More royal pomp and circumstance.

And - you'd be doing this every four years for a President
(Don't believe it would be different- it wouldn't)

At least this is the first such occasion for 70 years therefore much more economical than having a President.

As previously stated everyone involved in the ceremony etc was already being paid anyway

I don't think it ran into overtime either.

The crown, sceptre, robes etc are all second-hand too.
👑

an alternative view from a Scot who isn't a unionist/royalist
Its quite long but explains Scottish history '
I hope that some of you will read it.

To Whom the Crown Belongs
If you would rule a people, you must sit amongst them. The royals seem to be taking this piece of Machiavellian advice to heart of late. Today, we’re graced with a visit from King Charles. Together with assorted flunkies and a plethora of men in tights, Charles will perform an elaborate dance round the Honours of Scotland, which will involve touching, but not actually wearing them. They have even gone so far as to replace one of them. The original Scottish Sword of State, a gift from Pope Julius in 1507, will be substituted by a new sword called the Elizabeth Sword. The excuse given for this is that the old one is too fragile to use in ceremonies any longer. This is pretty rich coming from a country that uses a 700- year- old chair vandalised by choir boys, for coronations. Whatever happened to conservation?
So why so coy? Why is it that Charles will touch, but not actually wear the Scottish Crown? Why has our Sword of State been replaced? What is the actual point of this visit?
The answer is simple. Symbolism matters and presence matters. Charles is here because he is part of a performance to convince Scots that he is their King and that there is a union of crowns between England and Scotland. In actual fact there is no such thing. There is an English Crown and a Scottish Crown. The same person has worn both crowns from James VI up until Queen Anne; but they have never been united. The two Crowns are as far apart in nature as it is possible to imagine and since Queen Anne, only one Crown has been adhered and sworn to; the English Crown. And Charles and the UK government are terrified that at some point, the Scots will realise this. Hence the masquerade.
So what is the difference? It’s this. The English Crown invests the power of the (English state) in one person. Everything belongs to the monarch; the land, the people (subjects) and even the government (His Majesty’s government). Not only that, but it also belongs to his heirs. Every member of government has to swear an oath to Charles and his heirs in order for them to be allowed to sit in Parliament.
In Scotland it’s different. The Crown is not the possession of one person or one family. The Sovereign is not one person. The Sovereign is, in fact, the people. The monarch is simply the temporary caretaker of the Crown and can be overruled by the people. The Scots made this clear in the Declaration of Arbroath, the Claim of Right in 1689 and finally in the Scottish Accession oath where the monarch swears, ‘the rights and rents, with all just privileges of the Crown of Scotland, I shall preserve and keep inviolate, neither shall I transfer nor alienate the same.’ Translated, that means that the law, the land and the functions of state belong to the people; they are not to be acquired by others or changed.
To put this into a modern context; if Charles got beyond touching, took the Scottish oath and put the Scottish crown on his head, he would have to declare null and void all the claims made under the English Crown on Scottish territory. This would include North Sea oil and gas resources, all the land claimed under the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer (this is property and land titles for which an owner cannot be found and there’s a lot of them) and it would also make null and void the current freeports and potential plundering of resources in those areas. Finally, he would have to declare the Treaty of Union null and void, because it depends on the Claim of Right and the promises made by the monarch in the Accession Oath. For neither the government nor the monarch, nor any power in Scotland can be placed above the people. This is what the Scottish Crown means and to whom it belongs; the people.
That is why Charles will never put that crown on his head. And that is why he will never be our King. When he leaves St Giles today, he might reflect on the statue of his namesake, Charles II, which stands close by in Parliament Square. It was erected in 1685 and it’s a reminder of a betrayal. Many Scots fought for Charles against Cromwell because he was a Stuart and Scotland was occupied by thousands of Cromwell’s troops the length and breadth of Scotland in retaliation after the battle of Dunbar. The dismembered body of the Marquis of Montrose lies in a marble tomb in St Giles in testimony to that. During that time, the honours of Scotland and what they represented were hidden away. When Cromwell died and Charles was restored to the throne, he treated the Scots with the same disdain as Cromwell and maintained the system of forts that Cromwell had established. Four years after Charles death, the Scots had had enough, declared the Scottish throne vacant and re-iterated the sovereignty of the people through the Claim of Right in 1689. We could do it again. For we are the Crown, and we are sovereign.

I will repeat what I have probably said about 5 times on GN already.

