Coronation day

[Tichtheid]

The hospitality industry perhaps pushed for a big celebration as they know people wil flock to the pubs and that for a long weekend, certainly now the weather is less crap. Pretty much every pub bar and restaurant round here was rammed Friday, Saturday , and yesterday - haven’t ventured out yet today though.

Plus the supermarkets flogging all their party food, jumbo packs of burgers and ribs, cake ingredients etc

People whinging about the £250m cost , are literally only looking at one side of the balance sheet, a good slice of that bill is overtime for the various forces who will be glad for a bigger pay packet which they will pay tax on. 250 mil is about what the state pays as state pension for one day.

"Whinging" is another loaded term.

The quarter of a billion pounds per annum is the cost of the monarchy, according to the previous source (edit it's actually £300M when you click through on their own link - another downplay). The coronation is supposed to cost around £100M, the overtime bill for the various forces is included in that.
The state pension is shared among around 12.5 million people - from DWP,

There were 12.5 million people receiving the State Pension at February 2022, an increase of 140,000 on a year earlier. In December 2018, the State Pension Age was raised above 65 for both men and women, initially resulting in fewer new claims.

Given the supposed wealth of the monarchy and the income it generates, I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the estate to foot the bill for the ceremony, rather than the taxpayer

if the £1.5Bn annual contribution to the economy is correct, then the cost of the ceremony is 6.7% of that. The monarchy can afford it.

[TheNatalShark]

Pretty sure the additional bank holiday dwarves all other costs of the day in terms of GDP hit, cost to employers and tax generation. Even once any paltry additional spend is factored in

[Ymx]

I read somewhere rather than the citizens pledging allegiance to the King, it should be the bloody King pledging allegiance to us and country.

I thought it a fair point.

The military types on the bored will be better informed than me on this, but iirc those in the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch over everything, including parliament.

I don't think that's a good state of affairs.

There is an argument that that is a good idea. Ultimately you don’t want a PM in charge of the army.

QE2 invaded Iraq? Not Tony Blair?

[SaintK]

The military types on the bored will be better informed than me on this, but iirc those in the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch over everything, including parliament.

I don't think that's a good state of affairs.

There is an argument that that is a good idea. Ultimately you don’t want a PM in charge of the army.

QE2 invaded Iraq? Not Tony Blair?

Didn't you notice the Corgis leading the charge?

[GogLais]

The military types on the bored will be better informed than me on this, but iirc those in the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch over everything, including parliament.

I don't think that's a good state of affairs.

There is an argument that that is a good idea. Ultimately you don’t want a PM in charge of the army.

QE2 invaded Iraq? Not Tony Blair?

I think the argument is that in some domestic situation a PM might want to use the services for political purposes, basically suppressing dissent. Having their allegiance to the sovereign might reduce the chances of that. I accept that is an extremely hypothetical scenario.

[Uncle fester]

Primogeniture is such a dull way of deciding the succession.

[Biffer]

Primogeniture is such a dull way of deciding the succession.

I'm sure there are some of us who would be delighted to see Anne lead a troop of horse up to Westminster Abbey, ride up the middle of the ceremony and say 'not today you little shit, it's mine'

[C69]

There is an argument that that is a good idea. Ultimately you don’t want a PM in charge of the army.

QE2 invaded Iraq? Not Tony Blair?

I think the argument is that in some domestic situation a PM might want to use the services for political purposes, basically suppressing dissent. Having their allegiance to the sovereign might reduce the chances of that. I accept that is an extremely hypothetical scenario.

The army has been used time and time again to suppress dissent. NI being a prime example.
Even very recently on the streets iirc 2017 saw them bolster the police when the terror alert was high in 2017.

[Simian]

Imagine travelling to London to potentially see this thing stick it’s head out of a window



Nightmarish stuff

look like Mr Ed

[GogLais]

QE2 invaded Iraq? Not Tony Blair?

I think the argument is that in some domestic situation a PM might want to use the services for political purposes, basically suppressing dissent. Having their allegiance to the sovereign might reduce the chances of that. I accept that is an extremely hypothetical scenario.

The army has been used time and time again to suppress dissent. NI being a prime example.
Even very recently on the streets iirc 2017 saw them bolster the police when the terror alert was high in 2017.

