TV stars contribute far more in impoverishing people and cost far more as they manage to escape all tax. Charles is an impoverisher not because he is a royal but because of his role at the WEF.
If you want to help the poor, help the poor. Go visit a Food Pantry with a tv camera. Be kind and genuinely interested. Notice the quality of staffing, food, and service. Shake hands and accept hugs and flowers and children’s artwork. Later in the day make personal phone calls to the director, the board, and to the mayor. Be gracious and tell them to contact your office if you can do anything more to support their cause. Then call the big box market that was reported to be dumping hundreds of pounds of food past the “sell by” date. Give the store manager contact info for the food pantry and the Mayor, just in case a local church or school wants to collect the food and get it to the Food Pantry. Now imagine doing that 4 times in one day. You are making sure your assistants are taking notes so they can make those calls of your behalf. Finally, sit down at your desk and hand write personal thank you notes to the organizations you visited that day. Finally get a ride home from a Palace employee heading your way. Take off the clothes you wore to work, put on your jammies, set your alarm and drop into bed after forgetting to brush your teeth because you are just too tired.
THAT´S PRETTY DUMB WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ! THE KING IS NOT PAID AT ALL ! THESE 86 million ARE USED TO FULFILL HIS DUTIES AS HEAD OF STATE ! THESE COSTS YOU DO HAVE IN ANY REPUBLIC ! I´M FORCED TO LIVE IN A REPUBLIC FOR FIVE DECADES NOW AND I ASSURE YOU ; YOU ARE MUCH BETTER OFF WITH A MONARCH LAST TIME WE HAD TO VOTE THREE TIMES FOR A PRESIDENT - IT WAS MORE TO AVOID THE OTHER ONE; THAN GETTING THE BEST ! ALONE THE COST OF THESE ELECTIONS COULD FINANCE A MONARCHY FOR SEVERAL YEARS- HEADS OF STATE DO NOT GROW ON TREES THEY ALL HAVE A POLITICAL BACKGROUND; HAVE TO HAVE ; BECAUSE THE PARTIES ARE FINANCING THEIR CAMPAIGN AND OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT UNPOLITICAL IN THE OFFICE THAN....
That's tremendous, I have always felt compelled to pursue knowledge and power in order to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Been seeking a means to be influential and find out more knowledge about the human race and about the things not everyone is destined to know. I wish to fulfill the goal of enlightenment passed down by our forebears!!
having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles. "the promotion of human rights was a noble aspiration" No of the obove clearly, parasites!
Yup they won their titles in 15 16 17 centuries by winning wars usually within UK and Scotland, and sucking up to who ever was on the throne at the time... So what makes them better. The French had the right idea😊
As long as the working class are ruled deprivation will be our lot. We are ruled, not by kings, but by those who possess the land, mines, factories, machinery, railways, and other means of production and distribution, and just because they possess those things. Since we are denied access to those things all the doors of life are shut against us except that of the labour market. We must become wage slaves - must sell our energies to those who own the productive forces. This means that goods are produced for profit, and that profit, that wealth we produce but which is legally taken away from us. The remedy for all this is to take these means of production and distribution away from their present owners and make them the property of the whole community. Bread will then be produced to feed people, not for profit, and clothes to clothe them, and houses to shelter them. All able-bodied adults will take part in the necessary social labour, and all will partake freely of the wealth produced.
The problem with that dream of yours is who's going to make it 100% fair when it comes to sharing the profit with the community. 😂 I’m a Vietnamese native, and believe me, it’s better to be a slave to a capitalist rather than a slave to the state. 😅 At least your people can think straight. 😂 Maybe one day, you’ll take a hint from the French. No way out for us here, mate.
"As long as the working class are ruled deprivation will be our lot. " I'm not disagreeing with you, but compared to 99% of humans who've ever lived, we have it pretty good.
It’s a state event so it’s paid for by the taxpayers and we make a profit from it an estimated 1 billion will be brought into the UK economy just from the coronation.
Just think what that could do for the ppl of the UK? UK citizens are suffering. The royals are fake anyways and been long gone, but ppls believe in them and that's why they have to keep the illusion going. So the sooner ppl wake up to it, the sooner it can stop.
It's not his coronation: it's our coronation of him. A coronation is a legal requirement demanded by Parliament in the Act of Settlement 1701 during which the monarch must take the coronation oath. If our representatives in Parliament demand a coronation by law, the country should pay for it.
All traditions and rituals are invented by people. They serve the same purpose as myth in providing a common framework so that people can identify as a community or culture. Remove that cultural framework and you leave a vacuum into which flows invasive forces seeking control of resources and political power. Liturgical arts change with the times, like all other arts, so styles of worship services can look very different from era to era. People always freak out about change to tradition because people take on their culture as part of their own identity. Rejection of traditions feels like a rejection of oneself.
@@Tribuneoftheplebs Is it France and it's 3 republics, Spain with it's anarchy or Russia that went into communism that you think is the best example of abolishing monarchy?
@@blazednlovinit isn't the UK already a democracy? the change wouldn't be as dramatic since all they do is basically nothing, so you rather have a King which you wouldn't be able to elect as your leader.
Haha. His subjects can’t afford food or rent, but you should throw me a party where I demand your loyalty in service of the crown. Why isn’t Charles spending 8 hours a day serving meals to those sleeping rough? Or passing out food at a local food bank? It’s really sad stuff.
Charlie has people who serving homelessness. Too much people in the pubs and than on the streets...Funny isn't? Especially when disable people work when homeless strong lazy sitting in the pub...
Maybe him and his family are, but are keeping it secret. You people say 'oh the royal family is only doing charity for the camera' but never consider that a)they don't want the cameras there or b)if they don't do it on camera, then you won't believe they do it at all. Monarchy is so much better than the alternative.
I really do not understand there many people in England that have problems making ends meat,paying their rent and yet the monarchy still gets money from the people of england please make that make sense.
I think that the UK is much more than just England. Does it not include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? And although I'm not a vegetarian, I'm still not sure how to make ends meat...
What does he mean by the Dutch not having coronations? I distinctly remember our erstwhile crown prince Willem Alexander becoming king and having a crown put on his head ten years ago. In an elaborate ceremony, to which Charles was one of the guests. During a national day of festivities and celebration.
You can't expect English toffs to know what happens in other countries. Apparently, this guy thinks England and Britain are the same. His parochialism is extraordinary.
@JootjeJ Netherlands has an Inauguration, not a Coronation. The Crown is present, but never gets put on the Kings head. In Spain it's the same, the Crown is present but not placed on the monarchs head. I just watched the 2013 ceremony on YT to be absolutely sure. In the UK, the very specific St Edward's Crown is placed on the monarchs head. It is only used to Crown the monarch. The monarch swaps over to the state crown afterwards, before they leave the Abbey.
@@AlunParsonsIt is legitimate to refer to England seperately from Great Britain, the UK, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The roots of this coronation service are particular to England, going back as far as St Dunstan. Scotland had it's own distinct coronation tradition. Before 1707, the monarchs of the respective countries went through different styles of ceremony, and when it became the same monarch with James VI and his progeny, they underwent seperate coronation in each country. After 1707, the service was one service in which the monarch was crowned and made Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the coronation takes place as a Anglican service, but it has to incorporate other tradition and acknowledgement and changes after 1707, including promising not to interfere with the Church of Scotland. At this point the service evolves in the English/Church of England tradition to reflect the union with Scotland. However, it is right to observe that it comes from a form of ritual and religion that is English in origin...hard to avoid that when unlike Scotland, the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the church/state religion. It's also why the prebytarian Church of Scotland gets the monarch to swear to protect its independence. So, it's not an inaccurate English toff, it's a historian who knows what he is talking about and is being accurate when discussing a service that predates the union by centuries, predates the creation of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, and has endured and adapted through significant political, social and religious change over 1000 years.
