The Coronation of King Charles III

[Angela Channing]

With so much corruption going on in our government, do you honestly think the money saved would go to poverty?

Yes we have a corrupt government but if we don't like what they are doing with our money, we periodically have the opportunity to vote then out of power.

The royal family is also corrupt. Before he became king, Charles accepted a carrier bag full of cash from a terrorist's family and he has also offered honours in return for cash. However, there is nothing we can do about Royal Family corruption, we are stuck with them forever.

So I would prefer to have my taxes spent by a democratically accountable government than a secretive, undemocratic group that has been imposed on us.

 

[Ome]

Yes we have a corrupt government but if we don't like what they are doing with our money, we periodically have the opportunity to vote then out of power.

The royal family is also corrupt. Before he became king, Charles accepted a carrier bag full of cash from a terrorist's family and he has also offered honours in return for cash. However, there is nothing we can do about Royal Family corruption, we are stuck with them forever.

So I would prefer to have my taxes spent by a democratically accountable government than a secretive, undemocratic group that has been imposed on us.

I get all that as well as understanding your views. I just don’t have the confidence it would be spent wisely or on poverty. I don’t really have much faith in the British public. There’s a reason why we lost to Brexit and why there is so much corruption in parliament. The British public voted for all that.

Our monarchy will always have a bad history, the history of humanity in general isn’t anything to be proud of. Slavery, bigotry, and every other form of abuse existed. Our monarchy isn’t on its own.

I’m no monarchist in any shape or form, but I am fascinated by its history and how we still have so many traditions surrounding the issue. I would rather we learn from history instead of arguing that Will and Kate are better than Harry and Meghan or vice versa.

The media runs a lot of this country and it would be much easier to have the media challenge the royal family on their riches versus their countries poverty.

 

[Angela Channing]

I get all that as well as understanding your views. I just don’t have the confidence it would be spent wisely or on poverty. I don’t really have much faith in the British public. There’s a reason why we lost to Brexit and why there is so much corruption in parliament. The British public voted for all that.

Our monarchy will always have a bad history, the history of humanity in general isn’t anything to be proud of. Slavery, bigotry, and every other form of abuse existed. Our monarchy isn’t on its own.

I’m no monarchist in any shape or form, but I am fascinated by its history and how we still have so many traditions surrounding the issue. I would rather we learn from history instead of arguing that Will and Kate are better than Harry and Meghan or vice versa.

The media runs a lot of this country and it would be much easier to have the media challenge the royal family on their riches versus their countries poverty.

I totally understand people’s affection and loyalty for the Royal Family and I share your fascination with the monarchy as part of British history but where I differ is that it should be our history rather than our present.

The British electorate regularly disappoint me with how they vote but I have to accept the results because they are the result of a democratic choice. By contrast, I just can’t, and will not, accept the concept that an individual can hold a position of power and influence ruling over this country just because they were born into a particular family. On top of that, the family cost us an extortionate amount of money, multiple times more than other head of states, both elected or unelected.

If the monarchy was to be abolished, I agree that it would be unlikely that the government would spend the financial savings on poverty and instead the hundreds of millions of pounds would just be absorbed into general spending. I still think that is better than the money being spent on giving a few privileged individuals a lavish lifestyle while increasing numbers of people in the country queue for food banks or are becoming homeless. It’s more than the actual amounts of money, it’s about what we should value and prioritise as a country.

Regarding the media, whatever the outcome of the Harry’s current legal action against Mirror Group Newspapers, he has got those newspapers to admit under oath that members of the Royal Family regularly give them stories to report in exchange for keeping other things out of their papers or to present the royals in a favourable way and that they stop access to the family if the newspapers don’t comply. Therefore, the media do not offer the public any meaningful scrutiny of the Royals. You correctly say the media runs a lot of this country but indirectly, the Royal Family controls a lot of the media.

 

[9unfold]

and the hundreds of millions of pounds it would save can be used to tackle poverty in our country.

Just like the £350 million (or what ever figure was quoted) the UK paid into the EU coffers would be immediately and wholly spent on the NHS, if the UK left the EU. That claim was a fantasy.

There are countless bureaucratic considerations and caveats in place for the appropriations of funds.

