I have just this moment seen the news about the coronation quiche, this thread was extremely baffling.
3 Likes
Likewise.
Having seen the recipe, Iāll be sticking to coronation chicken (which is about as posh as I get)
2 Likes
Bunting
Bunting
BUNTING!!!
2 Likes
I generally donāt understand this point of view. The day will likely bring in more through various revenue streams, than it costs. A perpetual pay rise for the largest workforce in the country is an entirely different scale.
Thatās not to say I I donāt agree nurses should be paid substantially more. However the funding for that would require a fundamental shift to how we raise tax to fund something like that. Itās a totally different topic of conversation.
Iād say an analogy for coronation v nurses pay is like asking someone why they arenāt buying a house instead, simply because they just paid for a holiday.
As for the monarchy in general, hate on the royal family, privilege, what it symbolises, etc. Theyāre very subjective debate points and I think all points of view can have merit. But the money argument just doesnāt stack up for me. Basically any report you read says they generate vast amounts more than they cost to sustain. Even the non-monetary impacts are reported to be vast - on an international scale the weight a royal visit can add to diplomatic negotiations is apparently significant. Which negates the claims we could do away with them and still benefit due to the palaces etc still being tourist attractions
8 Likes
The only royal tour in the last year was generally considered a disaster wasnāt, with lots of events cancelled in just about every country they visited and repeated gaffes? Which one was the last successful one?
1 Like
1954
1 Like
I will hold my hands up and say yes, you are right, in economic terms the royals donāt cost us very much, so my argument about funding nurses wages is a little facetious.
But my opinion remains, the royals are a remnant of past times, from the days before democracy and equality. The notion that this family, by nothing more than fortuitous right of birth are allowed to live in unimaginable luxury paid for by the sweat and toil of others makes my blood boil.
4 Likes
Unextraordinary people leading extraordinary lives as we keep saying
If I here the words Frogmore cottage though I may throw my telly out the window. Itās a misnomer - itās a fockinā massive house
1 Like
or use the money thatās already collected/allocated differentlyā¦
Yep, but thatās just pandering to the already over fat cat clubā¦
But, like you, I still think there is some merit - or was with Queenieā¦
3 Likes
Like Toby says, I was making a crap point 
Iām ambivalent towards it all 
Iāve not watched or read the news all month, so donāt know about any quiche or whatās going on (it made HIGNFY a bit odd last week, probably stop watching that, too)
We went to the seaside on the burial day and walked in the sand dunes, along the seafront, then had a lovely pub lunch, which was ruined by the sombre music playing on the TVs 
Iāll go out on my bike in the morning for this one, then do some DIY in the afternoon - the garden fence aināt gonna paint itself 
5 Likes
So what instead:
Donald Trump?
Macron?
The equivalent of an African dictator?
An Eastern European approach; embezzle quadrillions and build huge statues of themselves?
If it makes your blood boil, then I suggest you may wish to review your blood boiling priorities because thereās many better things to get angry about.
My turn to be facetious obviously 
5 Likes
Your examples are all about executive power structures, are you saying the king is not just a ceremonial head of state but actually wields executive power?
I will take Macron thanks, over any of the shower, Royal or political.
How hard can it be to knock up a guillotine?
3 Likes
Not in the slightest.
Every country needs a head of state and executive leader.
I would argue that combining the two (as in France & USA) is a bad idea; too much power in on personās hands. Hence my question - if having a king is such a ābadā idea in the current age, what would you do instead?
Our head of state does have powers, they just havenāt been used for some time as weāre basically a very tolerant and sensible nation.
Edited to add that I think the last time the monarch exercised their power was in 1834 (to dismiss the prime minister of the day)
3 Likes
I suppose ideally you want an electable ceremonial head of state that has no power. But who is going to want to do that.
I think the best option is keep the monarchy but scale it right back.
2 Likes
Well, yes, but removal of the trappings of a royal family does not necessitate that change, there are quite a few other options in between.
Crowd source a āHead of Stateā, having an AI to read social media using Natural Language Processing, so one is ācreatedā
Then, using that same model, ascertain the nations favourite actor.
Hire them for the role.
Then use the AI to direct the actor on a daily basis using the sentiment from social media 
You end up with something nobody particularly wants, but everyone accepts. Which is wholly different to what we have now 
(Absolutely havenāt cribbed this from Waldo episode of Black Mirror)
4 Likes
ā¦ in my best explorerJC tone ā¦
Well what are they then?
And why are they better?
2 Likes
iāll do it for a regularly stocked wine cellarā¦
i have no more ambition beyond thatā¦
2 Likes
Perfectā¦
2 Likes