Queen Camilla?! If the Windsors think themselves superior to their subjects by virtue of their birth, then it should be expected of this family to live virtuously and by example.
I'm so disgusted. All the way over here in the Pacific Northwest...I can't help but think about the lovely Diana, and how the world would be celebrating. Instead it's that *beast* that hurt her...I'll always refer to them as Chuckie and the other C word. 😔
Queen Camilla exemplifies dignity, loyalty, intelligence, wit, a sense of humour, and a genuine interest in others. Diana was eye candy and is now long dead.
When they say they're pairing the coronation back due to the cost of living crisis, in reality The last two coronations came to the rough total of 20 million in today's money, so suggesting 100 million is paired back is ridiculous. They should be paying for it themselves. Everyone in this country pays tax on everything, but these guys and yet they still ask us to pay for an excessively elaborate two day show just to call a king a king and at his age how long is he going to last in the role. Talk about a bad investment.
@@imasketcher8005 A wedding is traditionally paid for by the participants: the church service and honeymoon are paid for by the bridegroom; the wedding reception by the bride's father. The enthronement of an archbishop is paid for by the Church - not by the archbishop himself. It's because it's not a family occasion - it's an occupational one - just like a coronation.
Because preserving the monarchy in Britain would win today … everyone knows that despite the social media campaign (to not ssy full scale attack mode) to bring it down.
Until we have a vote we will never know the outcome. Cameron gave us the Brexit vote because he thought Remain would win. We've just had an election, despite the outcome being deemed a foregone conclusion. Opinion polls can't be trusted because they are derived from tiny samples of responses to the wording of a question. Guessing is not a democratic process. So my question still stands.
No you don’t, in Spanish enthronement ceremonies the crown is never placed on the Kings head. The last time that happened was hundreds of years ago. “No monarch of Spain has been crowned as such since Isabella I of Castile[50] (1474), Ferdinand I of Aragon (1414), and Catherine of Navarre with her husband John III of Navarre (1494). Joan III of Navarre was crowned as late as 1555, although she ruled Navarre beyond the Pyrenees. Instead, the new monarch appears at the Cortes, where he or she takes a formal oath to uphold the Constitution.[51] Although the crown is evident at the ceremony, it is never actually placed on the monarch's head” (from Wikipedia) The Dutch have never physically crowned a single one of their monarchs, they have only partaken in accession ceremonies and oath-taking. “The Netherlands have never physically crowned its monarchs. The Dutch monarch, however, undergoes a ‘swearing-in and investiture’ ceremony” (from Wikipedia) Link to more info here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronations_in_Europe
@@Inge-99 It wasn’t an error on his part, and we are very much unique in that matter. Please link me to a single picture of a Dutch monarch having a crown being placed on his head
The videos of the the coronation ,are like a blitz a real bombardment in the media. It’s like a nightmare .Many , like me, are not interested in seeing this anachronic institution , with a sinister past, still there sucking the money of the citizens in an obscene and kitsch parade , financed by all, is revolting, sorry to say ,it’s my opinion. All this runs contrary to anything that defines modern life. As knowledge in general culture, not being a historian , we al know that the history of the British royal families, and their ascend to power was in many cases bloodthirsty .They had not a doubt , when it came to murder brothers cousins and so on to say the least. What I cannot understand is how can Scot’s support this British monarchy , or Irish , for the matter .They have been brutally repressed , their population used for slavery .As an small example , King James I in 1612, gave permission to collect and sell the captive Irish soldiers as slaves, thats only the pick of the iceberg.This story of Britain and their monarchs would be too long. Least to say the few countries left in the commonwealth. During the reign of Elisabeth I , 17 countries resign .The colonies where , luckily ,dismantling, leaving a brutal trail of suffering robbery and abuse on the population.Yes it’s history. But , to support this new king? this same monarchy , whose wealth is obscene and still preserves feudal privileges over the land they own. In a democracy of the XXIst C . King Charles will be the Head of State for 14 countries,Why ? He is certainly not his mother. She was born in a different time and age. Nowadays they are extravagant and entitled , with the country in a profound economical crisis, and citizens having to pay for the show, wether you like it or not. Also , people forget the oath of allegiance in this act ,to all subjects, is compulsory .That means you are complying to the monarch and head of the Church of England .This latter, thus not accepting other religions , In spite of the sheer make up of the scene , inviting other religious leaders in the ceremony .Do not forget the king , will be promising to defend the former Protestant religion, because he is “ the head and protector “ of the Church of England
@@echelon2k8 Tradition is another way of saying "no change" which is against all the laws of creation. Change is one of the few constants in our universe.
@@victorseal9047 Who said that tradition has to mean no change? Did you even watch the coronation? A tradition is just something that is passed down with a symbolic meaning or special significance for a particular people. That doesn't mean that its meaning or significance doesn't or can't change over time.
@@echelon2k8 Tradition has an underlying effect of keeping one’s focus on the passed, I liken it to looking into the rear view mirror for too long instead of observing the road ahead. Also, the days of a monarch on horseback leading an army in battle has long since faded into obscurity, the need for a King or Queen is long gone. So why do we still have one ? We are all kings and queens of our lives we do not need to search outside of ourselves for someone to look up to.
I'm trying to understand the difference between tradition and invented tradition. Surely all tradition is invented tradition, making the use of "invented" incredibly redundant. Yet, it's used several times throughout this video. And so if we understand that the use of "Invented tradition" is redundant, we have to consider why it would be used at all, because whilst I'm certainly not for a monarchy, if I were to make the most subtle of attempts to turn people against it, using phrases like "invented tradition" would be a way I might go.
The distinction I see it is that some things unconsciously become traditional because they're inherently cultural. Whereas other things become traditional because a few people sat down and said "let's establish a tradition".
@@django3422 inherently consciously? But it had to be become a 'Tradition'' somewhere a long the line. So then or now someone invented it, but the question is why?
All things being invented is true in an ontological sense but I think this is more dealing with the fact that people have intentionally top-down introduced false ideas about our history in order to achieve a certain goal. Acknowledging that certain aspects of the way we view our nation and history are made up, we can ask why they are, what actually happened, and whether this narrative is useful or not.
What does it all mean; the Crown, and the Orb, and the Sceptre and the Sword of State, and the Cap of Maintenance, and the rest of the jewelled symbols? What does it mean: the swelling Anthem, the mumbled prayer, the intoned exhortation, the anointing with oil, the Crowning and Enthronisation? What does it mean: the barbaric pomp and splendour, the lavish display of wealth, the clank of arms and armour and the jingle of spurs, the foregathering from the ends of the earth of the Empire’s rulers? What does it mean: the flaunting flags, the streets lined with police and military, the hoarse acclamation of millions? As unknowing children, we are told by our traitorous and deceitful teachers that these gaudy jewels, this “impressive service”, are full of some magical symbolism and historic significance. They are indeed. To the worker who will think it is very obvious that the Crown and the Sceptre and the rest are the symbols of ruling power. But who it is that rules, and who it is that are ruled, are matters less generally understood and definitely never explained to us by these duplicitous teachers and alleged educationalists whose actual task is to mystify, confuse and stupefy the young minds of the future wage slaves. In other words, to accomplish the precise opposite of their alleged intention to enlighten these impressionable young minds. It is commonly believed that “royal” power is the attribute of the monarch of a constitutional country, but nothing could be farther from the truth. That question our capitalist masters in this country fought out many years ago. They have left the King his name and his robes, his Crown and his palaces, but they have stripped him of every vestige of power. The “Crown” is not the King, in any capacity, but the capitalist State. The King’s Speech to Parliament is written by his Ministers, even the prerogative of mercy is not the King’s, but belongs to the capitalist Cabinet. The aim of the master class is to keep worker ignorant, for an ignorant subject class, not knowing how to act in their own interests, can be more easily and inexpensively kept in subjection than an educated one. In fostering this ignorance, the first thing to be done is to preserve the inertia of the mind - the tendency of the mind to run in an unchanging direction. The capitalist class is fully aware that it is a changing environment that causes the alteration in the mental outlook of the people. Their great endeavour, therefore, is to oppose the continual evolution in the world about them, over which they have no control, counteracting conditions and influences. Hence they cling with the tenacity of desperation, to the empty husks and decaying forms of the past. This can be seen in every dominant interest, since every interest, when it has become dominant, becomes conservative and reactionary. It explains why the Catholic Church clings so frantically to its out-of-date forms, why the Anglican and other Churches set their faces so relentlessly against innovation, and why capitalist countries would rather convert their monarchies to their own ends than abolish them.