The cost of the monarchy is off set by the income that the institution generates.

 

[Angela Channing]

There are countless bureaucratic considerations and caveats in place for the appropriations of funds.

But not for the Royals. They get our money and they are don't have to account for it. They are not subject to Freedom of Information requests and they only publish limited accounts to show how our money is spent.

The cost of the monarchy is off set by the income that the institution generates.

I understand why you think this because it's part of the pro-Royal propaganda that we have become indoctrinated into believing but it's a myth put out by royalists that people seem to want to just accept and it rarely gets challenged by the media. However, there is no factual basis to the claim that the royal family benefit the UK economy. A Freedom of information request to Visit Britain showed they have no evidence that the Royal Family attract tourists or otherwise financially benefits us. Tourists come here for the heritage and the history, not for the current Royal Family.

 

[Biggie]

You have more concern for the wellbeing of the young royals than their own parents. They choose the Royal lifestyle and can walk away whenever they want but they won't because they value the trappings of royalty higher than the mental heath of their children

So without scrutiny of any meaningful value, you believe someone in Berlin has more concern as to the wellbeing of children they've never met and has no first hand knowledge of their parents relationship with their children. The trappings of royalty seem like (to quote Biggie Smalls... "gin, mad blunts and bit*** Su***** di**") to casual bystanders as we both are. We are both ignorant as to their lifestyles away from the public eye and the mechanism involved in walking away from an institution that is very much woven into the fabric of the UK's and Commonwealth's state level workings.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Angela Channing]

So without scrutiny of any meaningful value, you believe someone in Berlin has more concern as to the wellbeing of children they've never met and has no first hand knowledge of their parents relationship with their children. The trappings of royalty seem like (to quote Biggie Smalls... "gin, mad blunts and bit*** Su***** di**") to casual bystanders as we both are. We are both ignorant as to their lifestyles away from the public eye and the mechanism involved in walking away from an institution that is very much woven into the fabric of the UK's and Commonwealth's state level workings.

On the one hand, someone expressing concern about using young children in public to garner positive media coverage for their family even if that opens the children up to unnecessary scrutiny and on the other hand you have the family who continually exploit their children in that way. The same family that would make a 12 year old boy hide his grief so he could publicly walk behind his mother's coffin to shield his father from any public animosity without a care for what that might do to the child's mental health. You're right we don't have first hand knowledge of the Royal Family's relationship with their children but when they continue to parade them in public we can make our own judgements.

 

[Angela Channing]

 

[Biggie]

The same family that would make a 12 year old boy hide his grief so he could publicly walk behind his mother's coffin to shield his father from any public animosity without a care for what that might do to the child's mental health.

That family knew that The Princess Of People's Hearts was not worth grieving over. The family's guidance was timely, thick as f*** and a burden to the taxpayer was our Di, she did one thing right. The children's mental health benefitted in the long run by her not being there to mind rape them. The children within the royal circle are doing just fine.

Why some bang on about Diana is... who knows. Meth hoes in gutter brothels are more worthy of accolades than she ever was.

 

[9unfold]

That family knew that The Princess Of People's Hearts was not worth grieving over. The family's guidance was timely, thick as f*** and a burden to the taxpayer was our Di, she did one thing right. The children's mental health benefitted in the long run by her not being there to mind rape them. The children within the royal circle are doing just fine.

Why some bang on about Diana is... who knows. Meth hoes in gutter brothels are more worthy of accolades than she ever was.

On the one hand, someone expressing concern about using young children in public to garner positive media coverage for their family even if that opens the children up to unnecessary scrutiny and on the other hand you have the family who continually exploit their children in that way. The same family that would make a 12 year old boy hide his grief so he could publicly walk behind his mother's coffin to shield his father from any public animosity without a care for what that might do to the child's mental health. You're right we don't have first hand knowledge of the Royal Family's relationship with their children but when they continue to parade them in public we can make our own judgements.

Excellent work of fiction. Only slightly less believable than the fable about a virgin birth of a magic baby in a manger under a shooting star navigation aid and a donkey that's celebrated in song .

 

[Seaviewer]

a shooting star navigation aid

Nice turn of phrase.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]