It's just all a bunch of absolute poncing about really isn't it?
Is it paid for privately or are our hard earned taxes going on this instead of, I don't know, offsetting the costs of The Silvertown Tunnel?
offset and some by tourism
It’s paid out of general taxation.
yes, but offset by the revenue from tourism
Let’s be clear. Any money that tourism brings to the UK has nothing to do with offsetting the costs of any specific event. The money goes into the general pot and is spent as required by the government.
Lets be clear, I never said it went into a specific account though. Why should it? It is about the bigger picture - it is income that creates businesses and jobs and employees pay taxes etc
Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.
Not a fan.
No reason the king can't still be involved but maybe simplify and update.
There's nothing administrative about the State Opening of Parliament that couldn't be reduced to a simple group email. The point of the pomp and ceremony is a reminder that "this is how we do it here". And we do it, on the whole, pretty damn well.
A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.
There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.
Of course there are. However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.
She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court did.
A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.
There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.
Of course there are. However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.
She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court did.
Was just catching up on posts since I last looked yesterday and was going to comment on Seth's post but you got there first. The monarch, whether literally or symbolically, did the square root of sod all to prevent what Johnson and other politicians tried to get up to in recent years. In fact, the only times the monarch has intervened with government over the past few decades has been when they instructed the government to alter certain laws to exclude the royal family from being subject to them.
If an elected head of state had been present, for example in a US-style system, it would have been far easier for him/her to intervene as they would have veto power and a democratic mandate to use it. Not that I'm advocating for a US-style system as we've all seen how fragile that is.
Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.
Not a fan.
No reason the king can't still be involved but maybe simplify and update.
There's nothing administrative about the State Opening of Parliament that couldn't be reduced to a simple group email. The point of the pomp and ceremony is a reminder that "this is how we do it here". And we do it, on the whole, pretty damn well.
A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.
There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.
Of course there are. However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.
She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court did.
Indeed. But who is the head honcho of the courts? Weren’t they called Queens Counsels and now Kings Counsels?
Do you remember the headlines that said Judges are the enemies of the people?
On this occasion - It is a celebration of History and the peaceful transference of power in a democracy in line with the will of those people who chose to participate, going back centuries.
A little more reflection might suggest in referencing such History it specifically speaks to the transfer of authority from a tyrannical Monarchy to the people via an institutional monarchy.
Democracy is forever under attack in many guises and thus any reminder of its origins (however eccentrically out of step with modern values) in this country should be celebrated and supported in whatever guise at every opportunity.
May I politely suggest people take Democracy for granted at their peril.
It's not ceremony for the sake of ceremony. Every bit of the ceremony is essential constitutional process - it's just "dressed" in history. Of course we could relocate Parliament to an office block in Birmingham, get an elected president to open the session and read his / her own legislative plans (no need to attend, Zoom is fine), get some civil servants renting space in Media City Salford to type it up and put it on the internet and be done with it.
Sounds good to me. And considerably cheaper.
Be honest, it sounds shit (and net net a presidential system would be no cheaper from a fiscal point of view, and we would be much poorer culturally).
Maybe to you it sounds shit but to me it sounds functional and far, far cheaper. I'm not quite sure you appreciate the cost of the monarchy. I'd also take issue with your definition of 'essential constitutional process'. What exactly is essential about any of this nonsense?
I fully appreciate the cost and the value.
The process of opening a new parliament is essential. What you find "nonsense" is the historical context within which it still sits.
France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?
Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse
'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'
Anyway. Pomp, ceremony. The brilliance of the UK State at its confident best? Or the demonstration of constitutional unfairness? What are people's views on the State Opening of Parliament, other ceremonial demonstrations by UK authorities, or even the way in which other countries show off their (second division) statuses?
What are people's views on how well - or otherwise - we "do" ceremony here?
(But no need for further, futile rabbit hole burrowing into the "we do/we don't want a republic" debate. Please)
France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?
Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse
'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'
I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent.
Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris).
The pomp and ceremony and cost and hereditary positions are worth the debate. However for me I am interested in the constitutional aspects of things in the ‘unwritten constitution’ of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The way I have tended to view things is the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, as did all the MP’s just elected and (this bit might need clarity from an expert) the judges and courts are beholden in some way to the Monarch rather than being the plaything of politicians. The overall notion being that as long as the monarch is the ‘head of state’ in the UK, then you have a brake on politicians wanting to dictate everything. This malarkey played out when Boris Johnson wanted to do just what he pleased following the vote for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European Union. In the USA I think the ‘brake’ is because no President can serve more than eight years. Mind you if Trump got elected it wouldn’t surprise me if he tried to argue for longer. What we don’t need is the kind of never ending power that the people at the top in China and Russia have.
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that.
France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?
Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse
'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'
I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent.
Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris).
The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.
I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't
Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.
Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.
It's not like they have the equivalent in other countries
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that.
This is right. But the key word is "amendment". What's to stop another amendment being put in place to allow a third, non-consecutive term? And then, later a third consecutive term? And so on?
France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?
Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse
'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'
I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent.
Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris).
The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.
I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't
I've not seen any evidence to suggest that tourism would decline significantly if the monarchy was no longer in place. Tourists come to see palaces, crowns, carriages etc, all of which would still exist even without the stuffed ermine robes that currently occupy them. The Palace of Versailles is orders of magnitude more popular as a tourist destination than Buckingham Palace and the French don't have a monarch or royal family.
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that.
This is right. But the key word is "amendment". What's to stop another amendment being put in place to allow a third, non-consecutive term? And then, later a third consecutive term? And so on?
The short answer is that it requires a two thirds vote of both houses. I can't see that happening anytime soon even if Project 2025 gets off the ground.
Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.
This is 100% true. The current situation has come about organically. My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us. The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.
Comments
Not a fan.
If an elected head of state had been present, for example in a US-style system, it would have been far easier for him/her to intervene as they would have veto power and a democratic mandate to use it. Not that I'm advocating for a US-style system as we've all seen how fragile that is.
Long may it continue
The process of opening a new parliament is essential. What you find "nonsense" is the historical context within which it still sits.
'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'
What are people's views on how well - or otherwise - we "do" ceremony here?
(But no need for further, futile rabbit hole burrowing into the "we do/we don't want a republic" debate. Please)
Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris).
However for me I am interested in the constitutional aspects of things in the ‘unwritten constitution’ of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The way I have tended to view things is the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, as did all the MP’s just elected and (this bit might need clarity from an expert) the judges and courts are beholden in some way to the Monarch rather than being the plaything of politicians.
The overall notion being that as long as the monarch is the ‘head of state’ in the UK, then you have a brake on politicians wanting to dictate everything. This malarkey played out when Boris Johnson wanted to do just what he pleased following the vote for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European Union.
In the USA I think the ‘brake’ is because no President can serve more than eight years. Mind you if Trump got elected it wouldn’t surprise me if he tried to argue for longer.
What we don’t need is the kind of never ending power that the people at the top in China and Russia have.
I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't
Now there's a ceremony I'd pay to witness
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.