Human Rights Watch slammed Saturday's arrest by UK police of protesters at the coronation of King Charles III as "incredibly alarming". "This is something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London," the campaign group said, attacking the UK government for its "increasingly averse" stance on public demonstrations.
@@cdean2789Hundreds of protestors protested noisily but peacefully and were left alone to do so, waving their placards and banners. There were some arrests based on intelligence and the few who behaved in such a way as to warrant it. It should be understood that public safety is important where there is a crowd, where there are hundreds of horses, that we live in an age of aggressive protest and terrorism. There is also the matter of security for hundreds of international political and non political heads of state and state representatives. The police have to strike a balance between legitimate security concerns, public safety, the right to free speech and the right to peaceful demonstration...not an easy feat. There will be investigations on whether the action was the right call based on the evidence. It has been well publicised. The demonstrators overall were able to make their protest without the police shutting it down, so there was no major plot to remove all protestors or silence the Republican movement.
Give me a break ! The overall expenses for the coronation and other solemnities are less than Macron's official journeys and inauguration ceremonies during the same period, and the British monarchy's expense list is less than the Elysee's.
The idea that Brexit was an attempt to form a new British identity is absolutely ridiculous. Brexit was an English nationalist cause, and definitely not a British one. With Scotland and Northern Ireland voting overwhelmingly against and Welsh born people in Wales also voting majority against (though English voters in Wales tipped the balance), Brexit cannot remotely be described as a British ideology. Another example of someone from the English elite conflating Britain with England. Obnoxious stuff. Just proves you only need to be posh for people to assume you know what you are talking about.
But the British taxpayer is Being forced to pay for something when they can’t even afford to eat and heat their own homes. For a man who has trillions - that makes sense?
Exactly between him and sunak and the rest of them they could have paid for it themselves. You wait, next thing will be there is no money for the nhs! 😠
The royal family were supposed to be justified by being different and better than ordinary people now that they make it clear they are ordinary why should we look up to them
But... why do you say that Charless is the first post-imperial coronation? The Balfour Declaration practically created the Commonwealth way before Elizabeth's coronation.
A monarchy is great but nut the size! This coronation is costing so much when people, the "Kings" people are struggling. Would it not have been better to down size so no to need 29000 police officers and a gold, air conditioned carriage? Just a thought 🤔
Good to hear that in the U.K.,country of unaffordable houses,inflation,cost of living crisis,inequality ….that the peasant are having to give Charles a 45% pay increase in 2025,raising the Sovereign Grant from £86.3m to £125 m a year. All that for a family from Germany,called Saxe-Cobourg-Gothe, who changed it to Windsor.
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn doesn't sound like a bad thing... nothing lasts forever, where is atlantis... where is the Roman or Babylonian empires... they said that Hitler wanted to build the fourth reigh but isn't that what the British empire was...?
@@ApisVenandi Well, first off, the British Empire is a legend. The legend of all legends. Legends never die. There is a quote, "No. The legend must live."
@@ApisVenandi There's a quote we all use, "Never judge a book by its cover", which you currently are doing. Any mature person knows the British Empire is a legend, only the immature will think the British Empire is someone who deserves to die, as legends never die.
“Its been 70 years since the last coronation … that means many of us have never witnessed a coronation.” … you don’t say? The host may actually want to get more adventurous and state rhetorical obvious, “most of us”
The King and his family should be politely but firmly removed from their houses, and put out onto the street. All moneys and lands they currently own should be confiscated for the British people. They can then discover what it is like to live in a council house and live on benefits. #NotMyKing
And then, homeless people will then obtain all of their money, houses, and lands, and can then discover what it is like to live rich and powerful, looks like we've got a The Prince and The Pauper situation, where the rich get to live on food stamps and welfare while the poor get to have a luxurious lifestyle, eventually, they will reach a punchline of Aesop where you need to be grateful on what you have.
What do we learn from this? When you sit in a distance of 5 cm (2 inches for the Brits...and Americans) in front of your PC-camera, make sure there is nothing around your nose.
Correction: the crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother will be used to crown Camilla but without the Koh-i-Noor diamond which has been removed and replaced by another one.
@@oneileo66 That's right - Queen Mary's crown was used but they could have removed the Kohinoor diamond from Queen Elizabeth's crown quite easily and replaced it with another if they had been minded to. I wonder why they did not.
#notMyKing I believe the same money should have been used towards pay rises or food banks. The people are suffering because of inflation and some monarchs who’ve colonised, has blood on their hands are enjoying the moment
Chanel 4 : you can do better than this. Tell us what goes back to William the Conc and why it is still important to save us from becoming a Republic which could show case unimpeded demagogs…. So may other commentators out there
Bring back the fire and brimstone verse in the national anthem... O Lord our God arise, Scatter his enemies And make them fall; Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God, save us all!
If 2016 showed us anything it's that the British people can't be trusted to vote in their own interest and shouldn't vote for a head of state. Until that changes... Long live the monarchy!
Because such an important role should naturally not be chosen by the people subject to the rules but should instead by chosen by the much more reasonable process of uhh… completely at random, to a person literally above the law for their whole life
Tried watching it but it’s hard with the boogers in his nose. I am sure thr interviewer didn’t see but when editing I am sure they could have been edited out
@@relentless1989 please please don't lump us English into one group, many of us are not royalists, I myself did not watch one minute of this rediculas waste of money.
Luckily Britain still has a monarchy, which means that the stupid electorate doesn't get to vote in a President Trump, Johnson or Truss. We plebeians should be kept out of things.
We have an institution we can evaluate with sense. It is/can be an asset. Or like so much - we can waste it. As Oscar W. said 'nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing' (nb The Guardian). So does the Monarchy contribute to our national constitutional machine - eg a longer term aspect to help with norms of the short -term ( ie the risks of electing a Johnson or Trump)? It's our choice. Added value. The marginal cost is actually very small. Let's not waste it for silliness.
It's very simplistic to cost it in monitory terms, the social cost is complex to calculate. We don't appear to have a written constitution which is becoming increasingly problematic. A national debate is long overdue but the status quo suits the establishment so best not to hold our breath.
@@alexguest6289 Certainly agree on constitution - esp with Rees-Mogg types pressing now buttons. And devolution begs. Agree that cost/ benefit equations will generate many Phds. Like you the complexity jumps out. I react against simplicity eg 'ok - what would you do with it all?'. (Privatise land, sell off to Disneyland, museums or regional / community enterprise..etc etc.. sell off baubles). As you say - it is complex - and it is history. For me, if history doesn't 'prevent' the future - we can get on with things. Reform takes energy and resource. And I'm dreadfully fond of history ....keeps us away from gaming on the 'net...Thanks for your reponse.
