King Charles III's coronation

[5105973]

It would be a bit hypocritical to abolish a family and then charge tourists to visit their homes to celebrate their existence in a nostalgic fashion though would it not? Perhaps if we abolish our Royals we could do some kind of Romanov execution rather than the humiliation of William and Kate getting a job in Sainsbury’s.

Yikes.

That's a rather extreme take on things. And William and Kate have personal wealth like Harry and Meghan do. They will hardly be working retail jobs if the monarchy is abolished, which I highly doubt will ever happen anyway, since its a constitutional monarchy and so the ruling monarch is such an intrinsic part of your governance. If the monarchy were to be abolished, William and Kate are two university educated adults with enough connections to sustain them into successful and lucrative private pursuits, so there is no need for dire hyperbole on their account.

They also have 3 adorable children. I don't think people in 2023 want to see any executions of innocent children.

I think the point actually being made is that if the monarchy were to be peacefully abolished, there is enough historical meaning to the royal properties to sustain public interest and tourism. There would be no hypocrisy about it at all: the current royals are not the ones who imbued the sites with their historical value and interest.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Yikes.

That's a rather extreme take on things. And William and Kate have personal wealth like Harry and Meghan do. They will hardly be working retail jobs if the monarchy is abolished, which I highly doubt will ever happen anyway, since its a constitutional monarchy and so the ruling monarch is such an intrinsic part of your governance. If the monarchy were to be abolished, William and Kate are two university educated adults with enough connections to sustain them into successful and lucrative private pursuits, so there is no need for dire hyperbole on their account.

They also have 3 adorable children. I don't think people in 2023 want to see any executions of innocent children.

I think the point actually being made is that if the monarchy were to be peacefully abolished, there is enough historical meaning to the royal properties to sustain public interest and tourism. There would be no hypocrisy about it at all: the current royals are not the ones who imbued the sites with their historical value and interest.

I was making a joke but admit there are plenty of people out there that would like nothing more than that extreme scenario.

 

[5105973]

I wouldn't expect this topic to be popular amongst newer generations in America to be honest. A lot of American history and issues aren't exactly followed in the UK and when I was at school no American history was taught at all from what I remember. We are totally different cultures and very dissimilar and perhaps this sort of topic is unlikely to attract anything other than negativity, not just here but on most places online.

I forgot to mention that in our American schools, British history is a very important part of our history curriculum. Generations of us, including the current generation of students, have complained bitterly about having to memorize all of the similarly named Kings and Queens.

We are taught to accept British history as a part of North American history. So while there may be no regard in Britain for Americans or anything having to do with us, that apathy and possible antipathy is not reciprocated. Well not uniformly so. Some Irish Americans may feel differently.

We are indeed totally different cultures and very dissimilar, but what many British people may not know is that a lot of us are massive fans of British culture and many of us have grown up wanting to visit the UK and England in particular.

Among people my age its because we have always imported a lot of British shows and music and a lot of your best entertainers are ours as well, like Sir Elton John. There's also tremendous reverence and respect for British actors because they generally have enormous training and credentials and don't often come to us famous for just being famous.

With millennials and younger, the fascination was cultivated to a fever pitch due to the influence of Harry Potter. With the Gen Z and under add in the new princess in town: Peppa Pig!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Just as naive to say they bring in x and cost us y. Know one knows for sure.
But either way I’m not going to support a system that says you deserve to rule because of your parentage.

Personally, an exceedingly scaled down Scandinavian system of monarchy would find favour with me, but I take your point completely (and agree with it to a very large extent).

 

[steve09090]

Just as naive to say they bring in x and cost us y. Know one knows for sure.
But either way I’m not going to support a system that says you deserve to rule because of your parentage.

With statistical analysis, they’d be pretty close to the mark.

I think the point actually being made is that if the monarchy were to be peacefully abolished, there is enough historical meaning to the royal properties to sustain public interest and tourism. There would be no hypocrisy about it at all: the current royals are not the ones who imbued the sites with their historical value and interest.

