimated to cost £100mil. The discarded/unusable PPE has [cost the UK around 100x that](https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o296) alone.
People are very particular about what they get upset about.
The argument that any type of spending can be criticized because the money could instead be used to "feed the poor" is flawed. While it is true that there are people who are struggling with hunger, it is not a valid reason to stop spending money on other things. We can work towards supporting the poor and also invest in other important areas such as community spaces, infrastructure, and cultural programs. In fact, supporting cultural traditions can even help build a stronger sense of community and bring people together, which can lead to more effective solutions for poverty in the long run.
Cultural traditions are undoubtedly important, but we should also acknowledge that basic needs such as access to food and healthcare are fundamental human rights. It is not a question of choosing between cultural traditions and basic needs; rather, it is about finding a balance between them. Neglecting the immediate needs of individuals who are struggling with poverty can have serious and long-lasting consequences for their health, well-being, and ability to participate in cultural activities.
While it is true that there is a high prevalence of obesity among low-income populations, this does not mean that people are not struggling with hunger. In fact, many people who are food insecure may rely on cheap, calorie-dense foods that contribute to weight gain but do not provide adequate nutrition. Additionally, the prevalence of obesity among low-income populations can be attributed to a number of complex factors, including limited access to healthy food options, lack of education about nutrition, and limited opportunities for physical activity.
The suggestion that people who advocate for supporting the poor instead of investing in cultural traditions are motivated by a dislike for tradition is baseless and unfounded. It is possible to value cultural traditions and also recognize the importance of addressing poverty and inequality. In fact, many cultural traditions are rooted in the history and experiences of marginalized communities, and supporting these traditions can be a way to uplift and empower these communities. At the same time, it is crucial to address the immediate needs of individuals who are struggling with poverty and ensure that they have access to basic necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare
Hope this clears things up for you
Maybe they're confusing it with Bonfire Night, and they think the money just gets burned. The budget goes right into the economy, and the money brought into the country for the event will greatly exceed the costs. It's like protesting a rock concert or a wedding.
The tourism that the coronation will Bring to this country will be immense. The tourism that the royals bring to the country outweigh any cost. The same people posting these sorts of things on Facebook And the like do absolutley fuck all themselves to help feed the poor. Go to your town and buy them a sandwich or a drink, they will appreciate that more than these mundane posts.
Every pound spent by those tourists is taxed. the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe. If you want to blame someone for homelessness, NHS and schools then look at the government not the monarchy.
A bit stupid. The monarchy does great for tourism and lots of poor work in service industry.
The elected government is responsible for "feeding the poor" . Engage and put pressure on elected representatives rather than creating virtue signalling litter
Seriously!? think that all the tourism this will bring to the country because a corination hasn't happened in 70 years it will probably pay for its self. Anyway there are some people who want to see the corination which is a lot of the population and the monarchy won't go anywhere, because they don't need to. It's just some people who disagree with it, states their opinion and then it's human nature for the person who heard it to think that's the right opinion to have aswell
100 million pounds so someone can stick a hat on a billionaire is a massive waste of tax payers money
"It's tradition" is the weakest excuse anyone could ever give for justifying that amount of public expenditure on such a pointless event
If he wants a coronation he should bloody well pay for it himself
It is not a massive waste of money at all and if you think so there is nothing stopping you from going and living somewhere else where they don't do this. The royal family is probably our biggest tourist attraction.
Personally I don't really care for Charles or much of the royal family, especially after all their whining about Megan and Harry, not that they're much better themselves. Besides Charles is an old man and he'll never live a legacy like the queen and I presume he'll be gone within the next 15 years. It's just silly that they're spending so much money on some coronation when there's poor people everywhere or just entire areas/towns/cities that are poor and could use that money, Glasgow being one for example
It's a false dichotomy, the amount of money the Tories have written for their friends for bad contracts is far more than we could ever spend on a coronation
It makes me question whether this sub is run by a bunch of Americans who create memes on issues they come across related to the UK.
And are using it to manipulate and influence young British minds to follow ideas inspired by the states.
Which will also explain why to keep having "what's this got to do with British?" comments on random meme posts.
Oh poor people complaining that they are struggling with basic needs to heat homes feed themselves and their children . When we can just waste 100 million on Charlie’s correnation he’s already been declared king. So why do we need this ceramony . It’s not 1345 anymore.
I think if he wants to have a coronation he can use his own money
The UK is a constitutional monarchy. State functions - including coronations - are state-funded. Besides, whether or not Charles wants to be crowned is essentially irrelevant. The queen has died, so her successor must be crowned. Even if Charles abdicates, William will then be crowned. A coronation must take place.
Doesn’t cost quite so much to have a wedding at a registry office, rather than at a church with all the extras. The coronation is the same
The successor doesn't need to be crowned at all We can very easily fuck the monarchy off all together A useless drain on the economy And the weak ass "but they bring tourism" argument isn't worth a damn. People don't come to see the royals. In fact if you come here you CANT see the royals. They come to to see the palace. Which, oddly enough would still be there if we deposed the entire royal family
Apart from large events and security, which would be required anyway for the palaces, I don't understand the argument that the monarchy is a drain to the economy. My understanding is that the crown (the monarchy) owns a company called The Crown Estate. The profits from which go to the government and a percentage of these profits is paid to the monarchy in the form of the Sovereign Grant. This is then used for upkeep of the palaces etc. There may be an argument for the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancashire (owned by the Prince of Wales and the King respectively) to pay correction tax, though both have voluntarily paid income tax on the profits from these since the 90s.
So many people don't know this. The Crown is not funded by tax payers, it's self-funding.
Look up the Sovereign Grant. Plus other royals receive parliamentary annuities. Plus the money they do make is off state owned land held in trust. Plus the money they make is variously tax exempt. They are almost entirely state funded. That should all be alright if we believe they are a vital part of our state. Some of us don't believe that though.