Yes and no yes because they do decent from the house of Hanover And no Because King Charles lll is a Descendant of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland through his grand mother's family the Bowes-Lyons family. And Prince William is through his Mother a Direct Descendant of both King's Charles II and James II From the House of Stuart You could argue that they are more Scottish then german
None of us really know what it must be like for anyone to live in the public eye, including members of the Royal Family. Further, despite the constant artuculation of their immnse privialage and wealth, it certainly can't all be like that and must also have many negaticve aspects. Charles has by no means had a easy life. I always thought that the way in which the Monarchy in Britain is both perc6ived, welcomed and wanted, both in the UK and the Commonwealth, would change uppn the death of Elizabeth. Further, the insitution may not continue in its current structhure and may need drastically slimming down if it is to survive at all. Personnaly, I fail to see how a Constituaional Monarchy, where one human being has been chosen by 'god' to reign over a popluation remains relevant today. That phiñosphy is not the same. Religious beliefe is not the same. The UK is not the same. The Commenwealth is not the same. Whilst the Monarch may well hold the nation together far better than an elected head of state ever could that comes with political neautraility, it is diffcult to see for just how much longer the British Monarchy can continue in its present form for much longer. Garry H. British Ex Pat. South Carrolina RAF Retired
Because Brits acted smartly by luck, not like French, removed crazy Judeo-Mason Oliver Cromwell and restored Stuards. But anyway France helped Benjamin Franklin & friends by "9 sisters" lodge and Britain lost hegemony to The U.S...
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
Simple people. How do you think you have a choice. Uk is not a Republic The UK is not a democracy. Its a Constitutional Monarchy. The lords own the land you walk on. The lords own your houses and buildings that everyone are living and working in. The Duke of Westminster is the youngest billionaire and he owns majority of London. What makes you think have a Choice in any lawful way. Like i said simple people. The Army serves king and country not you. What army have you got?. The king serve and protect us the people it is his duty through the Constitution. We don't serve the King.
Becomes just another irrelevant victim of forced gentrification without its very unique culture. Even the French kick themselves for not holding on to some part of their royal heritage.
If you want to help people, then just help the poor.. and not the people who helped make people poor.🙄
The Crown is the only reason our country is as wealthy and grand as it is, let alone the only reason you're here at all to moan about it.
@@erica.5620yep and the invasion of other countries and making them colonies as well as slave trade; that's why the UK is so grand amd wealthy
TV stars contribute far more in impoverishing people and cost far more as they manage to escape all tax. Charles is an impoverisher not because he is a royal but because of his role at the WEF.
If you want to help the poor, help the poor. Go visit a Food Pantry with a tv camera. Be kind and genuinely interested. Notice the quality of staffing, food, and service. Shake hands and accept hugs and flowers and children’s artwork. Later in the day make personal phone calls to the director, the board, and to the mayor. Be gracious and tell them to contact your office if you can do anything more to support their cause. Then call the big box market that was reported to be dumping hundreds of pounds of food past the “sell by” date. Give the store manager contact info for the food pantry and the Mayor, just in case a local church or school wants to collect the food and get it to the Food Pantry. Now imagine doing that 4 times in one day. You are making sure your assistants are taking notes so they can make those calls of your behalf. Finally, sit down at your desk and hand write personal thank you notes to the organizations you visited that day. Finally get a ride home from a Palace employee heading your way. Take off the clothes you wore to work, put on your jammies, set your alarm and drop into bed after forgetting to brush your teeth because you are just too tired.
Much of the technology and freedoms the west enjoys in the modern world originated in the KINGdom of Britain.
Britain 2023 : an oligarch pm, food banks used by employed people and a coronation.
Your spot on.
And an extra billion pounds to the economy
@@user-ek2uf7yj5r well if you didnt want to see indians in your country, why tf did you colonise their own?????
@@user-ek2uf7yj5r why tf you colonized India?
@@kevt3318 what will that do for you personally? Why can't a family worth billions pay for their ceremony??
All I want to know is, why are these people being paid 86 million a year of tax payers money . Disgusting is what I call it.
THAT´S PRETTY DUMB WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ! THE KING IS NOT PAID AT ALL ! THESE 86 million ARE USED TO FULFILL HIS DUTIES AS HEAD OF STATE !
THESE COSTS YOU DO HAVE IN ANY REPUBLIC ! I´M FORCED TO LIVE IN A REPUBLIC FOR FIVE DECADES NOW AND I ASSURE YOU ; YOU ARE MUCH BETTER OFF WITH A MONARCH
LAST TIME WE HAD TO VOTE THREE TIMES FOR A PRESIDENT - IT WAS MORE TO AVOID THE OTHER ONE; THAN GETTING THE BEST !
ALONE THE COST OF THESE ELECTIONS COULD FINANCE A MONARCHY FOR SEVERAL YEARS- HEADS OF STATE DO NOT GROW ON TREES
THEY ALL HAVE A POLITICAL BACKGROUND; HAVE TO HAVE ; BECAUSE THE PARTIES ARE FINANCING THEIR CAMPAIGN AND OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT UNPOLITICAL IN THE OFFICE THAN....
That's tremendous, I have always felt compelled to pursue knowledge and power in order to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Been seeking a means to be influential and find out more knowledge about the human race and about the things not everyone is destined to know. I wish to fulfill the goal of enlightenment passed down by our forebears!!
@Seth Gary Hi, isn't the org a myth? I mean sometimes i just feel like it's all just a conspiracy theory.
Can someone please remind me what is noble about the nobility?
having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles.
"the promotion of human rights was a noble aspiration"
No of the obove clearly, parasites!
Yup they won their titles in 15 16 17 centuries by winning wars usually within UK and Scotland, and sucking up to who ever was on the throne at the time... So what makes them better. The French had the right idea😊
They nobbled many countries
They had swords plus armour and the people already on the land didn't. 1000 years on and their heirs continue to reap the benefits
As long as the working class are ruled deprivation will be our lot. We are ruled, not by kings, but by those who possess the land, mines, factories, machinery, railways, and other means of production and distribution, and just because they possess those things. Since we are denied access to those things all the doors of life are shut against us except that of the labour market. We must become wage slaves - must sell our energies to those who own the productive forces. This means that goods are produced for profit, and that profit, that wealth we produce but which is legally taken away from us.
The remedy for all this is to take these means of production and distribution away from their present owners and make them the property of the whole community. Bread will then be produced to feed people, not for profit, and clothes to clothe them, and houses to shelter them. All able-bodied adults will take part in the necessary social labour, and all will partake freely of the wealth produced.
The problem with that dream of yours is who's going to make it 100% fair when it comes to sharing the profit with the community. 😂 I’m a Vietnamese native, and believe me, it’s better to be a slave to a capitalist rather than a slave to the state. 😅 At least your people can think straight. 😂 Maybe one day, you’ll take a hint from the French. No way out for us here, mate.
So you want Communism?
@@aidenmiles0307What a ridiculous assertion
Oh gawd, another boring Marxist diatribe. Yawn. Share with us any original thoughts you might have.
"As long as the working class are ruled deprivation will be our lot. "
I'm not disagreeing with you, but compared to 99% of humans who've ever lived, we have it pretty good.
Charles has more than enough money to pay for what he wants for his long coronation…
1.8 billion
It’s a state event so it’s paid for by the taxpayers and we make a profit from it an estimated 1 billion will be brought into the UK economy just from the coronation.
Just think what that could do for the ppl of the UK? UK citizens are suffering. The royals are fake anyways and been long gone, but ppls believe in them and that's why they have to keep the illusion going. So the sooner ppl wake up to it, the sooner it can stop.
That’s only what’s been disclosed !!
It's not his coronation: it's our coronation of him.
A coronation is a legal requirement demanded by Parliament in the Act of Settlement 1701 during which the monarch must take the coronation oath.