I think the suggestion was made (not an original thought of mine) in the context of a PM trying to use the military to take over power. “Suppressing dissent” not the best wording.

[fishfoodie]

Imagine travelling to London to potentially see this thing stick it’s head out of a window



Nightmarish stuff

look like Mr Ed

I think it was Jasper Carrot who said she had a face like a roofers nailbag ... so that's his OBE shot down

[Simian]

Imagine travelling to London to potentially see this thing stick it’s head out of a window



Nightmarish stuff

look like Mr Ed

I think it was Jasper Carrot who said she had a face like a roofers nailbag ... so that's his OBE shot down

I just googled him to find out if he was still alive. He is. He also already has an OBE. I was a bit surprised on both counts, tbh.

[Blackmac]

I was wondering about that.

Edit: re Blackmacs post on the revenue they bring.

How exactly do they calculate an amount attributed to the royal family? How do they say, if the royals weren’t around, these people wouldn’t have come. Just curious.

I mean most tourists go to London to see the buildings as they do other European cities. It’s not like they actually see the royals themselves. Just the palace itself with toy soldiers.

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/featur ... to-the-uk/

This one suggests roughly £1.7 billion.

I can't help but be sceptical about the figures in that, just because of the the way they've chosen to present them. They start off by quoting the £1.7Bn figure, then call it near £2Bn, excuse me but a three hundred million quid shortfall is not near two billion. (or even 250 million shortfall in their second quote)

They also say it costs 1p per head of population per day, that is 67.33 million people times £0.01, or £673 300 per day, or £245M per year. They've been leading in how they've quoted the figures, I'm not questioning the veracity, I have no way of checking at this moment, but I'm never fully convinced when a case it put forward in such a way.

If the surplus of £1.5Bn to the UK economy is correct it is dwarfed by London's overall tourism expenditure, which pre-pandemic stood at around £15Bn https://www.statista.com/statistics/487 ... d-kingdom/

I actually didn't even read it and it was the first one that came up. I struggle to really care about the monarchy in the same way I struggle to get as upset as others do. They just don't impact my life positively or negatively in any way as far as I can see.

[SaintK]

look like Mr Ed

I think it was Jasper Carrot who said she had a face like a roofers nailbag ... so that's his OBE shot down

I just googled him to find out if he was still alive. He is. He also already has an OBE. I was a bit surprised on both counts, tbh.

[Jim Lahey]

I'm agnostic on the monarchy, don't really care either way quite frankly. Don't buy the economic arguments either against the Coronation tbh, the extra bank holiday (which my company, a manufacturer, is not getting or are we getting compensated with an additional one in our allowance) might cost money, but its a very small fraction of the amount of money squandered on things like HS2, not cracking down on tax frauds, wanker banker bonuses etc.

I'm reading a fascinating book at the moment on the Italian Renianssance. The amount of money those feudal lords "squandered" being patrons to the likes of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael etc., as well as designing beautifully unnecessary architecture, large carnivals/tournaments, as well as constantly raising armies to kick the shit out of each other, all while most of the population were dying piss poor, hungry and destitute at the ripe old age of 25. Yet the world reveres that era as a golden age.

Nowadays if the government spends money on anything during "The Cost of Living Crisis" they get utterly lambasted by the public and media, as if that money could simply be transferred into the pockets of the public.

A bit of a party, a day off down the pub celebrating some fairytale bollocks is a bit of a laugh. Stop taking life so seriously. If you can't feed yourself, your family, or heat your house, while living in a 1st world country with free education, free healthcare, benefits, social housing etc., that's on you for monumentally fucking up at some point during life, not on a family of bellends living in castles.

[Gumboot]

Yeah I couldn't really care less. The idea of pledging allegiance is utterly daft to most people, about as old world as coins and bank notes.

[Uncle fester]

It seems that any sort of dissent re the coronation is going to be outlawed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

[Uncle fester]

Pipe down jackeen.

[Happyhooker]

Thread irished

[Line6 HXFX]

Back in 2000 I got accepted to do a Master of science degree, at Swansea University.. as possibly the poorest man in the U.K. having worked my ass off studying in college libraries (to use their computers, as I couldn't afford my own) on an I.T course and doing tons of voluntary work.



Couldn't go in the end as I couldn't afford the course fees.The Dole were never going to pay for Post Grad study.
Since then my life has been shit, where as this would have changed litterally everything for me.