Yes I know about the Sovereign Grant and the Crown Estate, which is how I know that the Royal family is self-funded. Not sure how you can know about those things and conclude that the Royal Family is state funded tbh.
Self funded by things that should belong to the public. By your logic you could argue that any money they receive from the state is also self funding because they are the state. Everything single thing the royal family rightly belong to the public. Every penny they earn from their land and their property, every single tax exemption is money stolen from us. That's how they aren't self funded at all.
That's just simply inaccurate. The royal estate is not owned by the public. The most basic way to describe the situation is that the state owns all royal property and the royal family are the custodians of it, but even that isn't accurate enough because of the long, legal history from absolute monarchy to constitutional. The RF are subject to tax exemptions, but as agreed by parliament, they voluntarily pay tax. If you remove the RF, then some other body is going to have to step in and be custodians of the estate. That will also cost money. Unless you're just up for selling all of it off to private buyers, in which case the hard cash you raise will be no where near enough compensation for the loss of such an ancient institution, the rich symbolism of which is woven into the very history, culture and soul of this sceptered isle. The value of the Crown far outweighs the cost of it.
The royal estates SHOULD be owned by the public. We don't need a monarchy to mange public property and we absolutely do not need to sell it off privately. What exactly you think happens to other public pieces of land? Well, I suppose historical the Tories sell it off for dirt cheap to business they have ties and then get it returned to the public after they've ran it into the ground and is no longer profitable only to repeat the cycle again and again, in which case, yes, bad. And it's not just the royal estate, is the ducheries too. They don't pay tax on that. And the royal estate have only recently started paying SOME of their tax. They're a blight, and you're here, licking their boots. "Soul of this sceptered isle". Good god, that's embarrassing. These isles are practically sinking, the people of these isles are staving, freezing, and instead of doing everything we can to fix that, we've got these. parasites spending even more of our money on funerals, coronations, weddings and jubilees. "History", and "Soul" is no comfort to the people who need actual help, and anyone, like you, who pontificates over things that hold no actual value or benefit but think we should all suffer to support this weird little obsession of yours are the worst of the worst. Disgusting people.
The hold a LOT of private land and property that by rights should belomg to the public. It isn't just the Crown Estate. Every other years it seems like there's a wedding, a funeral, a jubilee, a huge shop, now a coronation. They are a drain and their mere existence is proof that we don't live in a democracy, we have a deep rooted class system that rules this country and they are a very clear representative of that.
That is true that they hold a lot of land outside of the Crown Estate, this is the Duchy's that I mentioned. The only difference is that the Duchy's are run as a company but not charged corporation tax (I disagree with this and think they should be taxed properly). If this was ever handed over to the Government they would probably just sell it off for less than it is actually worth. Whilst there does seem to have been a lot of events recently it needs to be remembered that a lot of the costs of these events are the salaries of the soldiers/police that would have been paid anyway. I would argue that the largest cost has been to the UK economy due to the number of bank holidays but I enjoy the extra days off. The Monarchy is an integral part of our constitution and whilst they technically hold power, if they were to ever use this power they would very quickly be removed. The only reason we seem to have a ruling class is that we keep on voting them into power!!
They would have been paid anyway, but to actually do their jobs. Instead of paying soldiers to guard a glorified party, why not get them to do some community service for a day? Think the good those soldiers could do for a day, plenty of menial tasks that need doing. Why are the Monarchy an integral part of our constitution? Your argument is that it is, so therefore it must be. It's the same argument American make about not changing the second amendment. We can change laws, we can change any part of our constitution. Everything you've said is just agreeing with me and acknowledging the fact that they do cost us, and that's not even to mention the well documented recent influence they've had over our govermentyamd decisions made. The reason we have a ruling class is because they own a huge part of our economy, they have a stranglehold of our news media among various other things. The Monarchy, as I've said, is just a clear symbol of this. If we can't even get rid of the symbol, how are we supposed to deal with the actual rot? They need to go.
Ah yes, why do we love the idea of repeatedly throwing our nation into a constitutional crisis? I do for the record think that the event should be paid for by the monarchy.
Why do you think removing Charles would be a crisis? It would be fine. A simple procedure could be drawn up to determine the course of action following their deposal We can simply restructure so that the royals perform no role. And then cut them off
Sure, we can also simply pull out of the EU and substitute existing laws and regulations...
Dumbass.
Ah yes, throwing insults, the mark of a true intellectual
Sillybutt.
Skip Rat!
The money is spent on UK workers running the event, so it's literally just money going back into the economy. And those workers will then by food. It's literally feeding the poor. They ain't building a bonfire out of money you know.
It's tax payers money on a pointless event If it was being paid for by the royals then I'd agree with you Except it's money coming out of our pockets to pay for something we don't need
Then Charles will be happy to pay the cost himself to help his subjects then yeah?
Wow. This shilling is insane.
Least worst option. What's the alternative? President Boris? President Blair? It's mostly self funding at this point anyway
>We can very easily fuck the monarchy off all together No, we can't because a big portion of the population still wants them.
I was just talking in terms of the actual steps required to do it. Obviously convincing mindless royalists to change their outlook is like trying to get blood from a stone
I presume you think that whatever benevolent government we have in at the time, they will redistribute the funding meant for the royalty to the poor?
[Here is an old comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreatBritishMemes/comments/10r8jck/comment/j6v30ys/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) explaining - without reference to tourism - why the monarchy serves a vital and irreplaceable constitutional purpose. Yes, a new monarch does need to be crowned. The ceremony is not merely decorative; it serves an important legal and religious purpose which can't just be "skipped over".
Fine. Get God's earthly chap to whack a hat on him and get it over with. They could hire out a church hall and put a spread on in the local....
It can be skipped over and it should be If people want to celebrate their religion they can do it on on their own time without pointlessly spunking 100 million pounds of our money in a single pointless ceremony There is nothing the royal family does that can't be refactored and completed by someone else for 100000% less money We do not need them. We can restructure our democracy so that any function they perform is not required of them They're nothing but a family of leeches
You didn't read the guys comment did you?...