If our representatives in Parliament demand a coronation by law, the country should pay for it.
All traditions and rituals are invented by people. They serve the same purpose as myth in providing a common framework so that people can identify as a community or culture. Remove that cultural framework and you leave a vacuum into which flows invasive forces seeking control of resources and political power. Liturgical arts change with the times, like all other arts, so styles of worship services can look very different from era to era. People always freak out about change to tradition because people take on their culture as part of their own identity. Rejection of traditions feels like a rejection of oneself.
9:15 the other monarchies did not "disappear", they were brought down.
By legends and heroes
@@Tribuneoftheplebs *by dictators and murders
@@Tribuneoftheplebs Is it France and it's 3 republics, Spain with it's anarchy or Russia that went into communism that you think is the best example of abolishing monarchy?
@@blazednlovinit isn't the UK already a democracy? the change wouldn't be as dramatic since all they do is basically nothing, so you rather have a King which you wouldn't be able to elect as your leader.
@@victorfernandes2111 UK is a Constitutional, Parliamentary Monarchy
Haha. His subjects can’t afford food or rent, but you should throw me a party where I demand your loyalty in service of the crown. Why isn’t Charles spending 8 hours a day serving meals to those sleeping rough? Or passing out food at a local food bank? It’s really sad stuff.
Charlie has people who serving homelessness. Too much people in the pubs and than on the streets...Funny isn't? Especially when disable people work when homeless strong lazy sitting in the pub...
You should demand this from *ALL* rich people, not just the king.
Here here yes I agree. Stand a deliver the monarchy tells people of the UK give up your money who cares about the people.
you got boyfriend？
Maybe him and his family are, but are keeping it secret. You people say 'oh the royal family is only doing charity for the camera' but never consider that a)they don't want the cameras there or b)if they don't do it on camera, then you won't believe they do it at all. Monarchy is so much better than the alternative.
The sight of the befrocked sitting around the stone of scone after carrying it about the country as if it were a deity, sums up this absurd pantomime.
and yet i bet you dont mind getting a tree, putting lights on it and putting it in your house every year? 😂
@@wuxing100 yep,it feels more real and costs a whole lot less.😉
@@alexguest6289 Im pretty sure you spend more than £1.50 a year on christmas because thats how much tax you pay to the monarch every year. 😂
I remember when the Scottish Nationalist students nicked it.
I hope he didn't get piles
Same reason as The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Thailand, Japan etc etc do
Imagine waking up genuinely happy and proud about being a peasant that pays “your highness” to simply exist. As the British say: utterly bonkers.
I really do not understand there many people in England that have problems making ends meat,paying their rent and yet the monarchy still gets money from the people of england please make that make sense.
Gets money from the people from the entire U.K. not just England*
@Vito Corleone what what did you type are you serious no way the monarchy gets money from other countries yucko.
I think that the UK is much more than just England. Does it not include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? And although I'm not a vegetarian, I'm still not sure how to make ends meat...
King Charles III has inherited assets that have propelled his wealth to almost £2bn, according to extensive research and analysis by the Guardian.
@@ErinShane-kh7zf from all four nations: England, Wales, Scotland, & N Ireland ! They make up the UK. Know both ur History & Geography!
What does he mean by the Dutch not having coronations? I distinctly remember our erstwhile crown prince Willem Alexander becoming king and having a crown put on his head ten years ago. In an elaborate ceremony, to which Charles was one of the guests. During a national day of festivities and celebration.
You can't expect English toffs to know what happens in other countries. Apparently, this guy thinks England and Britain are the same. His parochialism is extraordinary.
@JootjeJ Netherlands has an Inauguration, not a Coronation. The Crown is present, but never gets put on the Kings head. In Spain it's the same, the Crown is present but not placed on the monarchs head. I just watched the 2013 ceremony on YT to be absolutely sure.
In the UK, the very specific St Edward's Crown is placed on the monarchs head. It is only used to Crown the monarch. The monarch swaps over to the state crown afterwards, before they leave the Abbey.
@@AlunParsonsIt is legitimate to refer to England seperately from Great Britain, the UK, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The roots of this coronation service are particular to England, going back as far as St Dunstan. Scotland had it's own distinct coronation tradition. Before 1707, the monarchs of the respective countries went through different styles of ceremony, and when it became the same monarch with James VI and his progeny, they underwent seperate coronation in each country. After 1707, the service was one service in which the monarch was crowned and made Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the coronation takes place as a Anglican service, but it has to incorporate other tradition and acknowledgement and changes after 1707, including promising not to interfere with the Church of Scotland. At this point the service evolves in the English/Church of England tradition to reflect the union with Scotland. However, it is right to observe that it comes from a form of ritual and religion that is English in origin...hard to avoid that when unlike Scotland, the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the church/state religion. It's also why the prebytarian Church of Scotland gets the monarch to swear to protect its independence.
So, it's not an inaccurate English toff, it's a historian who knows what he is talking about and is being accurate when discussing a service that predates the union by centuries, predates the creation of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, and has endured and adapted through significant political, social and religious change over 1000 years.
@@shelleyphilcox4743 The oath not to interfere with the Church of Scotland is taken at the Accession ceremony, not the Coronation.
@@MrBulky992 It is also the case in the coronation service, so the monarch swears on accession and again at coronation. Quite right to be thorough.
Queen Camilla?! If the Windsors think themselves superior to their subjects by virtue of their birth, then it should be expected of this family to live virtuously and by example.
She can never be called Queen because she has taken it up the batty!
I'm so disgusted. All the way over here in the Pacific Northwest...I can't help but think about the lovely Diana, and how the world would be celebrating. Instead it's that *beast* that hurt her...I'll always refer to them as Chuckie and the other C word. 😔
Queen Camilla exemplifies dignity, loyalty, intelligence, wit, a sense of humour, and a genuine interest in others. Diana was eye candy and is now long dead.
@@miapdx503 How very sad that you are disgusted. The king and queen always speak so very highly of you.
@@neilmcbeath954 😏 I always appreciate levity. Have a lovely day sir 🌹
When they say they're pairing the coronation back due to the cost of living crisis, in reality The last two coronations came to the rough total of 20 million in today's money, so suggesting 100 million is paired back is ridiculous. They should be paying for it themselves.
Everyone in this country pays tax on everything, but these guys and yet they still ask us to pay for an excessively elaborate two day show just to call a king a king and at his age how long is he going to last in the role. Talk about a bad investment.
Hope we don't have to pay for another too soon
This isn't a family wedding: it's a state occasion.
@@MrBulky992 Did I call it a wedding? Also guess who pays for weddings? 😆 ..Not them....
@@imasketcher8005 A wedding is traditionally paid for by the participants: the church service and honeymoon are paid for by the bridegroom; the wedding reception by the bride's father.
The enthronement of an archbishop is paid for by the Church - not by the archbishop himself. It's because it's not a family occasion - it's an occupational one - just like a coronation.
@@MrBulky992 royal weddings paid by tax payer, coronation paid for by tax payer.
Why not have a referendum and let the people choose whether to have a monarchy or not?
Who counts the votes?
@@bobnixon7123the same people who counts votes normally you absolute weirdo
@@bobnixon7123stay off the island
Because preserving the monarchy in Britain would win today … everyone knows that despite the social media campaign (to not ssy full scale attack mode) to bring it down.
Until we have a vote we will never know the outcome. Cameron gave us the Brexit vote because he thought Remain would win. We've just had an election, despite the outcome being deemed a foregone conclusion. Opinion polls can't be trusted because they are derived from tiny samples of responses to the wording of a question.
Guessing is not a democratic process. So my question still stands.
Correction: we definitely do coronation in both Spain and Holland.
