Should the Coronation be “slimmed down”?

I am a Republican and have never resorted to slander or libel. I think if we must have a coronation then it should be updated, reflecting modern society and of course slimmed down and shortened.

I am also a humanist and I hope that the religious oaths sworn by the monarch will be modified to reflect a society which has changed hugely since the Queen was crowned, is now more plural in religious belief, and where at least half the population do not profess a religious faith.

The oath as it stands seems to be preoccupied with upholding the interests of the Church of England.

It's about uncovering the truth not denigrating the characters of RF victims should be heard no cover ups, records kept secret, away in archives.

I have tried to explain why a republic is better than a monarchy

I'll just go over the main points.

A president would represent the people he could act in the interests of the country if any laws of our constitution were broken he/she could have a word with said PM. (no checks and balances in place at the present) A president would have limited powers, he would represent the country abroad, receive Heads of State. Speak to the nation at important times. He would have one official residence and an office. The Republic of Ireland has a parliamentary president the U.K could have similar to that model.

What we have is a monarchy the king serves the polititions and the monarchy not the people. No checks and balances on PM I guess why politicians want them is all power is given to PM and the King can do only as PM asks.

Then there is the cost £100 million plus 44 million from two duchies

Don't bring in tourists the place of Versailles has many more visitors, though shouldn't judge a Head of State on tourism

Also I've mentioned before a Charities don't benefit from royal patronage Says Giving Evidence an independent report.

So I see them as a mediocre family who don't do anything for this country but are given massive privilege and huge wealth

Plus they don't pay taxs only voluntary The Duchy of Cornwall finance was looked at by MPs said should pay tax but Charles won't.

A waste of space and money we could do much better. But monarchists carry on liking them if that's what you want.

I completely agree Grany but times and attitudes are changing and it may not be soon enough, but I believe the monarchy is in its last days.

The president of the Republic of Ireland was chairman of the
Labour Party, we could have Truss, Johnson, Corbyn

I cn think of so many other things worth getting het up about. Poverty, national and international,the state of the NHS, the education system, the support of the disabled, the war in Ukraine, the plight of the Uighurs in China.

I do not reallu give a toss about the monarchy.

The search for 'truth' whatever that may be, is generally a mealy mouthed way of saying 'digging up all the dirt', especially if it happened a long time ago and the alleged perpetrator is dead, so cannot defend themselves.

By the way, how far back will you go to did the dirt *Grany 50 years, 100 years, 200.......1,000. I mean pederasty has a long history, sadly, and go back far enough and all of us will have some blood relation to the monarchy so we are all doomed as being related to royal paedophiles, probably even you.

Seems to

Grany

It's about uncovering the truth not denigrating the characters of RF victims should be heard no cover ups, records kept secret, away in archives.

I have tried to explain why a republic is better than a monarchy

I'll just go over the main points.

A president would represent the people he could act in the interests of the country if any laws of our constitution were broken he/she could have a word with said PM. (no checks and balances in place at the present) A president would have limited powers, he would represent the country abroad, receive Heads of State. Speak to the nation at important times. He would have one official residence and an office. The Republic of Ireland has a parliamentary president the U.K could have similar to that model.

What we have is a monarchy the king serves the polititions and the monarchy not the people. No checks and balances on PM I guess why politicians want them is all power is given to PM and the King can do only as PM asks.

Then there is the cost £100 million plus 44 million from two duchies

Don't bring in tourists the place of Versailles has many more visitors, though shouldn't judge a Head of State on tourism

Also I've mentioned before a Charities don't benefit from royal patronage Says Giving Evidence an independent report.

So I see them as a mediocre family who don't do anything for this country but are given massive privilege and huge wealth

Plus they don't pay taxs only voluntary The Duchy of Cornwall finance was looked at by MPs said should pay tax but Charles won't.

A waste of space and money we could do much better. But monarchists carry on liking them if that's what you want.

You’re missing the point though Grany. The monarchy will remain as long as the public support it. You can put forward as many ‘watertight’ arguments as you like, and argue until you’re blue (or should that be red) in the face, but the only people who will listen are those who already lean in the same direction as you. Others will just be irritated, indifferent, or angry at those who keep banging on about it when they don’t agree - it just encourages entrenched behaviour.

Farzanah

I completely agree Grany but times and attitudes are changing and it may not be soon enough, but I believe the monarchy is in its last days.

Thank you Farzanah I agree

Grany

Farzanah

I completely agree Grany but times and attitudes are changing and it may not be soon enough, but I believe the monarchy is in its last days.

Thank you Farzanah I agree

It’s just not backed up by the evidence, but you carry on.
docs.cdn.yougov.com/zibv4k3off/Internal_RoyalTracking_220914.pdf

Many who are not particularly monarchists respected the Queen. Let’s see what the polls show a couple of years hence?

The survey is about the institution of monarchy, not the Queen. It’s definitely premature to suggest that the monarchy is in its last days without evidence. I’m not a monarchist, I’m quite ambivalent but it annoys me when republicans overplay their version of the truth (or for that matter when monarchists do).

Fair enough Casden.

Septimia

In any group of people, be it the Monarchy, your local W.I., a class of children - or, heaven forefend! Gransnet members - there will be good and bad, nice and horrible.

We can only be responsible for our own behaviour (and try to teach our children to be good citizens), not for that of all our friends and relations. Moreover, sometimes those people whose crimes we do not condone are clever enough to conceal them from their friends and relations who, consequently, have no idea what's been going on.

And none of this discussion is really relevant to the coronation!

Oh well said Septimia.

I always thought that sometimes the IRA got it right. Not often, admittedly.