kwilco

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?

Well, what a pointless thing to say - the pub is already dying - how does saying "long live" help?

As a tourist attraction, the Coronation has a limited effect. A one day event that tops the UK economy for a day and clogs up London for a week. Catering benefits and industry dies. Any real benefits toUK tourism from the Monarchy come from the property and paraphernalia associated with them. Assuming we won't melt down the crowns etc or knock down the palaces, then we don't need the King and a huge entourage getting paid by the British people.. Keep the antiques and totally review and revise the role of the monarchy in terms of a modern democracy.

the "pub" in UK is fast becoming a thing of the past - like the monarchy?

Firstly many coronations were a disaster, Queen Victorias was called the "Penny Coronation" Secondly you are ignoring the history. We had "English" Kings before 1066, but no "British" kings until 1700s. BTW - William 1's coronation ended up in a military riot and burning of buildings and congegation fled in fear.

the Coronation is paid for by the British government, not the monarchy.

I’ve just seen the King on TV and he looks AWFUL! – One wonders if he’ll survive the day! He is by a long chalk, the oldest king ever crowned in the UK and his coronation raises a lot of questions. How long will his reign be? – he’s 74 and his wife is 75. Will he abdicate? This may be the only way to continue the British monarchy. Will they get William in before he (William) makes a fool of himself? Will we see a dumbing down of the monarchy, or the end of the monarchy? (Note the TV personalities in the ceremony) Or will we see a monarch that interferes in politics or becomes a tool of the hard right? The public perception of the monarchy has been moulded in the last 200 years by very exceptional circumstances – will this King bring us down with a bump? 133 out of 185 years have been dominated by 2 women as monarchs. Many seem to think that reigns last for decades, this one could easily end in 5 years. The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe. Now it's seen as the ending - an eccentric old man who talks to trees. A relic of an old outdated family who probably won’t be King for more than 10 years - this is a "rump" dynasty. In the UK inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living are falling and the future of an isolated Britain with a doddery old king is likely to be as a curio on the edge of Europe. The future of democracy is looking bleak as the government introduces draconian measure after measure to prevent free opposition and human rights. The celebrations themselves are hugely undersubscribed – the public has other things to worry apart from billions spent on horses, carriages and military displays The King is a man who has been in the public eye for decades I think familiarity has bred contempt for a system that is increasingly archaic and out of step with modern times

RUbbish!!!

basically there are a group of people on this thread who either don't like or fear the Chinese. As a result they want to "knock" everything Chinese. They then look around and cherry-pick ideas that back up their own prejudices - it shows a paucity of thought and a lack of critical thinking. The truth is that Chinese are capable of making the highest quality of products in ANY field - they make Apple computers, Tesla cars, Mercs and BMWs. A couple of decades ago they were making old model GM Cavaliers. now they are making ground breaking electronic cars. This progress may be government subsidised or what ever - but that means the prices can be impossibly cheap and outside markets don't stand a chance unless they really reconsider their situation.....the old fuddy-duddies on this thread are a fine example of the thinking that will allow China to totally dominate the world automobile market in less than a decade ... with products that are already equal to or superior to anything in the West and probably even Japan - at least they are more aware of the position- why do you think they are so keen on hydrogen power?

False dichotomy.

So what do you think is a constant? to be honest I can't even remember what the original comment was, but it is so predictable how racists spend so much time arguing they aren't racist. Those of you who understand comparatives and superlatives will know what I mean when I say there is "stupid" "stupider" and "racist" and some on the this thread fit the role so well. One they've got over that (i doubt they ever will) they will be able to look at the role of Charles in a constitutional monarchy without make absurd, racist comparisons to other countries based on reason rather than racism.

"its a religion so its not racist" - you're coming out with classic after classic.....

QED!! Spend ages trying to say something isn't racism! You'll be saying "I've got nothing against them but...." next!

QED

Most raicist can't....or at least they're in denial.. heven't you noticed how racists spend a lot of their time denying things are racist?

While I was living in Queensland I stayed in a pub in Northern Queensland for a couple of nights and got to chatting with the locals. They told me the pub was called the Republic and had changed its name from the Empire and what did I think of that? Clearly a reference to the monarchy. My first response was that it was their country and that they should do democratically what they deemed right…. And none of the Britain’s business I then asked who they thought might end up as president. - Bond? Packer? Rinehart? Murdoch? The whole pub went quiet. In the end the republican vote in Oz was split because the monarchists introduced a choice of ways of electing a new President – i.e. by general vote or appointment by parliament. This is something that needs discussing in the UK. Firstly there is the constitutional role of the “CROWN” – the monarch being the current representative of that part of the constitution – and yes, the UK does have a constitution, it’s just not all in one place/document. An elected president in UK could in effect have exactly the same powers/duties/role as the monarchy does now, we just wouldn’t have to look at the same face all the time. We could have a US style president – someone who has a massive amount of power (33% in fact), or like Italy, where the President - Sergio Mattarella (heard of him?) – has very little actual power but serves as a bulwark against the various corrupt and loony parties in that benighted country. So rather than look t the Presidents from a nationalistic or racist point of view, it is better to look at their constitutional role in their country. The monarchy in UK is relatively lower power and seems to work quite well, the question is do we really need to breed them or should we start electing them?

Always someone with a racist viewpoint.