They spent about 10 times more than my course fees (that would have lifted my and many like me, life up) on Breakfast this morning.

[Line6 HXFX]

It is a conscious choice for the UK to fund and invest and give all the spare cash to them, and litterally none to people like me.

Guess for me, it's just pointless finger jabbing and deranged middle class morality tales.

Cheap, easy..makes you feel better I guess.

But you know.. U.K. could have just as easily had a Post Grad in I.T., Multimedia and Internet design.

Makes you really kinda think Britain actually deserves to be this shit.

[clydecloggie]

Killer song.

[Slick]

Meh, I like all the pomp and ceremony and it’s nice to be a bit different from the rest of the world.

I also think it’s difficult to overestimate the “soft power” this gives the U.K. Foreign leaders fucking love getting an invitation to this stuff and it helps the nation immeasurably

[inactionman]

A key benefit of the monarchy is that the elected politicians needs to toe an electoral line whilst the King/Queen isn't hidebound to the whims of the voter or the media's influence.

It sounds a minor point, but Lizzie in particular did a good job in many cases at smoothing relations from which negotiations can progress.

Also worth noting the monarch will politically outlive PMs and will foster ongoing influence, and the monarch has the country's interests directly at heart whereas the politician may only have their party (or, sadly, their own political neck as seems to be the case recently) in mind.

It's all of a similar vein to the politicisation of the Civil Service - the Civil Service takes the direction of the incumbent government but is a permanent skilled staff. Tories see the Civil Service as blockers and want political appointees in place, I see them as the common sense and experience which advises Ministers and delivers the directives of Ministers in a practical, sustainable way, and we cannot have political appointees corrupting that. The Monarch is almost a separate check and balance, to rein in the likes of Liz Truss and Boris when dealing with international affairs.

I quite like having this separation, and worry that it's being eroded - more so for the political independence of the Civil Service but I can certainly see utility in retaining the Monarchy.

[eldanielfire]

I was wondering about that.

Edit: re Blackmacs post on the revenue they bring.

How exactly do they calculate an amount attributed to the royal family? How do they say, if the royals weren’t around, these people wouldn’t have come. Just curious.

I mean most tourists go to London to see the buildings as they do other European cities. It’s not like they actually see the royals themselves. Just the palace itself with toy soldiers.

Palace of Versail;les is the most visited Royal Palace in the world and the French did the right thing a couple of hundred years ago and cut the fuckers heads off, so no its got fuck all to do with the royal family.

Frances tourism in Europe is probably due to it's geographic presence and well documented history and prestigue of Paris as well as sunny beache, accessibility, infulence etc. No other nations, republican or not compares for tourism. It's obvious from the various specific bits our tourism, celebrations, TV rights for these celebrations that the Royals certain poukk in some cash to the country. The soft power bits are also beneifical.

[eldanielfire]

Thread irished

Looking at that Harry lad I'd say the royals gor Irished a few years back

[Happyhooker]

Thread irished

Looking at that Harry lad I'd say the royals gor Irished a few years back

Hewitt was born in Derry.......

[Paddington Bear]

I was wondering about that.

Edit: re Blackmacs post on the revenue they bring.

How exactly do they calculate an amount attributed to the royal family? How do they say, if the royals weren’t around, these people wouldn’t have come. Just curious.

I mean most tourists go to London to see the buildings as they do other European cities. It’s not like they actually see the royals themselves. Just the palace itself with toy soldiers.

Palace of Versail;les is the most visited Royal Palace in the world and the French did the right thing a couple of hundred years ago and cut the fuckers heads off, so no its got fuck all to do with the royal family.

Frances tourism in Europe is probably due to it's geographic presence and well documented history and prestigue of Paris as well as sunny beache, accessibility, infulence etc. No other nations, republican or not compares for tourism. It's obvious from the various specific bits our tourism, celebrations, TV rights for these celebrations that the Royals certain poukk in some cash to the country. The soft power bits are also beneifical.

Versailles is also one of a kind remarkable in a way the British palaces aren't without the direct connection. Just don't ask the guides to show you where the German Empire was proclaimed as they then pretend they can't speak English or understand your French...

[Jim Lahey]

Thread irished

Looking at that Harry lad I'd say the royals gor Irished a few years back

Hewitt was born in Derry.......