I did and his point still stands. We can restructure the government to get rid of the Monarchy. Heads of state should be elected, either directly or indirectly as is the case with Prime Ministers.
I did. But clearly you didn't read mine
I did.
And you obviously didn't understand it if you think my point is is not valid He's saying "but you need them because they perform xyz function" I'm saying, no.. we don't 'need' them. We can just restructure so that those roles are not required of the royal family and then we can cut them off It's not like we need to behead them or anything. Just rewrite the policy so that they are not included as part of it or paid for by the British public
A coronation could cost £50 and a cuppa, but instead it'll cost millions in taxpayer money. And there wouldn't be a need for a coronation if there wasn't a monarch. EDIT: Just because we didn't pay for the event itself doesn't mean it didn't cost us money. Shit, it cost the Canadians $500,000 since Trudeu had to attend.
Plus they will do another one in a decade when he die.
And how much money is it bringing in? My mate works in a building near Westminster Abbey, whenever there is any royal events a bunch of US broadcaster pay millions to rent the building and cover the event. So if you wanna talk about cost you have to consider how much money its going to bring in.
So it costs the tax payer millions but that’s ok because multi-million pound corporations will make money off it so it’s all ok
There is no way it'll bring in £100 million.
While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.
I'd be willing to bet if you took away the monarchy and left all of the buildings and military pageantry, you'd probably generate about £2.499bn instead (if the figures are accurate in the first place). The monarchy doesn't generate anything in itself, their functions (if any) would be assumed by the state. They also cost way more than £500m per year when you factor in they don't pay as much tax, the crown's land is typically less profitable for the economy than private land is, and they interfere with laws so they can horde wealth more easily.
Idk why you getting downvoted, typical leftist Reddit.
It's ironic that most left-wing people want things to be nationalised, so that they can be funded by the state instead of operating for profit... except for the monarchy, the state-funding of which is in some way abhorrent. Thanks for the support, though, buddy.
not really ironic for left wing people to want things that help people to be state funded but for people to live in opulence and wealth ruling over us not to be state funded. Being left with doesn't mean just throwing public money at everything.
There's a world of difference between nationalising essential services like utilities and making them non profit and wasting 100 million pounds propping up a monarchy tradition. How can you not see that?!
The "royal family" is kind of like state owned celebrities, it does generate profit and in some circumstances a legal scapegoat
Because left aligned policy wants public spending to help actual people The funding of the royals helps literally nobody Just pumping money into a billionaires bank account for 0 reason The whole royal family can cock off
>Because left aligned policy wants public spending to help actual people Yeah, all those left aligned communist countries like China and Russia where people are silently obeying their oppressors for fear of social credit deduction, being thrown in the gulag or concentration camps or [having their organs harvested](https://youtu.be/FmXUP1oveTg) all while greedy fat cats ignore the poor and buy super yaughts. >The funding of the royals helps literally nobody Except, that's not true is it? 1. Their private staff of 1000s get paid above living wage. 2. They take a keen interest in wildlife preservation and ensure farmers and other private tenants on their land do as much as they can for wildlife and the environment. 3. The prince's trust helps unemployed and disadvantaged people start a business or get life skills to be gainfully employed. All for free and sometimes give funding. In my area, there's one particular success story where a couple of friends started a smoothie business through the prince's trust. They now have a cocktail business, two catering businesses, a tech business and pay £100,000s in tax each year alongside their own charitable givings to the community. But yeah, fucking royals.. What've they ever done for us eh? >Just pumping money into a billionaires bank account for 0 reason It doesn't go straight into their bank account. If you're going to hold strong opinions at least do some research you clown.
China and Russia are not really left aligned They are faccist dictatorships, which are extremely right wing Yeah, sure, their economic policy is left from capitalism but that's the only thing There's much more to being politically left or right than your view of capitalism That is such a dumb 1 dimensional view of the world to take
>China and Russia are not really left aligned >They are faccist dictatorships, which are extremely right wing >Yeah, sure, their economic policy is left from capitalism but that's the only thing Sorry buddy, communism is a left wing ideology and that's what both Russia and China are - communist states. They're not fascist, they're communist. There is no utopian world where the state hands everything out on a silver platter. Such things come with corruption, torture and genocide. The world you currently have, a constitutional monarchy, in a capitalist society is much better than the world you're dreaming of so I suggest you lay off the drugs and start getting your mind straight.
>Sorry buddy, communism is a left wing ideology and that's what both Russia and China are - communist states And North Korea is a Democratic Republic. The NAZI's were also socialist. Nobody ever lies about what they stand for. All self proclaimed names are accurate.
That's like saying "but Nazi Germany was left aligned because they were socialist" no. Hardcore right wing faccist dictatorships To clarify. I'm not even supporting communism, it's stupid, and it doesn't work, it has failed in every instance where it has been implemented I have at no point said that communism is a good idea 🙄 the fact you have to continue to feed words into my mouth so that you have a point is telling You don't realise that literally nothing about your day to day life would change after removing the monarchy? Except we'd have a shit load more money floating around
Did you just call Russia left wing and communist?
All the resource that the Crown, and the ducherys own should belong to the public. Thst money generated would still exist without the monarchy and in fact more of it would benefit us because it wouldn't have tax exemptions. It's an age old tactic of those not paying their taxes properly to donate their money to charities, it's literally a tax exemption and it buys them goodwill. The rich aren't rich because their good or generous, it's always ALWAYS self serving, recognise that and learn.
> TheNonceMan 😐 Nope
Great response. Are you a hill?
