Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I see reporting that a majority of Brits think the public shouldn't fund the coronation, and some are pretty salty about it.

That seems a tad silly to me. I think most countries have some level of civic event surrounding a new Head of State taking office. The American President's inauguration regularly costs over $100m; albeit the Inaugural Committees raise a lot of money from private donors to fund that--there are security costs born by Federal agencies and the City of DC government that are often to the tune of $35-40m USD.

Obviously as a subprime country the UK doesn't have the kind of money we do in America, but paying for an inauguration every monarch's lifetime versus every four years for our President seems like you're getting the more thrifty side of it.

Yeah I basically agree. My understanding is that the cost is around £50-100 million the vast majority of which is security costs. I think there's the coronation, then a parade and there'll be a concert outside Buckingham Palace too. From the reporting I've seen it is, for example, cheaper than hosting the G7 - getting dignitaries and thousands of people hanging around costs money (admittedly, a rounding error in the scheme of the budget but people have no sense of scale when it comes to millions and billions).

I think when people think about the costs what they think about are the carriage, the jewels etc - which we're not buying new for this event (and in some cases never bought at all). They're stuff that is already owned by the British state. In general I think civic events are fine and should be paid for by the public - I love republican pomp like inaugurations or Bastille Day parade. And they should be open to the public which means it will cost money.

There is a strand of British opinion - a bit like the complaints about ministers staying in 4 or 5 star hotels on foreign trips (again these will have been recommended by the host and security will be part of it) - that basically objects to spending any money on anything except for x thousand new nurses that could be funded from the same money. And I think there is a bit of people who basically think state events should be handing over the ceremonial lanyard of office in a strip lit civic centre. I think it's not a million miles from the thing about the average amount of the UK budget British people think is spent on MPs is 8% 

My view is if you've got as an institution a monarchy or one that has parades or inaugurations - then the state should pay for and do those events, let as many people come as possible.

And I always think if you flip it what would happen - if there was a private event which would be cheap. There'd be loads of people - probably more - complaining about it because the royals are public property.

Edit: Although I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the public basically also thought we shouldn't host the G7 if that costs money

[Tamas]

Skipping it sounds reasonable if money is an issue. Sweden hasn't had a coronation since 1873.

The King is a billionaire. There is money.

The public is paying I hear.

Yes. And they shouldn't complain. We are subjects of the monarch, the relationship is thus very clearly defined. Our very anthem is about praying for the monarch.

[Josquius]

I think there's a baser problem in people not understanding the cost of the monarchy in general. We make a huge net profit from having them as monarchs vs. if they were normal rich people, given the crown estates income and all that.
IIRC the cost of the coronation won't even account for a year's worth of income.
But...people don't know this. They don't want to know this. They just see the amount the monarchy costs as money that could be spent elsewhere- and we all know Brits don't get big numbers.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's a baser problem in people not understanding the cost of the monarchy in general. We make a huge net profit from having them as monarchs vs. if they were normal rich people, given the crown estates income and all that.

To be clear when we get rid of them, their property should be expropriated as there's no justification for them holding it.

But...people don't know this. They don't want to know this. They just see the amount the monarchy costs as money that could be spent elsewhere- and we all know Brits don't get big numbers.

I think it's also the general thing with any big numbers - e.g. foreign aid - where people go "imagine how many hospitals/nurses you could pay for with that" when in comparison with the budget in general, or spending on the NHS in particular it's a rounding error.

I'm as bad as anyone but I think we do struggle with large numbers. I think over say a million it just all seems like a lot.

[Josquius]

I think there's a baser problem in people not understanding the cost of the monarchy in general. We make a huge net profit from having them as monarchs vs. if they were normal rich people, given the crown estates income and all that.

To be clear when we get rid of them, their property should be expropriated as there's no justification for them holding it.

I didn't have you down as Marxist.

You're the lawyer though I'm not sure how that could be made to work with a Britain that looks much as we know it going republic. I don't think even experts really grasp this given the corporation sole being such a rare thing.