"Peacefully Abolishing" the English monarch is exactly the same as tearing down historic buildings. It’s a massive part of the history and the foundation of the United Kingdom. The current royals are an absolute part of the historic sites and buildings.

Getting past their personal historical significance and how they changed cultures (good or bad) throughout a large portion of the world, and just considering the bricks and mortar, you cannot deny their significance. Take King Charles III as an example. He renovated Dumfries House which was in serious danger of being a ruin. It is now as proud as it ever was and I’d suggest in better condition than the original build. He is also protecting the history of the United Kingdom whilst being a more modern version of royalty. Then there is his conservation, climate change, etc. He even has a group that he is heavily involved in that keeps old style building trades going. The sort of thing that enables a proper rebuild or maintenance of buildings, not unlike Notre Dame. We can’t afford for those skills to die. And he leads it. Who else would do that, or rather, who else IS doing it?

But the bricks and mortar, and the crown jewels are only a small portion of their value. It’s not just about intrinsic value. That’s a capitalist viewpoint and one that is not really relevant in a monarchal society. But if that’s the way people think, then we know the intrinsic value of the Royals, and it’s more than a building or 10.

The Queen, with all the negatives associated with royalty has brought countries together and given hope to millions. Who is to say the King cannot? This slice of life we are living in, is just a small part of the Royal history of the UK.

Personally, I am definitely NOT a royalist, although I’m sounding like one, but I respect what it does.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

@steve09090: While I wish King Charles well (and you make some good points), I would have - or, I do have - two serious concerns.

One is the salient point made by @Apple fanboy, which is that of a position acquired (and a ruling one at that) on account of the privilege of birth.

Quite candidly, I think that it is possible to address that with the introduction of a scaled down (low cost) monarchy, on the lines currently found in some of the Scandinavian countries.

However, there is a difference between the monarchy to which King Charles succeeds, (quite apart from the signifivant wealth enjoyed by the House of Windsor) and that of some of the monarchies to be found in Sacndinavia, or continental Europe; the latter are constitutional monarchs, with powers strictly circumscribed by constitutions which define relationships between citizens and the monarch.

This is not the case in the UK, where - by law - the relationship between the monarch and their public is one where the inhabitants of the UK are still defined as subjects, not citizens.

Personally, I would prefer to see that relationship modified, so that "subjects" become "citizens".

 

[steve09090]

@steve09090: While I wish King Charles well (and you make some good points), I would have two serious concerns.

One is the salient point made by @Apple fanboy, which is that of position (and a ruling one at that) on account of the privilege of birth.

Quite candidly, it is possible to address that with the introduction of a scaled down (low cost) monarchy, on the lines currently found in some of the Scandinavian countries.

However, there is a difference between the monarchy to which King Charles succeeds, (quite apart from the signifivant wealth enjoyed by the House of Windsor) the and some of the monarchs to be found in Sacndinavia, or continental Europe; the latter are constitutional monarchs, with powers strictly circumscribed by constitutions which define relationshops between citizens and monarch.

This is not the case in the UK, where - by law - the relationshp between monarch and their public is where the inhabitants of the UK are still defined as subjects, not citizens.

Personally, I would prefer to see that relationahip modified, so that "subjects" become "citizens".

To counter the first point of being a 'privilege of birth'. That is true of course, however what other way could it be? The advantage in this is that, a person, to be King Or Queen is bound by expectations and responsibilities, and more recently accountability. And they have their entire life to train for it. As different to other forms of government hierarchy, such as those in certain parts of the world, where the predominant reason to rule is power. King Charles has done some amazing inspirational things around community and continues.

Taking the Dumfries example, he has entirely regenerated a town, and region. In his words, "Historical regeneration in a green environment, and it works every single time". They did a short interview with an American who visited, who said that it was amazing to see a bridge that was older than anything in the US, and had been restored. For 30 years the town was left to rot, and it took a future king to make something that gives employment, hope and regeneration. And he did it in 10 years. If people are interested, there is a TV episode called "A Grand Royal Design" which is worth watching.