Where?

[Happyhooker]

Looking at that Harry lad I'd say the royals gor Irished a few years back

Hewitt was born in Derry.......

Where?

Dunno. I'd guess in a hospital;)

[fishfoodie]

Thread irished

Looking at that Harry lad I'd say the royals gor Irished a few years back

Hewitt was born in Derry.......

So you're saying Harry is a Derry Girl ?

... sounds about right.

[Jim Lahey]

Hewitt was born in Derry.......

Where?

Jim I don't know how any of you live up there with all that shite. It must be mind numbingly boring. That and the fucking preachers everywhere. Was up there for the marathon last weekend and holy shit the pricks are droning on everywhere
'And Jesus didn't have a mobile phone. No but if he had a mobile phone his ringtone would have been Going Underground by The Jam in reference to the time he spent dead in a cave. The thing about being in a cave is there is not much air and when you run out of air you might actually die. I had a snail that died and he didn't get resurrected but I didn't put him in a cave. Here did I tell you about St Paul and his pet worm...'

If I heard one cunt shiteing on I heard 20. I would actually end up doing time

Yeah you kind of just become numb to it all. You probably got the worst of it as you had the ardacity to partake in a sporting event on a Sunday, you blasphemous kunt.

I'm back here living for the last 7.5 years. If you take part it in public life such as running for political office or being part of a community organisation, it must be fucking dire. I run my daughter's football team and that is about the height of my publc life. The league we play in's Whatsapp is hilarious whenever there is a royal event, with each prod team trying to out-prod each other by cancelling games as a mark of respect to bla bla, and then the Cat lick teams being just as bad, making sniping remarks about the Prod teams etc.

But beyond that life here is great. Cheap and cheerful. 90% of the public are not cunts, but our 10% of wankers are particularly noisey.

[Biffer]

Meh, I like all the pomp and ceremony and it’s nice to be a bit different from the rest of the world.

I also think it’s difficult to overestimate the “soft power” this gives the U.K. Foreign leaders fucking love getting an invitation to this stuff and it helps the nation immeasurably

You can still have the pomp and ceremony without the gouging inbreds at the top of the pile

[Biffer]

A key benefit of the monarchy is that the elected politicians needs to toe an electoral line whilst the King/Queen isn't hidebound to the whims of the voter or the media's influence.

It sounds a minor point, but Lizzie in particular did a good job in many cases at smoothing relations from which negotiations can progress.

Also worth noting the monarch will politically outlive PMs and will foster ongoing influence, and the monarch has the country's interests directly at heart whereas the politician may only have their party (or, sadly, their own political neck as seems to be the case recently) in mind.

It's all of a similar vein to the politicisation of the Civil Service - the Civil Service takes the direction of the incumbent government but is a permanent skilled staff. Tories see the Civil Service as blockers and want political appointees in place, I see them as the common sense and experience which advises Ministers and delivers the directives of Ministers in a practical, sustainable way, and we cannot have political appointees corrupting that. The Monarch is almost a separate check and balance, to rein in the likes of Liz Truss and Boris when dealing with international affairs.

I quite like having this separation, and worry that it's being eroded - more so for the political independence of the Civil Service but I can certainly see utility in retaining the Monarchy.

That's why I've never been particularly republican, but frankly I don't trust Charlie boy to carry out the role without trying to push his own agenda.

[FalseBayFC]

Just like to wish all the UK, New Zealand and Australian posters well for the coronation weekend as their new King is crowned. As a Saffer I'm quite envious we no longer have a British monarch reigning over us. I miss having the Union Jack on our flag too.

[assfly]

Meh, I like all the pomp and ceremony and it’s nice to be a bit different from the rest of the world.

I also think it’s difficult to overestimate the “soft power” this gives the U.K. Foreign leaders fucking love getting an invitation to this stuff and it helps the nation immeasurably

This is what it is all about. The UK is punching way above its weight with the soft power the royal family project outwards.

[Ymx]

A key benefit of the monarchy is that the elected politicians needs to toe an electoral line whilst the King/Queen isn't hidebound to the whims of the voter or the media's influence.

It sounds a minor point, but Lizzie in particular did a good job in many cases at smoothing relations from which negotiations can progress.

