kwilco

so yyou really have no idea what's going on, do you? Are you sure you didn't even drink?

THe problem with illegalizing drugs is there is no quality control or content assurance. Then if/when someone gets a bad pill, they don't do anything straight away because it IS illegal and they don't want trouble - by the time it gets out of control it is often too late.

there was a time when the majority of EU members were monarchies. In Europe now still quite a few survive, but without the pomp and circumstance of the UK. European constitutional monarchies. Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden ...all are democratic states where the monarch has a limited, largely, or entirely ceremonial role. the most powerful heads of state in Europe are not monarchs.

"As a state occasion, King Charles's coronation is paid for with public funds. This is different to a royal wedding, which is a personal family moment with some public elements to it, so the cost is split between private funds and public money." - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a43773972/king-charles-coronation-cost/

Overall there has been a sea-change in attitude to the Monarchy since 1953. There were only a few minor protests. Now what you see is the tip of the iceberg. Whereas in 1953 the entire country was pretty much pro-monarchy, now there are many who although not actively out on the streets seriously believe in a republic. On top of that there is a great swathe or people who think that the role of the monarchy needs serious reviewing and cutting back. There are also people who just don't give a dam anymore either way and see it as an inconvenient piece of frippery. Monarchists are increasingly on the back foot and like most people without a real argument in their favour they resort to cliché and nationalism to justify their stance Tropes like “tradition” are invoked “A thousand years of history” – (ignores the reality) “It’s what England does best (they ignore Scotland Wales, Ireland etc.) “They braved the rain” “Proud to be British” “Part of the history” “Westminster Abbey” None of this has anything to do with being a modern democracy. I would say that whether through politics or just indifference the monarchy needs to seriously review their position.

QED! What does that even mean?? - How does it alter the veracity of any argument? Please explain what you think and agenda is and what you think mine is and how it affects the discussion in any way. my "agenda is

It's actually a compliment!

error

show me - its my words - I'm always amused that if I use some of my own writings people think i've cut and pasted it from somewhere else. However rather than go for the messenger, how about presenting a counter argument - I guess you can't

The Crown is institution of the British monarchy and represents the reigning monarch. The cost of the Crown is funded through the UK government's Sovereign Grant, which covers the costs of the official duties of the monarch, including the maintenance of the royal residences, travel, and salaries for the staff of the royal household. In the financial year 2021-2022, the Sovereign Grant amounted to £85.9 million. This is a significant reduction from the previous year, which was £87.5 million, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the royal household's activities. It's worth noting that this figure doesn't include the additional costs of providing security for members of the royal family, which are covered separately by the government. It's also worth mentioning that the UK monarchy is estimated to bring in significant revenue through tourism and other sources, and the cost of the Crown is subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. Security doubled the real cost of this coronation - none of this is paid by the King

James 1 was King of England and Scotland - to begin with she was Queen of Scotland England and Ireland after the act of Union under Anne- and George 1 was the first to be crowned King of Great Britain. Read my post....looks like you've had to Google everything - you should learn how to research rather than search and read the statement you are referring to properly.

So you've finally realised what nonsense you were talking - but still no point to it? I think a few Scots, and Welsh, even Irish will be feeling a bit left out by you.

BTW - have you any idea what jingoistic point you are trying to make???

No - the British government pays - the Crown estate does NOT. this is not the same as the weddings or funerals.

Henry VIIII was King of ENGLAND - the The first king of Great Britain was King George I, who reigned from 1714 to 1727.

I have 2 history degrees and I'm not an anti-monarchist. you have displayed absolutely no indication at all they you know what history is. Unlike some who blindly slaver and droll over an ill-conceived delusion of what the monarchy actually is, I KNOW what it is, I know what the constitution is and know what it involves and what part in a democracy it plays. People who don't present one of the biggest current threats to British society.

Somehow, I'm not surprised Which question was that?

you can't too? - curious.

I cannot respect anyone who uses the word "agenda" in their posts.

perfectly legal to protest at the coronation. THe question of illegality rests on what actions the protestors take.

since when has UK been a police state?

A bit of cherry picking there, aren't you and a totally unbiased site at that ...NOT! Compare monarchies in other countries like Belgium,Sweden and Netherlands. But in fact cost isn't even the only factor - the main factor is democracy and whether the constitutional function is either democratic or valid. Comparing the cost of a monarchy versus a presidency can be a complex issue, as it depends on many factors such as the specific country, its political and economic structure, the role of the monarch or president, and the associated expenses. In some countries, a monarchy may cost more than a presidency due to the expenses related to maintaining a royal family, such as their salaries, residences, and ceremonial events. On the other hand, in other countries, a presidency may cost more than a monarchy due to the expenses associated with a larger political bureaucracy and the need for more frequent elections. It's important to note that the cost of a monarchy or presidency should not be the sole factor in determining a country's political system. Other factors, such as the political stability, effectiveness, and representation of the government, should also be considered.

Oh dear an amateur historian. The monarchy relies on types like you. Ignorance is bliss and you use terms like "documented" in the hope it makes you sound more informed - I'm afraid it just shows how little you understand about ENGLISH, Scottish, Welsh, British history...you don't even understand how tenuous the continuity is. I guess it makes you feel secure believing in fables and stories as "documented" (you obviously don't know what the documents are) and it helps you cling to a simplistic and blinkered view of history as just justification to your own existence today. I can't even see how you think this "chain of events" you have erroneously catalogued has any justification for today's bun-fight

So many dimwits are saying "once in a life time" - this is nonsense - Most people see 3 or 4 coronations - it's just, as you point out his mother was queen for 70 years. This one own't last long so it is quite conceivable that anyone in their 20s or 30s will see William and George coronated - assuming the monarchy lasts that long. Let's just hope it's done in the registry office by then.

Because it is the daftest?