King Charles III is learning the hard way that leaving it too late to finalize a big soiree is a bad idea. As the newly ascended British monarch prepares for his coronation on May 6, the palace is reportedly struggling to book A-list British entertainers to mark the historic event, with many citing busy schedules to explain their absence.

 

That’s a sharp break from the last major royal celebrations in June to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, or 70 years on the throne, before she died aged 96 in September. A star-studded concert at Buckingham Palace had featured Queen + Adam Lambert, Diana Ross, Alicia Keys, Elton John, Craig David, Elbow, Sir Rod Stewart, Celeste, and other big names.

 

The May 6 coronation will see Charles crowned alongside Camilla, the Queen Consort, at Westminster Abbey. The next day, coronation lunches are due to take place in communities across Britain before an evening concert at Windsor Castle.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-people-said-no-performing-165836215.html

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

King Charles III is learning the hard way that leaving it too late to finalize a big soiree is a bad idea.

Leaving it too late, or are these celebrities more aware than the government is, of how terrible the optics are of such lavish celebrations at a time of national crisis, for a man who has done nothing constructive for the country his entire life?

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

the palace is reportedly struggling to book A-list British entertainers to mark the historic event, with many citing busy schedules to explain their absence.

I hear Garry Glitter is available, sit him next to Andy and they can chat about the 'good old days'.

Probably he can have his stars - or at least the version 30 year after they were successful. 

But probably that is a good match for him. ???? 

 

 

I am extremely disappointed in Charles. I had hoped that he would do the right thing and not seek the crown so William can save the monarchy from insignificance. IMO it's sad that Charles is so determined to be crowned that he can't see that HE ( IMO ) is the threat to the monarchy surviving.

Also, he's doing to William what was done to him and making William wait and wait to become King.

IMO Charles should retire to southern France and live out his last days in the sun. He and his wife are never going to be popular, IMO.

11 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Probably he can have his stars - or at least the version 30 year after they were successful. 

But probably that is a good match for him. ???? 

 

 

Took me a long time to forget about them, so thanks for reminding me, NOT.

I thought coronations were supposed to be dignified.

2 minutes ago, John Drake said:

I thought coronations were supposed to be dignified.

Used to be when royalty was big deal. Those days IMO long gone since about 1996.

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

11 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was held 16 months after becoming Queen.... 

57 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Probably he can have his stars - or at least the version 30 year after they were successful. 

But probably that is a good match for him. ???? 

 

 

They have already said no.

29 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

Yeah, it's fair play. If you've got the money you can throw a big party if you feel like it

32 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

Well it wouldn't to you, the USA is a young country, but I bet the Native American Indians had "King's" and big coronation's before it was taken away....

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Well it wouldn't to you, the USA is a young country, but I bet the Native American Indians had "King's" and big coronation's before it was taken away....

Incas & Aztecs _'S of the (USA) Border' maybe, but not present USA native Americans ... just a chief of the tribe/clan.  No major silliness or drama.

 

Royals ... self importance to themselves and ignorant subjects ... IMHO

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by KhunLA

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Incas & Aztecs _'S of the (USA) Border' maybe, but not present USA native Americans ... just a chief of the tribe/clan.  No major silliness or drama.

 

Royals ... self importance to themselves and ignorant subjects ... IMHO

Chiefs were the King's, don't forget it.....

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Incas & Aztecs _'S of the (USA) Border' maybe, but not present USA native Americans ... just a chief of the tribe/clan.  No major silliness or drama.

 

Royals ... self importance to themselves and ignorant subjects ... IMHO

adding IMHO adds no defense to your remarks labeling the Royals subjects ignorant.

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

adding IMHO adds no defense to your remarks labeling the Royals subjects ignorant.

I like to add IMHO to my replies that don't have sources or links that verify my statement/opinion.   This way they almost don't get deleted for 'unsubstantiated' info being posted ????

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I like to add IMHO to my replies that don't have sources or links that verify my statement/opinion.   This way they almost don't get deleted for 'unsubstantiated' info being posted ????

Calling the Kings subjects ignorant is pure ignorance in itself, I have no need to add IMO to that. You know nothing about the majority of them

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

He does have the money and he is having a party. The Crown is a net contributor to the UK economy. The money for the coronation will come from the Crown.

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

adding IMHO adds no defense to your remarks labeling the Royals subjects ignorant.

I took from KhunLA's post that he does not think that all subjects are ignorant, only those who confer mythical importance to the royal family. As one of Brian's subjects, I tend to agree with him.

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I took from KhunLA's post that he does not think that all subjects are ignorant, only those who confer mythical importance to the royal family. As one of Brian's subjects, I tend to agree with him.

I'll let him speak for himself

Another headline aiming to trigger more keyboard combat!

 

Why not wait to see who says yes before writing the party off? 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Skallywag said:

As an American this makes no sense.  He became King in September.  A bit late for any ceremony now isn't it???   <deleted> he has the money to throw himself a party anytime he wants....5555

Charles Having a party on the day the Queen died , would be rather inappropriate 

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Another headline aiming to trigger more keyboard combat!

 

Why not wait to see who says yes before writing the party off? 

 

 

 

 

Take that minus Robbie Williams are the headline act...

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am extremely disappointed in Charles. I had hoped that he would do the right thing and not seek the crown so William can save the monarchy from insignificance. IMO it's sad that Charles is so determined to be crowned that he can't see that HE ( IMO ) is the threat to the monarchy surviving.

Also, he's doing to William what was done to him and making William wait and wait to become King.

IMO Charles should retire to southern France and live out his last days in the sun. He and his wife are never going to be popular, IMO.

Maybe they should all retire to live out their days eldewhere. 

They should get Queen and Prince to sing at the concert , both with replacement singers though

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Take that minus Robbie Williams are the headline act...

Lionel Ritchie should get them dancing on the ceiling,all night long.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Another headline aiming to trigger more keyboard combat!

 

Why not wait to see who says yes before writing the party off?

Because the people who said no is still a news story.

8 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Lionel Ritchie should get them dancing on the ceiling,all night long.

At 73, maybe but one suspects the days of all night long are over. 
 

Im sure anyone who can be bothered to watch will let us know how he did. 

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I hear Garry Glitter is available, sit him next to Andy and they can chat about the 'good old days'.

That's horrible ...... funny though!!