Also worth noting the monarch will politically outlive PMs and will foster ongoing influence, and the monarch has the country's interests directly at heart whereas the politician may only have their party (or, sadly, their own political neck as seems to be the case recently) in mind.

It's all of a similar vein to the politicisation of the Civil Service - the Civil Service takes the direction of the incumbent government but is a permanent skilled staff. Tories see the Civil Service as blockers and want political appointees in place, I see them as the common sense and experience which advises Ministers and delivers the directives of Ministers in a practical, sustainable way, and we cannot have political appointees corrupting that. The Monarch is almost a separate check and balance, to rein in the likes of Liz Truss and Boris when dealing with international affairs.

I quite like having this separation, and worry that it's being eroded - more so for the political independence of the Civil Service but I can certainly see utility in retaining the Monarchy.

I was thinking about the civil service shambles.

MPs have the frustration of dealing with pretty stubborn people because they want change and quickly. But you can see why it is like that.

Imagine if your entire management structure was changed every time a cabinet re shuffle.

You probably don’t care much about bonding, and excelling, just doing bare minimum to keep job. You are constantly being re-evaluated from scratch.

Not only that, but MPs are mostly not enterprise leaders (MBA) etc.

I don’t entirely know what the solution is, but it doesn’t currently work.

[dpedin]

A key benefit of the monarchy is that the elected politicians needs to toe an electoral line whilst the King/Queen isn't hidebound to the whims of the voter or the media's influence.

It sounds a minor point, but Lizzie in particular did a good job in many cases at smoothing relations from which negotiations can progress.

Also worth noting the monarch will politically outlive PMs and will foster ongoing influence, and the monarch has the country's interests directly at heart whereas the politician may only have their party (or, sadly, their own political neck as seems to be the case recently) in mind.

It's all of a similar vein to the politicisation of the Civil Service - the Civil Service takes the direction of the incumbent government but is a permanent skilled staff. Tories see the Civil Service as blockers and want political appointees in place, I see them as the common sense and experience which advises Ministers and delivers the directives of Ministers in a practical, sustainable way, and we cannot have political appointees corrupting that. The Monarch is almost a separate check and balance, to rein in the likes of Liz Truss and Boris when dealing with international affairs.

I quite like having this separation, and worry that it's being eroded - more so for the political independence of the Civil Service but I can certainly see utility in retaining the Monarchy.

I was thinking about the civil service shambles.

MPs have the frustration of dealing with pretty stubborn people because they want change and quickly. But you can see why it is like that.

Imagine if your entire management structure was changed every time a cabinet re shuffle.

You probably don’t care much about bonding, and excelling, just doing bare minimum to keep job. You are constantly being re-evaluated from scratch.

Not only that, but MPs are mostly not enterprise leaders (MBA) etc.

I don’t entirely know what the solution is, but it doesn’t currently work.

I have never worked as a civil servant but have worked with many over the years. If we didnt have a good civil service then the country would have crashed years ago. Truss and her acolytes immediately sacked the top CS in the Treasury and then proceeded with an agenda and budget that almost crashed the economy. The CS they sacked was the one who would have explained the pros and cons of their plans and would have warned them of any consequences of their actions - this isn't deliberate obfuscation nor blocking but an essential check and balance in our system. Unfortunately most of our political leaders come with little experience of running large scale organisations (see recent book on Blonde Bumblecunt) and have got into position of power by yes men telling them how good they are - Truss is a good example of this. At best some will have worked in industry but at a junior level. I developed a real respect of the senior CS folk who were almost always intellectually superior than their bosses who were inevitably on a power trip and driven by political dogma, and they had to have the balls to tell them of the downside of their 'grand plans' usually at the expense of a shouting, a rant or a move to another department. The entire 'civil service is a shambles' is the Tories trying to create a diversion and cover up for their failures and disastrous time in power. Look at the damage Patel and Braverman have done to the Home Office - if it wasn't for the civil servants it would have been a lot lot worse.

[Biffer]

Yeah, the civil service will implement your policy, so long as it's legal, but will make sure the cunsequences of that policy are fully understood. It's hearing the latter that these ideological zealots like Truss and Kwarteng don't like.

[tabascoboy]

So, anyone here expecting to receive one of these? Maybe it's not a good pic but it looks a bit, I don't know.....shit?