The Coronation.

[richard_smith237]

18 minutes ago, stoner said:

the pub is being used as a point of social connection and gathering. pubs are a huge part of community and culture in britian. 

 

 

I agree....  But to suggest the ‘coronation budget’ could have instead been contributed to support Public houses across the nation as a justifiable ‘anti Royal’ argument is quite hilarious !!!!!!.

 

That said, IF the boozing, socially connecting British Public brought more into the British Economy and did more for British interests than the Royal family you may have a leg to stand on....  instead, you’re not just hobbling around with a limp you’ve metaphorically amputated yourself with such an argument. 

[Rimmer]

Some off topic troll posts have been removed

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Where do you think the money comes from ??? 

 

And where do you think the money that the Royal Family brings in goes ???

 

You can’t have one without the other, thus unless cherry picking a dumbed down and over simplified a single facet of the argument we have to consider the whole. 

 

 

It's been a long running debate, between Royalists and Anti-Royalist’s and its generally accepted that as a national institution The British Royal family bring in more money than they cost. 

There's another thread about the financial value of the monarchy so I won't repeat the whole discussion here.

 

In short, the monarchy raises most of its' money from the Crown Estate, the bulk of which is then handed over to the Treasury. Whether you think that this income should belong to the Monarch in the first place is another matter. The idea that tourism would be negatively affected if the monarchy were abolished is imo nonsense. France is an obvious counter-example.

[billd766]

24 minutes ago, stoner said:

ya hows that working out for the UK economy ? tip top. 

And how are you doing working for the UK economy?

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

34 minutes ago, stoner said:

the pub is being used as a point of social connection and gathering. pubs are a huge part of community and culture in britian. 

 

 

So, why are they almost empty?

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

There's another thread about the financial value of the monarchy so I won't repeat the whole discussion here.

 

In short, the monarchy raises most of its' money from the Crown Estate, the bulk of which is then handed over to the Treasury. Whether you think that this income should belong to the Monarch in the first place is another matter. The idea that tourism would be negatively affected if the monarchy were abolished is imo nonsense. France is an obvious counter-example.

A Like from me as this is a solid counter argument. However, the implication with using France as an example is that tourist income would increase if the Monarchy were abolished because France has higher tourist numbers than the UK... that doesn't sit right. 

 

‘Events’ such as todays Coronation reaffirm the UK’s position on the World stage, regardless of your position, a lot of people in 'positions of impact’ respect that and it's to the UK’s economic advantage to keep this system going. 

 

I do agree with you, tourism brought in by the Royals is less than that of France’s Royal History, but nevertheless, it has been argued and shown that the Royal Establishment pays for itself and is of economic benefit to the UK economy - while the tourism brought in by the Royal Family is not the whole story, its a valuable facet and an asset to the Economy...   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

35 minutes ago, stoner said:

the pub is being used as a point of social connection and gathering. pubs are a huge part of community and culture in britian. 

 

 

So, why are they almost empty?

Perhaps stoner means that the amount of money spent on the coronation could be used to subsidise beer in the British Pubs so that more people can get drink and debate the pro’s and con’s of the British Royal family !!! 

 

Now... IF all the extra money brought into the UK by the British Royal Family were spent on Pubs in the UK to subsidise beer we’d have a nation of drunk Royalists !!! ????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

25 minutes ago, stoner said:

the outlook for UK is brutal and you are barking on about a few tourist dollars. im sure the broken NHS system reliance on tourism dollars is big. 

There was approximately £200m net profit from the Crown estate in 2022/23. That is money into the treasury. It amounts to about the same every year.

[Seppius]

Glad its all over

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

I'm proud of Englands history

Which part?

[StayinThailand2much]

2 hours ago, stoner said:

calling oneself a king in this modern word is the height of ignorance. 

Then again, could you imagine Britain without a king? It would be 'just another country' like, say, Poland, not to mention the importance of royalty for the tourism industry...

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

the ignorance of American people [...] or would onemanfarang disput that

We certainly agree about the ignorance of those Yankees. 

[RayC]

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A Like from me as this is a solid counter argument.

Thank you and thank you for your polite reply.

 

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

However, the implication with using France as an example is that tourist income would increase if the Monarchy were abolished because France has higher tourist numbers than the UK... that doesn't sit right. 

What I actually said was that tourism wouldn't be negatively affected. I should probably have added 'significantly'.