I totally get the argument against the royals, and being a republican in Australia. I understand it, and it’s absolutely valid, but the inspiration they can provide is unquestionable value. The only thing I disagree with is that Australia should not have to have a representative of the King sign our laws before they come into effect.

Subjects or Citizens, has no meaning to me, and I cannot see the difference. A rose by any other name…

Anyway, I’m not here to change peoples minds. I really just liked that Sir Jonny did such a thoughtful design for the Coronation Emblem 😃

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Fair enough.

Anyway, I agree that the emblem for the coronation is tasteful.

 

[Apple fanboy]

To counter the first point of being a 'privilege of birth'. That is true of course, however what other way could it be? The advantage in this is that, a person, to be King Or Queen is bound by expectations and responsibilities, and more recently accountability. And they have their entire life to train for it. As different to other forms of government hierarchy, such as those in certain parts of the world, where the predominant reason to rule is power. King Charles has done some amazing inspirational things around community and continues.

Taking the Dumfries example, he has entirely regenerated a town, and region. In his words, "Historical regeneration in a green environment, and it works every single time". They did a short interview with an American who visited, who said that it was amazing to see a bridge that was older than anything in the US, and had been restored. For 30 years the town was left to rot, and it took a future king to make something that gives employment, hope and regeneration. And he did it in 10 years. If people are interested, there is a TV episode called "A Grand Royal Design" which is worth watching.

I totally get the argument against the royals, and being a republican in Australia. I understand it, and it’s absolutely valid, but the inspiration they can provide is unquestionable value. The only thing I disagree with is that Australia should not have to have a representative of the King sign our laws before they come into effect.

Subjects or Citizens, has no meaning to me, and I cannot see the difference. A rose by any other name…

Anyway, I’m not here to change peoples minds. I really just liked that Sir Jonny did such a thoughtful design for the Coronation Emblem 😃

What other way could it be? A democracy perhaps? Charles has used his position to promote green issues which is fine. So have 100’s of other people (Greta Thurnberg for example). Doesn’t make him any better than others. Certainly doesn’t mean he should rule. I don’t see how the two things are even connected.
Abolish the monarchy. Time has moved on. It belongs in the past.

 

[3448322]

King Charles is a useless dork, but the monarchy is still a better value proposition to UK tax payers than the bloated bureaucracy that actually runs the country.

 

[Richard8655]

I don't know. I think royalty in the UK has become something for foreign (and domestic) tourists to gawk at. To me, kind of like Disney World where tourist go to see characters like Snow White, the queen, and Cinderella Castle.

I appreciate the positive ledger that monarchy tourism creates, but is the money more important than the imagery? More and more people are struggling with both food and energy bills (heat or eat), yet the opulence of the monarchy continues. I just think it's the wrong symbolism to project in these difficult times. And the Prince Andrew scandals certainly don't help, creating an impression of dysfunctionality.

But I agree with Scepticalscribe. Why not at least notch it down and go with a more subtle, less pompous, low-key Scandinavian version? But the constant visibility and expectations are so imbedded, it may be impossible to do. Maybe Charles will transform it in that direction. I also appreciate that many, if not most, in the UK still love the monarchy.

 

[steve09090]

More and more people are struggling with both food and energy bills (heat or eat), yet the opulence of the monarchy continues. I just think it's the wrong symbolism to project in these difficult times.

As mentioned above. He bought a property near a town. The property was pretty much derelict. The town was a very low socio-economic and high unemployment area. As a result of the 10-year renovation, the town is thriving, people are employed, youth are involved in trade, and historic craft development, artists come from all over the world to join 'artist in residence' and visitors come from all over the world to see the gardens.

What does that symbolise?

 

[chown33]

Moderation Note
Also see the discussion in the News thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-former-design-chief-jony-ive-designs-emblem-for-coronation-of-king-charles-iii.2380628/