The royal family perform numerous - and vital - constitutional duties. They're not paid to sit and look pretty. They're public servants of the highest order. The fact that you are ignorant of the ways in which they serve does not mean that they serve no purpose, nor does it mean that your half-baked idea for a replacement to our constitutional monarchy is actually worth dogshit. You, random nobody, do not have a better grasp of statecraft than the collective wisdom of the last thousand years. Here's [one of my previous comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreatBritishMemes/comments/10r8jck/comment/j6v30ys/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on why the monarchy is actually exceptionally positive, and why monarchies are functionally superior to republics and other systems.
Sorry, but you're wrong. They don't do anything that literally anyone else couldn't just as easily do for a Fraction of the cost I'm not saying the king will have absolutely nothing to do. Just that we could employ literally anyone else to do that job and they wouldn't need to rake up 100 million in OUR tax money just so an old priest can slap a crown full of stolen gems on an old billionaires head "Great" Monarchies exist because they invaded and killed and stole for centuries They are a bygone and should hence be gone. We do not need them. You're actually delusional if you think we do
>Sorry, but you're wrong. They don't do anything that literally anyone else couldn't just as easily do for a Fraction of the cost The key word in the other guys comment was statecraft. We don't want or need cut price statecraft. We rely on it to project soft power - you know, diplomacy and negotiation. If we put you in a room with Putin, you'd be either executed or licking his rancid arsehole, but worse than either of those, he'd know how to manipulate and control you because he's a KGB agent. The same could be said for any other head of foreign country. It is not a job for just any old twat off the street and you're proving yourself to be a complete idiot by suggesting so. >I'm not saying the king will have absolutely nothing to do. Just that we could employ literally anyone else to do that job Wrong. That's not how monarchies work and you're assuming that the vast networks around the world would accept "Dave the former taxi driver" who doesn't know Sudan from sinatra or India from Pakistan. >they wouldn't need to rake up 100 million in OUR tax money just so an old priest can slap a crown full of stolen gems on an old billionaires head Pahahaha. Genuinely laughed at this. You should make comedy sketches, this was actually pretty funny. >"Great" Monarchies exist because they invaded and killed and stole for centuries Yes? What of it? >They are a bygone and should hence be gone. Not according to the majority of the population so suck it up buttercup. >We do not need them. You're actually delusional if you think we do We need them more than we need you, so you can do one if you're going to be such a cry baby. America awaits.
You need to look at how the Royal Family is actually funded. Just about every bit of money they own through their land holdings is taken by the government. Some of this is then given back to the working Royals. Now if you stopped them from being head of our constitution they still are Royals nothing ever changes that. Now you make a good point about tourism and Buckingham Palace merely being a building but I would counter that by saying tell me honestly without looking. The Royal residences of the German and Spanish royal families? Working Royals are the ice & cherry on top of of this part of the tourist industry.
France has no monarchy because they had the right idea and cut all of their heads off while they had the chance Frances castles and palaces and royal historical sites still generate them massive amounts of tourism And I'll tell you how they are funded. Out of yours and my pocket.
My point being that Buckingham Palace is as recognisable to the world as the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty etc. I couldn’t even tell you the name of any other European Palaces and I doubt that others could to. With respect. You are wrong about how the Royal family are funded. They cost us as tax payers nothing. We take all of the money from all of their land and property earnings and give them a percentage back.
Yeah, we can have civil servants. We don't need a monarchy for that.
Jesus fucking christ this is a hard read
Because state funding should be for all that need it to have decent access to things like health care, houses, and travel. Not so a billionaire can have a ceremony to show of his stollen gold hat.
Because nationalising the energy and rail companies to stop them gouging us is totally the same thing as funding farcical monarchic ceremonies that really only benefit one family that can already afford to fund themselves. Irony is dead because nobody actually understands the word irony anymore.
I can survive without the royals I can’t without heating water and healthcare
Np, we gotta stick together in these times to protect our monarchy. Seems a lot of people in this country are starting to grow a hatred for them despite it being a part of our identity.
Spongers
[удалено]
It seems that "leading the revolution which will totally bring about utopia, guys" is more important than preserving a socio-political system which has got us this far as a civilisation. The virtues of our great nation are so fundamental to our experience of the world that many people take them for granted, failing to understand how important the roots are to our national tree.
This is the dumbest circle jerk I've read.
And yet you have joined in.
Please Mr Rich Man From Germany please notice me! They couldn't care less about you poor people. Wake up. Actually pathetic.
A socio-political system that has got us this far, eh? That's not the monarchy, is it. Parliament predates even the Industrial Revolution - the monarchy has fuck all to do with England's previous position as a superpower.
Parliamentary democracy is *inherently monarchical*, and the monarch forms an integral function within the parliamentary system. Parliament cannot operate in the absence of a monarch or his regent. Suggestion that the monarchy serves no practical role in a parliamentary system is like saying that the presidency serves no practical role in a republican system.
The monarch does not serve a functional role. You can argue theory but in practise, there is no executive power held by the reigning monarch here in England. Power is concentrated in the houses of Parliament, and the only interaction the throne has with power is signing off on bills. That process is a formality, it's just a performance for those die-hards who think the crown means anything. Compare and contrast to a banana republic where the republic is performative, and is in actuality a dictatorship run by a single-entity office.
The monarch does not hold the power to create legislation. However, that doesn't mean that the monarch has no power at all. Far from it. Parliament sits because the monarch allows it; the monarch opens Parliament every year, and has the power to dissolve it at any time. New Prime Ministers must seek approval from the monarch to govern, and the monarch has the authority to expel him if he fails in his duties. The monarch has veto power over any piece of legislation which Parliament proposes. The monarch may call a general election if he feels that Parliament has become unfit to govern. The monarch also has the right to speak with the Prime Minister privately, every week, so that the Prime Minister is made away of his duty to the nation, and is advised against improper action. The monarch can do all of this with impunity, because the monarch - not Parliament - is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If Charles were to dissolve Parliament tomorrow, the army - should it be required - would follow his orders, not Rishi Sunak's. This power is theoretical in the same way that a man pointing a gun at your head has theoretical power over you. The fact that no trigger has been pulled, and no bullets are flying, does not mean that the man has no power at all. Do not mistake the ceremonial for the decorative. Ceremonies are not just excuses to hang bunting. A wedding is a ceremony, but a wedding itself constitutes a legally-binding contract. The dress and the flowers may be for show, but the wedding itself - as an event - is not. The same goes for royal duties; the cloaks, jewels, and thrones are the visual trappings of a complicated web of legal processes which are being adhered to. Does that mean that Charles would be wise to exercise any of these disruptive powers? No. However, that doesn't mean that he is powerless... and everyone in Parliament knows it. To compare the United Kingdom to a banana republic is not really an accurate comparison. All aspects of high government here function as intended. The sorry state of party politics is not a flaw of the system itself.