 

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

‘Events’ such as todays Coronation reaffirm the UK’s position on the World stage, regardless of your position, a lot of people in 'positions of impact’ respect that and it's to the UK’s economic advantage to keep this system going. 

It's undeniably an event and it puts the UK - or more particularly, London - centre stage for a day. However, I don't think that it has any great lasting effect on the UK's position or influence on the world stage.

 

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I do agree with you, tourism brought in by the Royals is less than that of France’s Royal History, but nevertheless, it has been argued and shown that the Royal Establishment pays for itself and is of economic benefit to the UK economy - while the tourism brought in by the Royal Family is not the whole story, its a valuable facet and an asset to the Economy...   

I don't accept the argument that the Monarchy pays for itself or is of economic benefit to the UK. The same line of argument could be used by all other kingdoms and, if this is the case, presumably some republics would adopt a monarchy? 

 

Ahh, but the UK monarchy is different: The pageantry, the history, etc. Perhaps but Thailand, for example, doesn't do badly when it comes to pageantry and I doubt many tourists go there for that reason. In addition, many other European countries have monarchies which are centuries old. If pageantry was such a money spinning, I would have thought that a few of them would make more of it.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Actually, the global TV rights alone have apparently paid for the coronation!

 

With all the tourist income generated it's definitely a net-profit event.

 

RUbbish!!!

[kwilco]

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

 

 

 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

There's another thread about the financial value of the monarchy so I won't repeat the whole discussion here.

 

In short, the monarchy raises most of its' money from the Crown Estate, the bulk of which is then handed over to the Treasury. Whether you think that this income should belong to the Monarch in the first place is another matter. The idea that tourism would be negatively affected if the monarchy were abolished is imo nonsense. France is an obvious counter-example.

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

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Us Brits know how to throw a party with all the History and pageantry. We have A monarchy stretching back to the days of William the Conqueror in 1066.

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.

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, stoner said:

how tone deaf can one be in the modern world. i bet the money used for this coronation could of paid every pub in england's electric bill this past winter. 

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

[BarraMarra]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

if allowed by law i would yes. however that would be breaking the law here so i shall refrain. 

 

 

[stoner]

22 minutes ago, kwilco said:

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.

kind of what i was hinting at with the pub reference. most didn't get it though. thank you for putting it into big words n stuff. 

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

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

long live the pub.

[simon43]

29 minutes ago, kwilco said:

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

 

 

 

Well blame his mum for him ascending the throne in his 70's ????

[stoner]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

And how are you doing working for the UK economy?

 

 

i live in thailand but do hold a british passport. :)

 

[kwilco]

41 minutes ago, RayC said:

Thank you and thank you for your polite reply.

 

What I actually said was that tourism wouldn't be negatively affected. I should probably have added 'significantly'.

 

It's undeniably an event and it puts the UK - or more particularly, London - centre stage for a day. However, I don't think that it has any great lasting effect on the UK's position or influence on the world stage.

 

I don't accept the argument that the Monarchy pays for itself or is of economic benefit to the UK. The same line of argument could be used by all other kingdoms and, if this is the case, presumably some republics would adopt a monarchy? 

 

Ahh, but the UK monarchy is different: The pageantry, the history, etc. Perhaps but Thailand, for example, doesn't do badly when it comes to pageantry and I doubt many tourists go there for that reason. In addition, many other European countries have monarchies which are centuries old. If pageantry was such a money spinning, I would have thought that a few of them would make more of it.

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.

[kwilco]

6 minutes ago, stoner said:

long live the pub.

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

[stoner]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

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

because any comment in this thread helps anything. why single out that one.

[kwilco]

Just now, stoner said:

because any comment in this thread helps anything. why single out that one.

Because it is the daftest?

[BarraMarra]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

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.

What a load of crap kwilco. The first documented coronation in English history was William the Conqueror on the 25th of December 1066. After him came William known as Rufus reigned from 1087 until 1100 so until you research the British monarchy I suggest you stop posting drivel. Our history can be traced to Exhibits in the Tower of London built by William the Conqueror in the 1070s from Henry the VIIs Armour to the chair used for the last execution at the tower in WW2 that my friends is History. We had a crowned king in 1066 and we have a new one now in 2023. suck it up boy's over a Thousand years of English kings and Queens. God save the King.

[stoner]

Just now, kwilco said:

Because it is the daftest?

judgmental i see. amazing.

 

i would put forth the idea that a monarchy is daftest. 

[kwilco]

9 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Well blame his mum for him ascending the throne in his 70's ????

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.