I think it's also the general thing with any big numbers - e.g. foreign aid - where people go "imagine how many hospitals/nurses you could pay for with that" when in comparison with the budget in general, or spending on the NHS in particular it's a rounding error.

I'm as bad as anyone but I think we do struggle with large numbers. I think over say a million it just all seems like a lot.

Also the whole thing of cashflow vs. one off spending that people just don't get...

[OttoVonBismarck]

Britain has pretty strong property rights, I do not think the King's personal holdings would realistically be expropriated, not even sure it would really be legal.

I do think the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, probably could rightfully be retained by the State if you went Republic--the legal situation around them now is very weird and it isn't clearly their personal property. But the homes the royal family has purchased with their "private" money and the investments they've made through that money etc I don't see realistically being taken away, it would be almost lawless to do so.

[Sheilbh]

I didn't have you down as Marxist.

That's a relief - I always worry I come accross a little too Marxist I'm fairly Marxy and a Francophile so.....you know...

You're the lawyer though I'm not sure how that could be made to work with a Britain that looks much as we know it going republic. I don't think even experts really grasp this given the corporation sole being such a rare thing.

Britain becomeing a republic wouldn't look like it is, I don't think. We'd either need something that profoundly destabilised and caused rage at the monarchy specifically - King Andrew, perhaps - or something that was leading to an entire reset of the British system. It'd be a constitutional moment - everything would be up for grabs.

My view is monarchy is the tinsel we put around the right of conquest - if we've stripped that away there's no basis for them keep the fruits.

Also the whole thing of cashflow vs. one off spending that people just don't get...

Yes - 100%.

And my view is if you're doing it - do it properly. So while I think Charles' taste is highly suspect (that invitation ) - I do love the stuff like the annointing oil being made in Church of the Holy Sepulchre and blessed by the Patriarch in Jerusalem, or Pope Francis giving fragments of the true cross to Charles as a gift for the occasion, which have been set into a cross from the Welsh Church to lead the procession. Interesting to see the outcome of the row apparently over the order of service because Charles is insisting on multi-faith/ecumenical elements.

Cannot imagine the speed at which Dr Ian Paisley is spinning in his grave at that Rome-ism

[Richard Hakluyt]

"Cannot imagine the speed at which Dr Ian Paisley is spinning in his grave at that Rome-ism "...and some people say the Royal family are useless 

[Barrister]

Is there a segment on cats?

Watch the whole thing and see what consuming animal products means in terms of suffering and death.

Oh gosh you're one of those...

[Hamilcar]

Is there a segment on cats?

Watch the whole thing and see what consuming animal products means in terms of suffering and death.

Oh gosh you're one of those...

I got better, yes.

[HVC]

Is there a segment on cats?

Watch the whole thing and see what consuming animal products means in terms of suffering and death.

Oh gosh you're one of those...

I got better, yes.

You've gotten soft in your old age. What happened to the spry young man that took joy in twister themed chaos and death?

[Hamilcar]

Is there a segment on cats?

Watch the whole thing and see what consuming animal products means in terms of suffering and death.

Oh gosh you're one of those...

I got better, yes.

You've gotten soft in your old age. What happened to the spry young man that took joy in twister themed chaos and death?

I'm always up for some weather related Schadenfreude.

[Jacob]

One guess:

Hamilcar still takes some joy in the suffering of people he consider stupid suffering from consequences he considers predictable (and to be fair, most of us do), but has a soft spot for the suffering of innocents (which includes animals).

50-50 on whether innocents includes children or not (with a high chance of correlating to whether Hami has children himself).

[Legbiter]

You've gotten soft in your old age. What happened to the spry young man that took joy in twister themed chaos and death?

Age and (if lucky) wisdom conquers all.

[HVC]

One guess:

Hamilcar still takes some joy in the suffering of people he consider stupid suffering from consequences he considers predictable (and to be fair, most of us do), but has a soft spot for the suffering of innocents (which includes animals).

50-50 on whether innocents includes children or not (with a high chance of correlating to whether Hami has children himself).

If one spends any time around farm animals they become easily dissuaded towards the idea of the innocence on animals. Chickens in particular are assholes