Scobie: No plans for an ‘extravagant’ coronation or Prince of Wales investiture

Since the end of the official mourning period for the Windsors, there’s been a noticeable shift – basically, we’ve only seen King Charles and the new Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales. How long do you think KC3 will be able to keep this up, just keeping the “focus” on himself, his heir and his heir’s wife? Not very long, especially since this family spent the entire month, the entire year and the past four years scapegoating Harry and Meghan for everything. Still, the conversation is about the “slimmed down monarchy” and how there are fewer people in all of these royal residences. Omid Scobie’s Yahoo UK column this week is about how William, Kate and Charles must be smart about excess and the appearance of luxury, ostentation and waste, especially as it appears like the UK is entering a pretty brutal recession:

Little fanfare in Wales: When William and Kate arrived in Anglesey for their first official visit to the country as the newly-minted Prince and Princess of Wales, there was little fanfare as they chatted to locals on the small, rural island they once called home. The day of engagements, Kensington Palace told us, was a chance for the couple to focus on “deepening the trust and respect of the people of Wales” after taking on their new titles.

The Prince of Wales investiture: Alongside the visit also came word from officials that William has no plans to carry out the same extravagant investiture his father did when he became the Prince of Wales in 1969. The news was enthusiastically welcomed by people in Wales, who remember all too well the over-the-top ceremony at Caernarfon Castle which saw the Queen place a gold coronet on Charles’ head and drape grand robes around his shoulders. During a time of economic struggles in the country, it was so poorly received that there were protests and even a bomb plot.

Middle class monarchy: Images of Royal Family’s ostentatious display of wealth and power is a moment no one is looking to repeat. And with the UK’s ongoing cost of living crisis—which this week saw the Bank of England warn of a “significant” interest rate rise and the British pound hitting a record low against the US dollar—cutting back on unnecessary frills and faff should be part of a concerted effort to ensure that the monarchy does not seem grossly out of touch.

Slimmed down monarchy: We are only days into a new regency and already that slimmed down “modern” monarchy King Charles III dreamed of creating is becoming a reality. A more nimble line-up with a hard focus on connecting rather than alienating people across the UK. Charles and the rest of the family have the opportunity to truly modernise The Firm if they listen to what the public tells them.

KC3’s coronation: Plans for a “mindful” and “pared down” coronation have long been in the works for the new king, I’m told, which is said to be scheduled for late spring next year. Far from the majestic scenes of Queen Elizabeth II arriving at Westminster Abbey in a golden carriage for a three-hour spectacle (costing £1.57 million—the equivalent of £43 million today), those on various iterations of planning committees for King Charles’ coronation have always discussed the importance of keeping his ceremony simple. And not just for the sake of cost. As a less popular monarch than his mother, the public interest in such an occasion will be far from the nationwide excitement felt when the Imperial State Crown was placed on the head of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.

Charles has requested some stuff be removed from his coronation: With the country currently on the brink of recession, the optics of anything more than a symbolic swearing-in ceremony would only do harm to any legacy King Charles III hopes to create. “There are many elements that [Charles] himself has requested be removed to ensure that it’s kept simple,” a senior royal source told me earlier this year. “He is aware that it needs to be mindful and in touch.”

[From Yahoo UK]

Scobie also mentions that Kate referenced the “cost of living crisis” while they were in Wales this week. Which, as I said previously, isn’t actually coming across the way they hoped? We know about Kate’s endless new coats, her four homes and the fact that she’s moving into Windsor Castle. Instead of trying to *appear* like they understand the economic realities of modern Britain, perhaps they could actually live less excessive lives? Charles has all of this royal estate now, perhaps it’s time to turn a lot of those palaces and castles into museums? I also wonder if paring down the glamour and excess will leave KC’s coronation looking pretty dull. I mean, he already *owns* the gold carriage. It’s not like he has to buy one. He just has to take it out of storage. Therein lies the rub, though – it’s not as if anyone in this family would actually donate all of the gold carriages and blood diamonds they stole from centuries of pillaging, racism and colonialism. So their solution is “don’t remind people about how much we stole and how much we have.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

78 Responses to “Scobie: No plans for an ‘extravagant’ coronation or Prince of Wales investiture”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. girl_ninja says:

    I read this yesterday and thought this is best decision. Even if they weren’t going through a hard core recession in the UK, it would be so tone-deaf to have an extravagant coronation. These people are so out of touch and stupid that don’t really comprehend the need for more than just symbolism. Why not give some of your millions away? Why not turn some of those musty, dusty castles into museums? DO. SOMETHING to help the people. Bum.

    • Steph says:

      How would turning some of the real estate into museums help the people? Wouldn’t that just fill Charles’ pockets even more?