No you don’t, in Spanish enthronement ceremonies the crown is never placed on the Kings head. The last time that happened was hundreds of years ago.
“No monarch of Spain has been crowned as such since Isabella I of Castile[50] (1474), Ferdinand I of Aragon (1414), and Catherine of Navarre with her husband John III of Navarre (1494). Joan III of Navarre was crowned as late as 1555, although she ruled Navarre beyond the Pyrenees. Instead, the new monarch appears at the Cortes, where he or she takes a formal oath to uphold the Constitution.[51] Although the crown is evident at the ceremony, it is never actually placed on the monarch's head” (from Wikipedia)
The Dutch have never physically crowned a single one of their monarchs, they have only partaken in accession ceremonies and oath-taking.
“The Netherlands have never physically crowned its monarchs. The Dutch monarch, however, undergoes a ‘swearing-in and investiture’ ceremony” (from Wikipedia)
Link to more info here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronations_in_Europe
@@Inge-99 It wasn’t an error on his part, and we are very much unique in that matter. Please link me to a single picture of a Dutch monarch having a crown being placed on his head
@@Inge-99 thanks for replying! Interesting point about church and state
No, we don't have any coronation in Spain. It's an enthronement ("proclamación"), not a coronation.
King Charles III has inherited assets that have propelled his wealth to almost £2bn, according to extensive research and analysis by the Guardian.
Don't believe everything the guardian says. They include the houses/offices that are not his but in trust to be used by him.
Gudian there lies guadian hates britain and whites
1 billion extra was given from the Crown Estate to good causes.
@@jimbo6059 The Guardian is the woke bible.
@@Rob_Sausage when?
C4 doesn’t let up. So predictably ghastly
Degenerates in high places.
Of course disagreeing is ghastly, but every single news outlet constantly harping on about Charlie’s magic blood is fine.
What a waste of money this will cost the taxpayers 300million pounds . Money we have not got
Let's hope we don't have to pay for the next one too.
The videos of the the coronation ,are like a blitz a real bombardment in the media.
It’s like a nightmare .Many , like me, are not interested in seeing this anachronic institution , with a sinister past, still there sucking the money of the citizens in an obscene and kitsch parade , financed by all, is revolting, sorry to say ,it’s my opinion.
All this runs contrary to anything that defines modern life.
As knowledge in general culture, not being a historian , we al know that the history of the British royal families, and their ascend to power was in many cases bloodthirsty .They had not a doubt , when it came to murder brothers cousins and so on to say the least.
What I cannot understand is how can Scot’s support this British monarchy , or Irish , for the matter .They have been brutally repressed , their population used for slavery .As an small example , King James I in 1612, gave permission to collect and sell the captive Irish soldiers as slaves, thats only the pick of the iceberg.This story of Britain and their monarchs would be too long.
Least to say the few countries left in the commonwealth. During the reign of Elisabeth I , 17 countries resign .The colonies where , luckily ,dismantling, leaving a brutal trail of suffering robbery and abuse on the population.Yes it’s history.
But , to support this new king? this same monarchy , whose wealth is obscene and still preserves feudal privileges over the land they own.
In a democracy of the XXIst C .
King Charles will be the Head of State for 14 countries,Why ?
He is certainly not his mother. She was born in a different time and age.
Nowadays they are extravagant and entitled , with the country in a profound economical crisis, and citizens having to pay for the show, wether you like it or not.
Also , people forget the oath of allegiance in this act ,to all subjects, is compulsory .That means you are complying to the monarch and head of the Church of England .This latter, thus not accepting other religions , In spite of the sheer make up of the scene , inviting other religious leaders in the ceremony .Do not forget the king , will be promising to defend the former Protestant religion, because he is “ the head and protector “ of the Church of England
I know right, I managed to not watch one single minute of this waste of time and money.
Like the Dinosaur royalty should be a thing of the past.
Some people think tradition is important.
@@echelon2k8 Tradition is another way of saying "no change" which is against all the laws of creation. Change is one of the few constants in our universe.
@@victorseal9047 Who said that tradition has to mean no change? Did you even watch the coronation? A tradition is just something that is passed down with a symbolic meaning or special significance for a particular people. That doesn't mean that its meaning or significance doesn't or can't change over time.
@@echelon2k8 Tradition has an underlying effect of keeping one’s focus on the passed, I liken it to looking into the rear view mirror for too long instead of observing the road ahead.
Also, the days of a monarch on horseback leading an army in battle has long since faded into obscurity, the need for a King or Queen is long gone. So why do we still have one ? We are all kings and queens of our lives we do not need to search outside of ourselves for someone to look up to.
I'm trying to understand the difference between tradition and invented tradition. Surely all tradition is invented tradition, making the use of "invented" incredibly redundant. Yet, it's used several times throughout this video. And so if we understand that the use of "Invented tradition" is redundant, we have to consider why it would be used at all, because whilst I'm certainly not for a monarchy, if I were to make the most subtle of attempts to turn people against it, using phrases like "invented tradition" would be a way I might go.
The distinction I see it is that some things unconsciously become traditional because they're inherently cultural. Whereas other things become traditional because a few people sat down and said "let's establish a tradition".
@@django3422 inherently consciously? But it had to be become a 'Tradition'' somewhere a long the line. So then or now someone invented it, but the question is why?
The moment someone firss said: The Second Annual......
All things being invented is true in an ontological sense but I think this is more dealing with the fact that people have intentionally top-down introduced false ideas about our history in order to achieve a certain goal. Acknowledging that certain aspects of the way we view our nation and history are made up, we can ask why they are, what actually happened, and whether this narrative is useful or not.
@@joycezaaraoui4621 exactly
Broken Britain
If only more people of his age were as nuanced as he is.
There are, if only more of the media produced that content.
Are they not?
Clinging on to the past. The UK never moves forward but instead dwell on the past.
What does it all mean; the Crown, and the Orb, and the Sceptre and the Sword of State, and the Cap of Maintenance, and the rest of the jewelled symbols?
What does it mean: the swelling Anthem, the mumbled prayer, the intoned exhortation, the anointing with oil, the Crowning and Enthronisation?
What does it mean: the barbaric pomp and splendour, the lavish display of wealth, the clank of arms and armour and the jingle of spurs, the foregathering from the ends of the earth of the Empire’s rulers?
What does it mean: the flaunting flags, the streets lined with police and military, the hoarse acclamation of millions?
As unknowing children, we are told by our traitorous and deceitful teachers that these gaudy jewels, this “impressive service”, are full of some magical symbolism and historic significance. They are indeed. To the worker who will think it is very obvious that the Crown and the Sceptre and the rest are the symbols of ruling power. But who it is that rules, and who it is that are ruled, are matters less generally understood and definitely never explained to us by these duplicitous teachers and alleged educationalists whose actual task is to mystify, confuse and stupefy the young minds of the future wage slaves. In other words, to accomplish the precise opposite of their alleged intention to enlighten these impressionable young minds.
It is commonly believed that “royal” power is the attribute of the monarch of a constitutional country, but nothing could be farther from the truth. That question our capitalist masters in this country fought out many years ago. They have left the King his name and his robes, his Crown and his palaces, but they have stripped him of every vestige of power. The “Crown” is not the King, in any capacity, but the capitalist State. The King’s Speech to Parliament is written by his Ministers, even the prerogative of mercy is not the King’s, but belongs to the capitalist Cabinet.
The aim of the master class is to keep worker ignorant, for an ignorant subject class, not knowing how to act in their own interests, can be more easily and inexpensively kept in subjection than an educated one. In fostering this ignorance, the first thing to be done is to preserve the inertia of the mind - the tendency of the mind to run in an unchanging direction.
