[TV] Coronation 2023 ***Official Match Thread***

[pb21]

Do you think it’s appropriate for a woman to be described as sewage? Seems highly sexist to me. As a feminist myself, I find your endorsement quite astonishing.

Isn't the sewage reference in relation to her role in Government as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which has recently seen a lot of sewage news? If so, absolutely not sexist.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Isn't the sewage reference in relation to her role in Government as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which has recently seen a lot of sewage news? If so, absolutely not sexist.

My post was referencing Penny Mordaunt, who played a very prominent role today, and announcing the Accession of the King, last September.

 

[dangull]

I just found the the part where they showed King Charlie and Queen Camilla with their crowns on the balcony a little absurd.

Each too their own though.

 

[Wozza]

what do the royals have to do with Brexit?

Context.

You claim the royals benefit the UK travel industry.

I say other international cities do fine without one, and any positive impact is marginal - especially when compared to the negative impact of Brexit. (Museum visitors down 30% etc)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Context.

You claim the royals benefit the UK travel industry.

I say other international cities do fine without one, and any positive impact is marginal - especially when compared to the negative impact of Brexit. (Museum visitors down 30% etc)

Interestingly, the leader of the EU, and the leader of the European Council (of which we’re still members) were in the Abbey todays as guests.

 

[Scappa]

Isn't the sewage reference in relation to her role in Government as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which has recently seen a lot of sewage news? If so, absolutely not sexist.

Indeed it was. Still, any excuse for a bit of righteous indignation.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

As a church goer, I thought you would understand the screen.
The king is stripped down to a basic shirt and trousers, anointed with oil, on his forehead with just the Archbishop between him and the altar. It is meant to be just the monarch and God.
He then dons a plain linen ephod, and once the screens are removed start to receive the royal regalia.

Fair enough. I didn’t realise the full story.
But having Republican tendencies and in Church terms being a non-conformist I would reckon it’s all superstitious nonsense designed to hoodwink the public in to thinking that it all matters.

 

[1066familyman]

How much has/does/will it produce in revenue? Having a good image for the royal family, regardless of one’s personal views on monarchism/republicanism, is only a good thing for the country.

So much history, enormous tourism revenue each day more than pays for their existence.

As Brits, we have very little to offer tourists. Expensive country (travel, cost of living, accommodation), we don’t have the weather, we don’t have the cuisine. All we do have are the arts, history, old buildings, the royal family and a reputation and image which excites tourists.

I’m no fan of Charlie but the old chestnut about the royals being expensive needs to be put to bed. If we get rid of them, financially we will be considerably down on the deal. And that’s all they are - a deal.

Complete bollox!
Versailles debunks that tourism myth for starters.
Also, we have some stunning National Parks to attract tourists as well.
These parasites are a complete anachronism and a national embarrassment.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

How much has/does/will it produce in revenue? Having a good image for the royal family, regardless of one’s personal views on monarchism/republicanism, is only a good thing for the country.

So much history, enormous tourism revenue each day more than pays for their existence.

As Brits, we have very little to offer tourists. Expensive country (travel, cost of living, accommodation), we don’t have the weather, we don’t have the cuisine. All we do have are the arts, history, old buildings, the royal family and a reputation and image which excites tourists.

I’m no fan of Charlie but the old chestnut about the royals being expensive needs to be put to bed. If we get rid of them, financially we will be considerably down on the deal. And that’s all they are - a deal.

I think France does ok for tourism without a monarchy.

 

[A1X]

 

[Bold Seagull]

How much has/does/will it produce in revenue? Having a good image for the royal family, regardless of one’s personal views on monarchism/republicanism, is only a good thing for the country.

So much history, enormous tourism revenue each day more than pays for their existence.

As Brits, we have very little to offer tourists. Expensive country (travel, cost of living, accommodation), we don’t have the weather, we don’t have the cuisine. All we do have are the arts, history, old buildings, the royal family and a reputation and image which excites tourists.

I’m no fan of Charlie but the old chestnut about the royals being expensive needs to be put to bed. If we get rid of them, financially we will be considerably down on the deal. And that’s all they are - a deal.

You don't need an active royal family for history tourism. Without in-situ royals you could turn Buckingham Palace into one of the biggest tourists attractions in the world like Versailles is.

The History of our monarchy won't disappear if we ended it. If anything it will become even more fascinating, more places and artifacts to see and visit.

 

[Clive Walker]

Having seen glimpses on social media today I’m convinced more than ever that this is all a pathetic, irrelevant, expensive charade which not only looks odd but is so archaic it just doesn’t fit in with modern Britain.

As for peaceful protestors being arrested en route to a pre agreed location. North Korea springs to mind.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I don’t think Chief Gunnery Instructors would appreciate being called choreographers.

I suppose it’s better than fishead bastards …

 

[GoingUp]

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I'm not religious so find the whole thing extremely tragic.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I think France does ok for tourism without a monarchy.

TBF France haven’t had royalty for the better part of 300 years .. so not a great comparison,

 

[Bold Seagull]

TBF France haven’t had royalty for the better part of 300 years .. so not a great comparison,

No, but people make Versailles one of the most visited places in the world each year because of the history of their monarchy.

 

[PeterT]

I think France does ok for tourism without a monarchy.

It does, but French people choose to holiday in France, for starters. Brits tend to go abroad, if they can.

France has a better climate, Mediterranean beaches, cities that were not carpet bombed, better wine/food, the Alps etc etc. It is true that we still have other things to offer too, especially culturally, but Monarchy is an advantage from a tourism perspective that we do still have and that they do not. Foreign visitors are still attracted by it and it cannot just be replaced by a beach holiday in Skegness, a stay in medieval Coventry or skiing in the Pennines.

 

[A1X]

 

[Bold Seagull]

It does, but French people choose to holiday in France, for starters. Brits tend to go abroad, if they can.

France has a better climate, Mediterranean beaches, cities that were not carpet bombed, better wine/food, the Alps etc etc. It is true that we still have other things to offer too, especially culturally, but Monarchy is an advantage from a tourism perspective that we do still have and that they do not. Foreign visitors are still attracted by it and it cannot just be replaced by a beach holiday in Skegness, a stay in medieval Coventry or skiing in the Pennines.

10 million visitors per year. If we ended the monarchy, the history of it would still make it a hugely visited destination for the UK, if not more so if you could tour royal rooms and galleries.