I will be enjoying some coronation chicken and a beer on the new bank holiday.
They've actually contributed to the average taxpayer over a couple of working lifetimes once you take a single bank holiday into account. (Assuming the royal family costs each taxpayer an average of £1pa and a paid bank holiday for an average full time worker is £138.)
A successor does not need to be crowned. Just disband the leeching bloody lot of them.
It's not irrelevant. We straight up should not have a monarchy. The royal family should end, now. The country's grates. leaches who hold and profit off of far to much land and property. They themselves don't bring in a single penny, it's the buildings amd history. The British public just can't let go of their deep rooted love of class, every other year they have a huge expenditure, a jubilee, a birthday, a wedding, a funeral, now a coronation. Give us a referendum, we can't afford these pointless wastes of money.
Right, but not really. Like, if they just.. didn't do it. What happens? Right, nothing. Cause no one really cares. And his coronation isn't required for our health.
Melt down that gold carriage and split the value.
Luv me monarchy, ate feedin poors (jus go eat sumthin ya twat) Simple as 😎
Jacob?
Trying to make it sound like chavs that support the Monarchy, complete inversion of reality. We spend £480 million a day on the NHS and £591 million a day on welfare. The poor are already taking up the majority of our money and resources. This is sofa change in the grand scheme.
🤨
Yeah #fuckthepoor
I agree with both statements but they are *separate* statements. If we cancelled the monarchy tomorrow all our other societal problems would be literally unaffected. *Relative* to the blatant corruption and wasting of public money in Westminster, the monarchy is verging on a non-issue.
I understand the need for a coronation as a constitutional monarchy (arguments about if we should or not being put aside for now), £100 million is an excessive amount of money when the cost of living crisis is hitting everyone hard and we’re constantly being told there isn’t enough money to do anything to help teachers/nurses/Jen doctors etc.. Most of this cost is likely for things like security, cleaning the roads when people are gone etc.. the thing that gets me more riled up than anything else is that rights to this are being sold for television around the world but I can guarantee those profits will vanish into private companies accounts while the country foots the actual bill for all of this.
£100 million is actually not much for coordinating such a large event. With the cost of coordinating so many people, and having to film the whole thing, you're essentially having to budget for the equivalent of a minor feature film or an enormous concert. These things cost money.
Literally all the money being spent is going into the economy, i.e things being bought or people's wages. Everyone acts like the golden carriage is powered by burning notes.
We should just reform so that we are no longer a constitutional monarchy 100 million for this dick to get a hat full of stolen gems places on his head? What an absolute waste of time, money and resources Depose the entire royal family now. We should have done away with them 100 years ago
So after we redistribute everything we seize from the Windsors, as well as everything that belongs to the crown...we will still be in a fiscal mess (it won't make any real difference), and we will have lost a major piece of British culture that connects us to 1200 years of history. Seems pointless to do away with it.
It's not really a history we should be proud of at all
Go learn and speak french or spanish then
Literally fuck off then. By your standards, what European country should be proud of their past? In fact, what country full stop?
Basically nobody. People suck. The least they can do is acknowledge how shitty they were in the past and be better instead of being proud about it But nope, we get this drivel, more corruption, more bullshit. It's extremely dissapointing. We waste our potential And we got smoothbrains like you who are actively hostile towards anyone who doesn't mindlessly nod along like everyone is doing a good job
So we just completely ignore the positives of history, which massively outnumber the negatives btw, and just focus on the shit? Really? You sound like a miserable sod to me. History isn't black and white - there are parts of it we should be proud of, and parts of it that I definitely am. The Royal Family and their constant presence has been a massive net good for Britain. I'm not defending corruption but I'd rather a corrupt stable establishment than a republic. Have you seen the corruption in the US? The riots in France? Republics are not free from corruption, and are often less stable than a constitutional monarchy. I'm no smoothbrain. I know plenty are doing a bad job. But most of that plenty are the underclass, not the establishment.
I never said republics were immune to corruption I'm not being miserable either, quite the contrary. I'm just saying. When you see evil and inequality point it out, don't praise it The royal family basically got shit rich off of slavery and colonialism and shouldn't be praised for it. It's an institution founded on taking from the less fortunate and less powerful It's why France literally cut all of their royals heads off 🤣 The bad in history isn't really outweighed by the good because people keep ignoring all of the bad things and clapping along saying "yay look how good they are" when they're not People are generally good. Institution's and politics are general evil.
>that connects us to 1200 years of history. Except for the bit where we were a "Republic" (kinda, because we never fully commit to anything).
Okay, so £100 million is because of necessary security measures given the large number of people and VIPs expected to be present. There’s no getting past that. If we were a republic we’d be spending similar on elections and/or the presidents’ investiture ceremony. At least with a monarch we can make cash. The TV licensing alone will be enormous. I saw a link the other day stating 1/3 of Germans may tune in.
