Inflation adjusts for the increase in prices for consumers, or in other words what normal households buy. The kinds of costs that a huge public event like a coronation requires will obviously change at a different pace than the costs to a basket of consumer goods.
A coronation costing 2-5 times more nowadays shouldn’t be shocking, even if it’s not more lavish than those before it.
The comments here say it all, lots of good arguments against monarchy (I’m against it as well) but cost isn’t one of them, especially not when the royal family literally generates a profit for the state every year.
We dont really have many pan-British institutions and certainly none as venerable and authoritative as the Monarchy. Beyond Parliament little was actually merged after the Act of Union.
That is what tends to get overlooked when they ask about the function of the Monarchy.
If the Union broke apart, I would support an English republic. But whilst we are a union of countries, an institution that is not simply English does indeed serve a useful symbolic purpose.
Victoria looks very cost efficient.
The real cost of a coronation is that you end up having a king.
What the heck did they do during George IV’s coronation? It seems like an outlier compared to the others that occurred that century and the early 20th. I imagine that King Charles III’s was mostly due to security costs.
What a fucking waste of money for someone who has more money than sense
12 comments
Monarchs suck
Is the extra cost for security or what?
So about 2/3 of the cost of a general election? Seems like a sweet deal compared to having an elected president.
Onlyfans simps are nothign compared to whole nation simping to some random grandpa, lol.
So around a pound a person…
I’m very much opposed to monarchism but this is not a fair comparison without understanding context.
The British [economy quadrupled](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?locations=GB) when adjusted for inflation since 1960 and [GDP per capita tripled](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=GB).
Inflation adjusts for the increase in prices for consumers, or in other words what normal households buy. The kinds of costs that a huge public event like a coronation requires will obviously change at a different pace than the costs to a basket of consumer goods.
A coronation costing 2-5 times more nowadays shouldn’t be shocking, even if it’s not more lavish than those before it.
The comments here say it all, lots of good arguments against monarchy (I’m against it as well) but cost isn’t one of them, especially not when the royal family literally generates a profit for the state every year.
We dont really have many pan-British institutions and certainly none as venerable and authoritative as the Monarchy. Beyond Parliament little was actually merged after the Act of Union.
That is what tends to get overlooked when they ask about the function of the Monarchy.
If the Union broke apart, I would support an English republic. But whilst we are a union of countries, an institution that is not simply English does indeed serve a useful symbolic purpose.
Victoria looks very cost efficient.
The real cost of a coronation is that you end up having a king.
What the heck did they do during George IV’s coronation? It seems like an outlier compared to the others that occurred that century and the early 20th. I imagine that King Charles III’s was mostly due to security costs.
What a fucking waste of money for someone who has more money than sense