The capitalist class is fully aware that it is a changing environment that causes the alteration in the mental outlook of the people. Their great endeavour, therefore, is to oppose the continual evolution in the world about them, over which they have no control, counteracting conditions and influences. Hence they cling with the tenacity of desperation, to the empty husks and decaying forms of the past.
This can be seen in every dominant interest, since every interest, when it has become dominant, becomes conservative and reactionary. It explains why the Catholic Church clings so frantically to its out-of-date forms, why the Anglican and other Churches set their faces so relentlessly against innovation, and why capitalist countries would rather convert their monarchies to their own ends than abolish them.
I couldn't have said it better myself
Well said!
Human Rights Watch slammed Saturday's arrest by UK police of protesters at the coronation of King Charles III as "incredibly alarming".
"This is something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London," the campaign group said, attacking the UK government for its "increasingly averse" stance on public demonstrations.
@@cdean2789Hundreds of protestors protested noisily but peacefully and were left alone to do so, waving their placards and banners. There were some arrests based on intelligence and the few who behaved in such a way as to warrant it. It should be understood that public safety is important where there is a crowd, where there are hundreds of horses, that we live in an age of aggressive protest and terrorism. There is also the matter of security for hundreds of international political and non political heads of state and state representatives. The police have to strike a balance between legitimate security concerns, public safety, the right to free speech and the right to peaceful demonstration...not an easy feat. There will be investigations on whether the action was the right call based on the evidence. It has been well publicised. The demonstrators overall were able to make their protest without the police shutting it down, so there was no major plot to remove all protestors or silence the Republican movement.
Give me a break ! The overall expenses for the coronation and other solemnities are less than Macron's official journeys and inauguration ceremonies during the same period, and the British monarchy's expense list is less than the Elysee's.
I was a lucky lad to watch the King's funeral on our TV and then the subsequent coronation in '53. Now I am pleased I do not possess an idiot box.
The idea that Brexit was an attempt to form a new British identity is absolutely ridiculous. Brexit was an English nationalist cause, and definitely not a British one. With Scotland and Northern Ireland voting overwhelmingly against and Welsh born people in Wales also voting majority against (though English voters in Wales tipped the balance), Brexit cannot remotely be described as a British ideology.
Another example of someone from the English elite conflating Britain with England. Obnoxious stuff. Just proves you only need to be posh for people to assume you know what you are talking about.
considering that people keep throwing eggs at him..is asking people to pledge allegiance to the crown a little bit of bad judgement
What is this pledge stuff? I thought it was a furniture polish. Catch me making an oath (like I did without thinking in the Cubs).
Only if you consider the egg tossers "people." They certainly aren't Subjects.
I wanted to demand. So things are getting better.
I prefer the World and the Country in the time of the Queen Elizabeth 2nd Coronation.
Is channel 4 a little jealous that it didn't get to broadcast the coronation?
Channel 4 hates England
No we don't want or need them...
Don’t care, never cared, will never care. Next.
😆😆😆 Haha! A CORONATION?!
SUCH A 🎉🎉SILLY THING🥳🥳
in this day and age!🤣🤣🤣🤣
All traditions are invented.😏
But the British taxpayer is Being forced to pay for something when they can’t even afford to eat and heat their own homes. For a man who has trillions - that makes sense?
Exactly between him and sunak and the rest of them they could have paid for it themselves. You wait, next thing will be there is no money for the nhs! 😠
The royal family were supposed to be justified by being different and better than ordinary people now that they make it clear they are ordinary why should we look up to them
But... why do you say that Charless is the first post-imperial coronation?
The Balfour Declaration practically created the Commonwealth way before Elizabeth's coronation.
A monarchy is great but nut the size!
This coronation is costing so much when people, the "Kings" people are struggling.
Would it not have been better to down size so no to need 29000 police officers and a gold, air conditioned carriage?
Just a thought 🤔
The coronation will bring in around 1 billion to the uk economy we are going to make money from this
The carriage isn’t new its years old one over 300 years old most of the cost is the security costs
Where do you get the "We" from ????@@missclaire4820
Good to hear that in the U.K.,country of unaffordable houses,inflation,cost of living crisis,inequality ….that the peasant are having to give Charles a 45% pay increase in 2025,raising the Sovereign Grant from £86.3m to £125 m a year. All that for a family from Germany,called Saxe-Cobourg-Gothe, who changed it to Windsor.
If Hitler had changed his name to Adolf Windsor he'd been OK. 😛
Away with the Monarchy.
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn doesn't sound like a bad thing... nothing lasts forever, where is atlantis... where is the Roman or Babylonian empires... they said that Hitler wanted to build the fourth reigh but isn't that what the British empire was...?
@@ApisVenandi Well, first off, the British Empire is a legend. The legend of all legends. Legends never die. There is a quote, "No. The legend must live."
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn there's a quote older people use for kidz "grow up".
@@ApisVenandi There's a quote we all use, "Never judge a book by its cover", which you currently are doing. Any mature person knows the British Empire is a legend, only the immature will think the British Empire is someone who deserves to die, as legends never die.
“Its been 70 years since the last coronation … that means many of us have never witnessed a coronation.” … you don’t say? The host may actually want to get more adventurous and state rhetorical obvious, “most of us”
(Cost Of Living) Crisis ? What (Cost Of Living) Crisis ?
The King and his family should be politely but firmly removed from their houses, and put out onto the street. All moneys and lands they currently own should be confiscated for the British people. They can then discover what it is like to live in a council house and live on benefits. #NotMyKing
No chance of a Council House ~ they've all been given to illegal immigrants.
And then, homeless people will then obtain all of their money, houses, and lands, and can then discover what it is like to live rich and powerful, looks like we've got a The Prince and The Pauper situation, where the rich get to live on food stamps and welfare while the poor get to have a luxurious lifestyle, eventually, they will reach a punchline of Aesop where you need to be grateful on what you have.
Was expecting anti British hatred from C4. But this guy was very knowledgeable and spoke reasonable.
It's a tourist event... Charles is the simply a caricature, just the latest Disney character, the latest Shrek (inc big ears..)
and camillas horseface and did u see kates glare on today ,same glare she has when meghsn markle is around ,they all looked really uncomfortable
Charlie needs to get some glasses ~ He's already got the funny nose !!! 🤓
Lot of comments almost unhinged.
That's hysterical. An air-conditioned horse-drawn carriage
ridiculous
@theperson nextdoor That would be the heater... ice bucket & a fan for cooling?
What do we learn from this? When you sit in a distance of 5 cm (2 inches for the Brits...and Americans) in front of your PC-camera, make sure there is nothing around your nose.
Or have an editor/producer to adjust the camera position before continuing...really funky production.
most based video title ever
If NO monarchy the BRITISH ECONOMY would collapse, 😂 no free money will come into the country..
😂🤣
As Britain will be governed by a provisional government, followed by the rise of communist parties, turning the ex-UK into a USSR of the West.
Correction: the crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother will be used to crown Camilla but without the Koh-i-Noor diamond which has been removed and replaced by another one.
False it has been said on several occasions that Camella has chosen the queen Mary crown
@@oneileo66 That's right - Queen Mary's crown was used but they could have removed the Kohinoor diamond from Queen Elizabeth's crown quite easily and replaced it with another if they had been minded to. I wonder why they did not.
@@MrBulky992 it was Camella choice to use queen Mary's Crown . I like it too as it fits her .
#notMyKing
I believe the same money should have been used towards pay rises or food banks. The people are suffering because of inflation and some monarchs who’ve colonised, has blood on their hands are enjoying the moment
Only three in 10 Britons think the monarchy is “very important”, the lowest proportion on record, a poll shows as the king’s coronation approaches.
Great event, long live the King. Never mind C4.
Clearly, you didn't watch the video.
always check you nose before you put a camera in it.👃
Long Live The British Monarchy!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
No.