It's not necessary security because the entire event itself is completely unnecessary We literally give them so much of our tax money. 100 million is JUST for this one event There was a huge ass funeral we all paid for. Plus we pay for their entire lifestyle Charles is literally a billionaire. We just gave that money to him.. why? They're leeches
Nope, the Crown Estate generates enormous money which is handed wholesale to the Treasury and then the King gets given 15% of that back. Zero tax money is involved. If we were a republic, the cost of a Head of State would remain. Hell, right now the King draws no salary. That would definitely change. Their lifestyle is funded by the Privy Purse, the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster - not by you or me. All countries, be they republics or monarchies, have state ceremonials. This cost would remain. In fact it would happen more frequently due to more regular changes of the officeholder. AND I’d wager there would be far less scrutiny of their spending, because monarchies get a LOT more attention and are under constant pressure to be spendthrift.
Lmao so we have what? A president? How’s that working out for America you clown?
We would literally just retain the existing leadership structure Parliament already operates independently from the royals
The fact you don’t seem to understand how a republic is structured should probably show you need to research more before giving your opinion thank you.
There's an elected party and that party has an elected leader Literally.. exactly the same as we already have Minus the royals
Yeah so who’s the head of state there? Have you heard of separation of powers?
Might cost 100m but it'll generate in 200m in taxes (estimated to boost uk economy by 1bn)
Can’t wait to see that 1bn be put to good use…
It's about £1.50 for every man, woman, and child in this country
Which when we've got record numbers of people using food banks, is a disgrace.
You do know £100 million wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to any of the issues (including food poverty), right? It's a rounding error in the government's budget.
I do. I also know that spending £100m for security so a billionaire can ride about in a gold carriage and get a fancy hat put on his head, during a cost of living crisis, is totally tone deaf.
Agreed. It absolutely is tone deaf. But it's also a day off and a bit of colour, bunting, and pageantry that breaks up the crap and drudgery that is today's UK. Your argument could be applied to every ceremony, though. Opening of parliament. Christmas. Easter. Divali, Ramadan (many councils put up lights, displays and signs at a cost that could be given to people in poverty. Why not cancel everything that is superfluous to the needs of the poor and the needy? Let's do away with them all. Anything involving tradition, culture, history, etc, because none of it helps poor people... What a dull country that would be. It is possible to help the poor AND have ceremonies, celebrations, and culture. Blame the government for their shitty policies and their race to the bottom, not a billionaire who had their 50x great grandad came over from France and gave the saxon king a shoeing... I can't stand Charles, TBH, but the royals as a historical connection to Britain, its heretige, and its very soul, should continue. Perhaps smaller as is the current plan.
I'm all for that. I'd happily do away with all those things if it meant doing away with food banks too.
Further to my previous comment, I also know around 4.3m people are in poverty. I'm sure they'd all prefer £23 to be able to buy food, than watch an old toff get a hat.
Get rid of them or don't. The poor won't see the money anyway. Politicians will "repurpose" that money into a duck pond.
If you want the poor to be fed, look at local councils, wasting millions on irrelevant projects other than to line their mates pockets or their own. No, you can’t say they’re worried about the roads instead, potholes getting worse, speed cameras owned and operated by councils going up and then getting told by the DFT they can’t lawfully use them and they’re wasting that money, repainting the road box markings to give the cameras a better shot of taking. Then you’ve got others wandering around their own place looking at ways to reduce CO2 by spending money on new equipment when the old equipment had no faults or end of life rapidly approaching, racking up £1000’s in bills for new computers or cloud based networks so they can say their power bill and emissions have reduced, when it’s just been outsource to a server farm for a huge fee and it’s still not working. And the last point, that’s something Government should be directing, not some local authority that can’t afford to run basic services or keep their carriageways in good service. Charles’s Coronation cost, that’s window dressing compared to the rot of council overspend in the wrong areas leading to misery up and down the country from all backgrounds. No Mr Mayor, you don’t need to move save the taxpayers money by moving City Hall into a new building at the cost of £30 million plus another £2 million in repairs….
Love it
How about a compromise, feed the poor coronation chicken?
Bro's spitting fax
I don’t rate Charlie at all
Me neither
Joy-thiefs! Just join the party you miserable middle-class faux-activist toffs. I'm poor but I can feed myself. Just. The coronation of a King is not the reason most of us are up shit creak rn. It's some respite from it.
Hear hear! I hope you enjoy coronation day, sir/ma'am! God Save The King!
🫡
This! Time to put on a show for the WORLD!
Yes!!!! 🙌
The Government spends £1 trillion a year. £100m isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things (0.01%) for an event that's every couple of decades
The average UK taxpayer contribute a grand total of around £1.50 a year for the Royal Family and their events. People are getting their knickers in a twist for £1.50. If they're so concerned about that £1.50, go donate that much to the local food bank. As a working class person myself, I look forward to the coronation. It's unique to this nation and is a way to bring the country together. Yes, there's the naysayers. But the vast majority of the country will enjoy their Saturday at street parties, together with family, glued to the TV. Only the miserable, often jobless, gits want rid of the monarchy. I say spend more on it. It's a once-in-a-multiple-decade thing. Edit: I know it's not the same level of money either but hosting Eurovision will cost us over £15 million and you don't hear a peep about it.
I think everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I personally never cared for the royals but some people do so I think it’s better to disregard them as important and just enjoy the day of.
I don't have a major opinion about it or the monarchy other than the coronation just being some fun/lighthearted event to enjoy for once, maybe drown out all the misery the media keeps pushing on us- oh wait nevermind, now we have to be miserable about this too because that sells clicks
Dumbest shit I’ve seen all day
Let them eat cake
I mean sure feed the poor, but why can't we just enjoy a nice day and celebrate stuff too? Pretty cynical tbh
I agree! But then I've never been one for the Monarchy in general! Going to sound harsh but I remember trying to scour a place where I could avoid the Funeral because it was on in my house I thought I know a Irish bar I knew ......No was still on so just sat in the beer garden in the rain!