The Coronation cost the equivalent of what the NHS costs to run in 5 hours.

So I will assume today's event cost the equivalent of about 1 hour?

Not that I agree or disagree with the op.
Just putting the money situation inot context.

"How many people that complain about such things enjoy going round National Trust properties etc"
I do Maybelline. I'm a member of NT. Doesn't make me a monarchist.

Floradora9

luluaugust

If this ceremony hadn't taken place that would have been wrong. It is all part of being British, Charles has a lot of Scottish blood. It is a small cost compared to what is spent by Presidents and Despots.

Can you explain the Scottish blood bit please I know he has lots of German blood ?

Mary, Queen of Scots, is his Great-great-great-great Grandmother

His grandmother was Scottish.

luluaugust

If this ceremony hadn't taken place that would have been wrong. It is all part of being British, Charles has a lot of Scottish blood. It is a small cost compared to what is spent by Presidents and Despots.

Can you explain the Scottish blood bit please I know he has lots of German blood ?

Aveline

My DSiL and DGSs were there and loved it. I suppose the cost would be in salaries for the soldiers and bandsmen and police who are all paid anyway as their job. If such events didn't happen not a penny would filter down to those in need.

If such events didn't happen not a penny would filter down to those in need

Quite.

The money would go on a Presidential Occasion.

How is the King 'removing funds from us'? As previously stated everyone involved in the ceremony etc was already being paid anyway. They'll pay their taxes just like the rest of us.

I love all the pomp and ceremony. How many people that complain about such things enjoy going round National Trust properties etc. It upset me to see the protests in Edinburgh so soon after its inhabitants were so respectful of the late Queen lying in state. She loved Scotland so much and it’s sad that Scotland feels this way.

This is a stunning shot of the flypast over Edinburgh...

Even Nero gave bread with circuses. KC3 is happy to remove funds from the country that could go where it was needed in order to do what, exactly?

I feel almost sorry for him and QCC; it is as if they/he/courtiers feel that if they keep hitting us over the head with ceremonies we pay for but do not need that we will return to the era of believing in absolute monarchy.

I thought it was lovely. Colourful and decidedly impressive. Noticed the 'Not my King' protesters were given a good airing and mention by the media. Wish the flypast had been restricted to blue and white as a nice gesture.

Thanks Bluebelle.🙂

Thanks Elegran we didn’t cover that in school 🙄
Nadateturb I feel your pain😳

Bluebelle, If I remember my history right, the merging of England and Scotland into the United Kingdom was a voluntary one, with James entitled by his birth to be monarch of both kingdoms. Wales and Ireland were added more by conquest/annexation, and their monarchies were not represented. The story of Edward I promising the Welsh "a prince born in Wales and speaking no English, and he has never done harm to man, woman or child." and then holding up to them as Prince of Wales his baby son (born in Wales and not yet speaking any language at all) is well-known, if possibly apocryphal. There are probably posters far more knowledgeable about Welsh and Irish history than I am.

Thank you Merlotgran I had a senior moment there, turning "Jamie Saxt an' twa" into a Charlie.

Charles is King of Scotland separately from being King of England and Wales, The two kingdoms together make up the United Kingdom, and have done since 1603 when Queen Elizabeth 1 of England died without an heir and the throne went to her nearest relative, James VI of Scotland (and James I of England

Elegran explains it although I have altered some wording from Charles to James.

Elizabeth I died without issue.

Yes, he's king of here too.(NI). Aren't we lucky.🙄

Many people in Scotland would be upset if this traditional ceremony didn't take place. It's just once in each reign so all over now.
I thought it was all lovely. Being part Scottish it made me feel proud.

I may be wrong and I apologise in advance but I don't think he would have been crowned in Wales as it is a Principality. What should happen there is an Investiture for William as Prince of Wales, however, as I understand it he has decided not to have one partly for financial reasons and from my visit to Wales last week the locals are not very happy about his decision money wise as the tourism on these occasions is a huge boost to the local economy. They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.
I don't know about NI.

So excuse my ignorance why does he have two kingdoms Elegran when there are four countries in UK is he not king of wales and NI then ? I know I m lacking in royal knowledge as I m not terribly interested

I am a royalist and love pomp and circumstance, it’s something the U.K. does extremely well.

If the archbishop of Canterbury had popped over to Windsor Castle with the crowns of England and Scotland and said "There you are, now you're King" I doubt if a penny of the money saved would have found it's way to the hungry, the homeless or the NHS.