Chanel 4 : you can do better than this. Tell us what goes back to William the Conc and why it is still important to save us from becoming a Republic which could show case unimpeded demagogs….
So may other commentators out there
‘Tell me what I want to hear or I will be mad’
Excellent!
The interviewer is asking all the rite questions an the historian is answering them all with aplomb.
Were supposed to get excited about this pantomime all a joke 😂😂😂😂
Bring back the fire and brimstone verse in the national anthem...
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God, save us all!
If 2016 showed us anything it's that the British people can't be trusted to vote in their own interest and shouldn't vote for a head of state. Until that changes... Long live the monarchy!
Because such an important role should naturally not be chosen by the people subject to the rules but should instead by chosen by the much more reasonable process of uhh… completely at random, to a person literally above the law for their whole life
Getting rid of the longest reigning monarchy ends the 20th century
The King has no clothes
It's a shame that Jimmy and Jeffery can't be there!
Andrew made it
Tee hee.👍🏻
Tried watching it but it’s hard with the boogers in his nose. I am sure thr interviewer didn’t see but when editing I am sure they could have been edited out
Absolutely amazing to witness history. So very well done by everyone. Congrats to all the Armed forces.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
did you enjoy crowning your German king?
@@relentless1989 please please don't lump us English into one group, many of us are not royalists, I myself did not watch one minute of this rediculas waste of money.
………..21st century…….and the army parades for the kings birthday !!!!
Can't wait for "Coronation Street ll, The revenge of Charles ".
For release soon in a television near you.
I hope it's not too soon. We can't afford it
The Brits still haven't learned what the French learned centuries ago about where monarchs belong
They actually came up with the idea first in 1649, but it didn't go so well.
Yea and that Revolution went so horible that the people welcomed the Bourbons back with open arms after napoleons defeat
Every time you say British it makes my skin crawl! I'm Scottish not British.😡
You live on an island called Great Britain hence you are British.
Great
Imagine what the Welsh think of the Prince of Wales
@@CB-fz3li are you by any chance living in England?
" I REVERE ISLAM AND INTEND TO BE KING OF ALL THE FAITHS, WE NEED TO BE MORE WELCOMING.". Traitor King Charles ( Feb 2023) 😢
Disney for adults
No propaganda here folks
Trust the media with all your heart
This person is wrong, in Spain there are coronations and the last one was just a few years ago.
and this the monarchy is a proud part of uk history really please make sense of it.
Circus is comming to town.
Why does Charlie get to be the king? I didn't vote for him!
Because 1000 years ago his ancestor won a battle.
@@JoelJoel321 Just to let you know, it's not a real question... that's a line from Monty Python Quest for the Holy Grail.
@@theylied1776 Ah very good. Not a fan of the film.
He was born his royal highness.
@@IdeologieUK you mean he was inbred.
Luckily Britain still has a monarchy, which means that the stupid electorate doesn't get to vote in a President Trump, Johnson or Truss. We plebeians should be kept out of things.
Such a ridiculous equivalence.
This is genuinely disturbing to read.
@@jamiel6005 there's such a thing as satire...
Because we have seen what disasters the countries without have turned into LONG LIVE THE KING
Have we? Like where?
The U.K. will have a lower living standard than Poland in 2024. Grow up and stop keeping your head in the sand.
After brexit we are worse off
Whoever still thinks the monarch rules clearly hasnt heen paying attention...
Conspiricattle prattle from a hypocrite. 🤦😂
Your biased title clearly displays where you stand
We have an institution we can evaluate with sense. It is/can be an asset. Or like so much - we can waste it. As Oscar W. said 'nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing' (nb The Guardian). So does the Monarchy contribute to our national constitutional machine - eg a longer term aspect to help with norms of the short -term ( ie the risks of electing a Johnson or Trump)? It's our choice. Added value. The marginal cost is actually very small. Let's not waste it for silliness.
It's very simplistic to cost it in monitory terms, the social cost is complex to calculate. We don't appear to have a written constitution which is becoming increasingly problematic. A national debate is long overdue but the status quo suits the establishment so best not to hold our breath.
@@alexguest6289 Certainly agree on constitution - esp with Rees-Mogg types pressing now buttons. And devolution begs. Agree that cost/ benefit equations will generate many Phds. Like you the complexity jumps out. I react against simplicity eg 'ok - what would you do with it all?'. (Privatise land, sell off to Disneyland, museums or regional / community enterprise..etc etc.. sell off baubles).
As you say - it is complex - and it is history. For me, if history doesn't 'prevent' the future - we can get on with things. Reform takes energy and resource. And I'm dreadfully fond of history ....keeps us away from gaming on the 'net...Thanks for your reponse.
This presentation is remarkable. waiting to read comments. Thank you.
Why does Channel 4 exist?
To educate you
@@cdean2789 In that case I would rather remain uneducated.
Don't forget they're German
So were the Saxons … 🤷🏻♂️
...and?
Yes and no yes because they do decent from the house of Hanover
And no Because
King Charles lll is a Descendant of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland through his grand mother's family the Bowes-Lyons family.
And Prince William is through his Mother a Direct Descendant of both King's Charles II and James II
From the House of Stuart
You could argue that they are more Scottish then german
None of us really know what it must be like for anyone to live in the public eye, including members of the Royal Family. Further, despite the constant artuculation of their immnse privialage and wealth, it certainly can't all be like that and must also have many negaticve aspects. Charles has by no means had a easy life. I always thought that the way in which the Monarchy in Britain is both perc6ived, welcomed and wanted, both in the UK and the Commonwealth, would change uppn the death of Elizabeth. Further, the insitution may not continue in its current structhure and may need drastically slimming down if it is to survive at all. Personnaly, I fail to see how a Constituaional Monarchy, where one human being has been chosen by 'god' to reign over a popluation remains relevant today. That phiñosphy is not the same. Religious beliefe is not the same. The UK is not the same. The Commenwealth is not the same. Whilst the Monarch may well hold the nation together far better than an elected head of state ever could that comes with political neautraility, it is diffcult to see for just how much longer the British Monarchy can continue in its present form for much longer. Garry H.
British Ex Pat.
South Carrolina
RAF Retired
I dont believe you...
King Charles III has inherited assets that have propelled his wealth to almost £2bn, according to extensive research and analysis by the Guardian.
Thank you. Chas betrayed all by not upholding the Anglican Church, solely. Due to the situation with Camilla, he should have been passed over.
Charlie should have abdicated.@@dsoule4902
if you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our club
He made Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs all bow to him can all say what you want but it is what it is they wanted to be part of it then they have to bow
Because Brits acted smartly by luck, not like French, removed crazy Judeo-Mason Oliver Cromwell and restored Stuards.
But anyway France helped Benjamin Franklin & friends by "9 sisters" lodge and Britain lost hegemony to The U.S...
Gawd save the king. I'm not worthy.
wtf is that on his nose?
"I,i,i,now bee careful;
i i i could have you all put in the Tower! "
Down with the Crown ✊️
Did you mean 'down with the CLOWN?'
@@dawm12711 👍👍
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
Because it doesn’t want to turn into Channel 4?
Simple people.
How do you think you have a choice.
Uk is not a Republic
The UK is not a democracy.
Its a Constitutional Monarchy.
The lords own the land you walk on.
The lords own your houses and buildings that everyone are living and working in.
The Duke of Westminster is the youngest billionaire and he owns majority of London.
What makes you think have a Choice in any lawful way.
Like i said simple people.
The Army serves king and country not you.
What army have you got?.
The king serve and protect us the people it is his duty through the Constitution.
We don't serve the King.
Becomes just another irrelevant victim of forced gentrification without its very unique culture. Even the French kick themselves for not holding on to some part of their royal heritage.