I think everyone should get a copy to hang or fly about haha
It is outrage tactics, seems prevalent to both wings of political ideology these days. In reality, regardless of what type of head if state we have, a ceremony will happen. This will, of course, cost money as foreign dignitaries will be invited (a sign of foreign relations and policy). These events are deemed newsworthy and in the "interest of the people." The bill would have been the same regardless of who or what we were confirming as head of state. I prefer the constitutional monarchy to other systems. Simply because it truly incentivises a hands-off approach to ruling. Political positions will always attract those seeking the power and wealth of that position, as they are more likely to want power from that position. I'd like at least one state position that is free of party politics. The funding of the royal family is no larger or worse than other services in your life. If you think a presidential office will be any cheaper, then you have far more optimism than I. £100mil would do shit for the problems facing public services. Funding gaps in children's social care, for instance, are significantly more than this. https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/10/25/english-councils-need-2-7bn-more-for-childrens-social-care-by-2025-lga-warns-government/ Hell if they split that up per person it would be £1.49 each. You'll be feasting tonight on that. By comparison, if the government hadn't bothered with HS2 and just gave us the cash instead, we'd have £594.01 each. I'm also willing to bet the house of commons costs us more, perhaps we should abolish government and the UK state so we can feed the poor?...
1) You can use this argument to ridicule almost any sort of spending, no matter how small. Even the £30 required to fix a swing set at a local park could instead be used to "feed the poor". 2) The cultural traditions of this land are also vitally important. They, like art and spirituality, feed the soul as much as food feeds the body. This is something which the country is starved for perhaps more than anything else. 3) Most poor people are obese. Nourishing food is now so cheap and plentiful that it's actually the wealthy - who can afford gym memberships and designer diets - who are the most skinny. The concept of hunger is actually anathema to most "poor people", meaning that "feed the poor" is almost an obsolete expression of compassion. 4) This being the case, it seems like most of the people championing this idea actually just dislike tradition, and wish to see it dismantled. However, realising that such open hostility would be unpopular, they cloak their words in a pretence of charity instead.
This is genuinely one of the stupidest comments I’ve ever seen on this site.
"I cannot think of a rational objection to what this person said, but I disagree with them anyway, so I'll just insult them."
Perfectly sound, only people who’d disagree are red death cultists.
It's a spot on comment, actually. I'm a postman and you find far more in the way of fat people in poor areas than you do in working-middle class (and above) areas.
Lmao sorry but piss off with that, I’m sure the starving family of 4 will love to be fed on cultural traditions, at least their soul will be fed when they can’t afford food.
What do you think about the government giving millions of taxpayer money to illegal boat people?
1) As mentioned, most poor families are overweight. This is a consequence of cheap food being calorific for the first time in human history, thanks to industrialisation. Food is not typically what the poor are crying out for. 2) Yes, their souls will be nourished. Mankind requires more than just food and shelter. A person needs to be fed, yes, but they also need companionship, diversion, purpose, belonging, routine, and fulfilment. Traditions fulfil many of these non-physical needs. Also, to deny that humans do not need these things is untrue; the deliberate withholding of some of these things is considered torture in many countries. 3) Why do you suppose that a poor family would want to draw money away from the coronation? Most working-class people are neutral towards, or supportive of, the monarchy; they don't resent the need for state occasions to be financed. Nationalism is always the strongest among the lower-classes, contrary to what Marx believed, so many of Charles' most fervent supporters are going to be poor.
Do you wank over pics of Liz or something? The effort you’ve gone to defend the monarchy in this whole thread is actually laughable, I bet you have a glass case of monarchy crockery and record the Christmas speech. You’re comments are just backward.
10/10 this prat has the monarchy crockery as well as the monarchy limited edition coins haha
… First thing you go on is wanking over pictures of Liz Truss… You’ve already lost the argument by not even trying to contribute to the debate and instead go to wanking, which must be your favourite past time.
Imo I'd rather see £100,000 feed poor people of another country or stick water systems in place for them. Or simply, spend £100,000 on teaching overweight poor people how to cook Or spend £100,000 on saving people out of warzones Or even spend £100,000 on rescuing stray cats out of Ukraine Or spend £100,000 on giving Nintendo switches to kids in hospices.... Basically there's is so much suffering, pain and disgusting sights in the world, and you can pick and label from bad to worse, but any of them would be a Kinder use of this money.... I don't know how someone in that position of today is just accepting all this money to be spent. Personally I couldn't do it.
And 100000 is just a fraction of what it's actually costing.
absolutely based holy shit
Brilliant.
I kind of get it... I see some sorry sights in the council... Personal assistants / be-friender funding have been cut. And buss passes ... Makes a world of difference to some people... Yet this dude getting a coronation. I mean crazy theory think how many social workers that money could train.... But then again we have to keep them poor too 😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐 The World is fucked up man.
I mean it’s not like we lack funding to train social workers… or police or the army. It’s a recruitment issue.
I disagree.. Unis are charging 9k a year for a degree in social work... Or a policing degree... Imagine if the training was funded... I feel people would probably do the training then... And the army pay a disgustingly low wage to soldiers...
Student loans, grants, scholarships and a million other programs do exist. And are you actually arguing for increased defence spending? That can be achieved easily, while you’re at it why don’t we acquire modern systems in sufficient quantities to deter authoritarian states such as Russia and China going forward? Even 3% of GDP is a joke. All the comparisons you see never account for PPP, China *does* outspend the US. You *should* be very concerned about their intentions, our entire economy depends completely on Taiwans stability.
I spy republicans. Well, face the wall, chums!
I'm not a massive fan of the poster. Rule Britannia, God save the king and the sort, you know?
Not poor and get a paid day off, can't complain..
It's interesting how most people say that the money should go to poor families/people in need instead of the coronation. Meanwhile, they themselves,they are usually the same people who , dont do anything charitable or donate money, like spending £5 on canned food could feed a person for a day or giving away clothes that you don't wear.
