Should the Coronation be “slimmed down”?

The coronation is a thing to be proud of, the British do these things so well. The whole world will be watching on, there shouldn’t be anything half arsed.

The whole world will not be watching. Some people in other countries may watch out of curiosity.

The last coronation in Sweden was in 1873. Since then no king has been crowned. There was a feeling in the country that a coronation would be wrong and not in keeping with the time. People no longer believed that God was involved in the monarchy. Also, the expense could not be justified. I think it is true to say the Scandinavians haven't really got a feeling for pomp and status; things are more low key.

"The British do these things so well". Agree, but isn't it a shame that the things that really matter to the people they don't do equally well.

Joseanne

I can't see that the date of the coronation has anything to do with Archie's birthday. There must have been several years back in the 90s when Harry's grandma, the Queen, was "busy" at work on his birthday and they didnt get together that day. It will be the same for Grandpa Charles being a bit busy on Archie's birthday. Four days earlier and it would have been Princess Charlotte's birthday. Just how it is with dates.

Quite right Joseanne. I missed out the conspiracy theorists on this thread in my last post.

MaizieD

Where do you think that the money that is spent on it will go? It's not a bottomless pit or a big black hole. it will go to paying people or businesses.

Let's think.

Start with the military,;all those ruritanian uniforms have to be maintained, kept clean and polished. I doubt the military maintains its own dry cleaners, nor does it produce its own cleaning materials. The splendid horses have to be fed and shod, horseshoes don't materialise out of thin air, neither does feedstuff (as I know from experience!), someone somewhere supplies them for a price. Then there's the saddlery which has to be repaired and kept in a safe condition. Does the army have its own leather workers and where does the leather and thread come from?

Let's not get sniffy about souvenirs, they're all employment and a source of income for people and businesses (though I hate to say that it might mainly be Chinese people and businesses).

Hiring barriers, hiring toilets, hiring transport to bring in the extra police, security etc. Transport and catering for people coming into London to watch the spectacle, printing orders of service, clearing up afterwards...

I don't know the half of where the money goes, but be sure that it all goes somewhere and it will circulate in the economy and mostly come back to the Treasury via taxation. Because that's how an economy works.

But, as I say, despite this potential boost, the optics could work against it because people don't think it through.

I'd be interested to know just how much benefit to the economy there was from the Queen's obsequies.

On the other hand, I agree we could do without wall to wall media coverage of it...

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but aren't all those things paid for by taxpayers in the first place, so how does that equate to "profit" when we spend millions on them and get back a small percentage in taxes?
One of the biggest costs will be on security for the thousands of VIP's attending and massively increased policing costs. How does that taxpayer money come back into the economy?

Goodness me, apparently I’m obsessed and nasty. Oh dear, shall have to try to do better.

My thoughts exactly Normandygirl. It all has to be paid for by the taxpayer. There will be some small business who benefit but it is the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. It is just not necessary in this day and age.

I don't know why the bank holiday has anything to do with it really, as the event is on a Saturday. The only slight benefit to moving it to the day before (Friday) would be that it's easier to do the road closures and get the barriers ready. Then there is the following day (Sunday) to clear them away again ready for the working week

Sky News

@SkyNews

What about the visitors the Royal Family attracts to the UK?

Research shows that there is no evidence that the monarchy does anything for tourism in Britain, says Republic Chief Exec Graham Smith.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1580472483408642049?s=20&t=Ce3mRR1Mm7MeTSAL4Ssuvg

I have never really understood the premise that the monarchy brings in tourists. The history and the buildings that go with that history maybe, but not the monarchy themselves.
The most visited tourist attractions in the UK are :-
Stonehenge
Lake District
Stratford upon Avon
York Minster
Yorkshire Dales
Edinburgh
Tower of London
British Museum
Even the Tower of London has little to do with modern monarchy and would still be on the list if we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow. The Palace of Versailles is still the most visited place in Europe along with Paris, so we know that the French dispensing with their monarchs has had no ill effects on tourism at all.

Research shows that there is no evidence that the monarchy does anything for tourism in Britain, says Republic Chief Exec Graham Smith

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.

Got any research that says it does?

France is way ahead of U.K. in tourism numbers without Royalty.

Grany

Sky News

@SkyNews

What about the visitors the Royal Family attracts to the UK?

Research shows that there is no evidence that the monarchy does anything for tourism in Britain, says Republic Chief Exec Graham Smith.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1580472483408642049?s=20&t=Ce3mRR1Mm7MeTSAL4Ssuvg

While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.

That is from the Independant (20/09/2022). Strangely, I trust them to be a little less biased than the Chief Executive of Republic, whose job, no doubt, depends on spreading misinformation to the minority in this country who so desperately want him to be right, even at the loss that would mean to the country.

Brand value isn't the same as tourist income. Brand value includes intangible notions of value that do not translate to actual monetary amounts. It also includes assets such as the Royal Collection, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Royal Estates and other things that will continue to exist when the RF are but a distant memory.

Of course it isn't, volver[sigh].

Not fond of actual facts, are we?

No volver, I certainly don't have the sort of fragile ego that always needs to be right and perfect. I was simply picking up the first bit of information that shows the money coming in. However many hairs you split, the Republic Leader gives no information to help sway the majority.

Do you not DaisyAnne? Not interested in facts? Prefer opinions based on intuition, or the runes, or chicken entrails or something?

What a surprise.

Well, tonight you've learned about Brand Value, whether you wanted to or not.

I didn't read it after the first few words volver. It was so obviously irrelevant to Grany's comment.

I didn't say I'm not interested in relevant facts. I'm just not keen on opinions people turn into their own "facts".

I'm always so intrigued by people who decide they don't need to know stuff.

How reassuring it must be to just believe you are right, even although you don't have any justification for thinking that.

Do you need me to explain brand value again? Probably not worth it, eh?

In my opinion it is right to have a slimmed down Coronation ceremony, but still make it beautifully done, just not extravagant or displaying excess.It will be televised and many people all over the world watching with interest.It cannot be done on a shoestring of course.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I beg your pardon?

Reported.

Thank you.

I think that it was a huge mistake to announce a slimmed down coronation ceremony. It has brought the whole debate of the relevance of the monarchy into the spotlight. They should have just got on with it quietly and not many people would have even given it much thought until the actual event was taking place.
The idea, I presume, was to say to the nation that KC understands the hardship and bleak financial outlook of the people. Unfortunately, his efforts to show solidarity with the people translates to only having 2000 richest and most privileged guests in attendance instead of 5000. Only having one golden coach on view instead of the fleet of many and spending only 50 million pounds of the people's money instead of 100 million. It's a " let them eat cake" statement.
If there was any genuine wish to display empathy and understanding for the people, he should have announced a cancellation of the coronation and insist that the funds allocated to it should go to Shelter or other charity instead.

I imagine that whatever they do, Normandygirl, some will complain. It is likely to be well run and a spectacle that many will enjoy, if recent events are anything to go on.