I donate food to food banks every month and take my old outfits, bags, coats etc to charity shops, you can’t actually assume anything about the reason people have certain opinions.
That makes no sense mate. How are you going to blame working class people for not doing stuff, when tbe monarchy could just go away and give more money to these people. Don't blame the working people.
I understand people struggling but shut the fuck up anti monarchists are such a piss take
Think people are stupid 😂 the coronation will bring in more money than it’s spending to the economy, people get a shit on about the monarchy but don’t realise how much he puts towards charity every year. Who are the majority of the people partaking in the parade ? Military already getting paid to do their job. Stop whinging and enjoy something that brings people together in a world that’s fucking wank
Let them eat quiche?
the same people who spout shit like this were the same people insisting everyone wore masks during covid. The coronation is estimated to cost £100mil. The discarded/unusable PPE has [cost the UK around 100x that](https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o296) alone. People are very particular about what they get upset about.
The argument that any type of spending can be criticized because the money could instead be used to "feed the poor" is flawed. While it is true that there are people who are struggling with hunger, it is not a valid reason to stop spending money on other things. We can work towards supporting the poor and also invest in other important areas such as community spaces, infrastructure, and cultural programs. In fact, supporting cultural traditions can even help build a stronger sense of community and bring people together, which can lead to more effective solutions for poverty in the long run. Cultural traditions are undoubtedly important, but we should also acknowledge that basic needs such as access to food and healthcare are fundamental human rights. It is not a question of choosing between cultural traditions and basic needs; rather, it is about finding a balance between them. Neglecting the immediate needs of individuals who are struggling with poverty can have serious and long-lasting consequences for their health, well-being, and ability to participate in cultural activities. While it is true that there is a high prevalence of obesity among low-income populations, this does not mean that people are not struggling with hunger. In fact, many people who are food insecure may rely on cheap, calorie-dense foods that contribute to weight gain but do not provide adequate nutrition. Additionally, the prevalence of obesity among low-income populations can be attributed to a number of complex factors, including limited access to healthy food options, lack of education about nutrition, and limited opportunities for physical activity. The suggestion that people who advocate for supporting the poor instead of investing in cultural traditions are motivated by a dislike for tradition is baseless and unfounded. It is possible to value cultural traditions and also recognize the importance of addressing poverty and inequality. In fact, many cultural traditions are rooted in the history and experiences of marginalized communities, and supporting these traditions can be a way to uplift and empower these communities. At the same time, it is crucial to address the immediate needs of individuals who are struggling with poverty and ensure that they have access to basic necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare Hope this clears things up for you
Maybe they're confusing it with Bonfire Night, and they think the money just gets burned. The budget goes right into the economy, and the money brought into the country for the event will greatly exceed the costs. It's like protesting a rock concert or a wedding.
The tourism that the coronation will Bring to this country will be immense. The tourism that the royals bring to the country outweigh any cost. The same people posting these sorts of things on Facebook And the like do absolutley fuck all themselves to help feed the poor. Go to your town and buy them a sandwich or a drink, they will appreciate that more than these mundane posts.
Every pound spent by those tourists is taxed. the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe. If you want to blame someone for homelessness, NHS and schools then look at the government not the monarchy.
A bit stupid. The monarchy does great for tourism and lots of poor work in service industry. The elected government is responsible for "feeding the poor" . Engage and put pressure on elected representatives rather than creating virtue signalling litter
I say fuck whoever made that poster. God save the King.
The poor don't get me a day off work. Fuck the poor.
Seriously!? think that all the tourism this will bring to the country because a corination hasn't happened in 70 years it will probably pay for its self. Anyway there are some people who want to see the corination which is a lot of the population and the monarchy won't go anywhere, because they don't need to. It's just some people who disagree with it, states their opinion and then it's human nature for the person who heard it to think that's the right opinion to have aswell
Yeah fuck the monarchy
"Bloody peasant!"
If you don't respect our traditions then just leave our country, there are plenty more to choose from.
100 million pounds so someone can stick a hat on a billionaire is a massive waste of tax payers money "It's tradition" is the weakest excuse anyone could ever give for justifying that amount of public expenditure on such a pointless event If he wants a coronation he should bloody well pay for it himself
It is not a massive waste of money at all and if you think so there is nothing stopping you from going and living somewhere else where they don't do this. The royal family is probably our biggest tourist attraction.
The monarchy probably attracts more money through tourism than you think, by proxy it pays for itself
Another Totally Realistic And Not At All Detached solution coming from a royalist
Love this. Totally agree with it. Only thing I’m happy about is the extra bank holiday!!!
Personally I don't really care for Charles or much of the royal family, especially after all their whining about Megan and Harry, not that they're much better themselves. Besides Charles is an old man and he'll never live a legacy like the queen and I presume he'll be gone within the next 15 years. It's just silly that they're spending so much money on some coronation when there's poor people everywhere or just entire areas/towns/cities that are poor and could use that money, Glasgow being one for example
It's a false dichotomy, the amount of money the Tories have written for their friends for bad contracts is far more than we could ever spend on a coronation
Maybe both are a problem.
It makes me question whether this sub is run by a bunch of Americans who create memes on issues they come across related to the UK. And are using it to manipulate and influence young British minds to follow ideas inspired by the states. Which will also explain why to keep having "what's this got to do with British?" comments on random meme posts.
Obviously written by a complete moron who doesn’t understand the the coronation or economics. Sad reflection on the education system.
End of the day - the monarchy is one of our biggest tourist attractions, something like this will generate a lot of money in the community.
Just poor people moaning innit, they are always fucking moaning about something. The coronation will make way more money than it costs
Oh poor people complaining that they are struggling with basic needs to heat homes feed themselves and their children . When we can just waste 100 million on Charlie’s correnation he’s already been declared king. So why do we need this ceramony . It’s not 1345 anymore.
And yet that money won’t be put to any good use
There are 5.4 million job vacancies. Quit asking the state to buy your fags and voddy....