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know if the royals get money directly from organizations like the Royal Collection trust (which is where you buy your tickets for Windsor, Holyroodhouse, etc) or Historical Royal Palaces (Tower of London, Hampton Court, Kensington etc). I’m not sure how that funding works. My impression is that the ticket sales etc just go straight towards maintaining the property, paying salaries, preparing exhibits, etc. but maybe there is profit that goes to the monarch?

      • Steph says:

        Oh! I thought we were talking about the privately owned properties. If I had those properties with their history, I’d turn it into a museum too and all the proceeds would go to a charity in the community the property is in.
        By proceeds, I mean after overhead. I would still own them but also give back to the people in a meaningful tangible way.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Steph oh we are! at least I think we are, lol. But I sort of assumed that Charles wouldn’t just turn Sandringham into a museum, he’d donate it to something like the RCT or HRP. Maybe he would just keep it as part of his personal property and manage it accordingly and pocket any profits.

        Frankly I think he should turn Sandringham and Balmoral into hotels. Imagine how much people would pay to stay there and pretend to be royal, lol. Or have a wedding there.

    • C-Shell says:

      When I read this last night, I shook my head — CIII surely doesn’t want to throw a big coronation and no one cares, lightly attended, protests #notmyking. The Wailses, same. These people are not loved. I s’pose it would never occur to them to actually postpone the ceremonies indefinitely until Britain’s dire straits are improved. 🙄

    • Nevia says:

      I thought he wanted to turn Balmoral into a museum.

    • Carrot says:

      girl_ninja makes a really important point again! that these people are wasteful. They never use their tremendous resources to benefit anyone but themselves. For example, where are the [true] stories of Kate even once giving to or elevating someone else other than Middletons?

      A portion of Versailles was repurposed into a rather nice hotel with restaurants and activities. There’s no reason not to do the same with Buckingham palace

      And why Sovereign Grant still, at all?

  2. Brassy Rebel says:

    This is a rare clunker from Scobie. These people are going to appear “grossly out of touch” no matter what they do because they’re only changing optics, not substance. And W&K’s non-ostentatios trip to Wales wasn’t about being thrifty. It was about not triggering protests and boos. Do better, Omid.

  3. equality says:

    But the argument for monarchy is that these extravagant ceremonies bring in tourism. So if they aren’t doing that, what other argument do you have to keep them? It’s not like they greet tourists at the castle doors or coming off planes to stimulate interest in tourism. They are afraid of how many people would show up with “not my king” signs and protesting even keeping the POW title.

    • Cessily says:

      No one I know will travel there again. I don’t even schedule layovers in that country anymore because it is such a nightmare since they inflicted Brexit on the subjects. Several of my very close friends have lived there in the past and will never return because it is such a mess. So they can stop the tourism narratives which is a joke. I feel sorry for those trapped there with little to no voice, but as for the rest of the people they are getting the economy and isolation they wanted and deserve. Maybe with the free fall of the £ the tabloids and rats will all be bankrupt soon.

      • Nevia says:

        I, for one, adore London (and the whole country, for that matter). But ONLY as a tourist. I’m always eager to visit again bc there are still so many places and things I haven’t seen/experienced. But that’s it.

      • EBS says:

        I mean, no one has to travel here, for whatever reason you choose, and Heathrow is certainly a nightmare. Our economy is a mess and there’s a cost of living crisis, and both of those things are definitely worse because of Brexit, which affects residents. But it isn’t a worse experience for tourists than it was pre-Brexit – all of the attractions, shops, restaurants etc are still there. If anything, it’s much more pleasant as your US dollar buys a heck of a lot more than it used to.

    • CC says:

      Are ceremonies themselves bringing in tourists? Was there a large influx of last minute international visitors after Elizabeth’s death was announced? Quick, someone make a pie chart about it.

    • Beverley says:

      Salt Island was on my bucket list, but no more. Since the RF and the British press continue to insist that their objection with Meghan is that she’s American, this Black American will never spend one thin dime in that godforsaken kingdom. You can’t show your entire ass, yet still expect the American tourist dollar.

      • Christine says:

        I’m planning a trip to Ireland. Beautiful and just coming out of the hell “Great” Britain inflicted on them for centuries.

    • Princessk says:

      I actually disagree. People turn out for historic events not necessarily because they love the person. Most people attended the spectacle because it was the first state funeral of a monarch in almost 100 years. This coronation is going to be a once in a lifetime for many people to witness. I want to see what happens, gold carriage and all.

  4. Cessily says:

    Hopefully by spring with the free fall of the British economy people there will wake up and abolish the monarchy and evict these people once and for all. They do nothing for the charities they claim to represent and they are a burden to a failing country. The empire is gone it isn’t ever coming back, and should never have been something to revere in the first place.

  5. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    #PerformativeFrugality

    • SAS says:

      Ha! Too true. Imagine how much Kate could raise by auctioning 50 of her 150 coat dresses. Imagine how much she could further raise by donating her clothing allowance and not purchasing anything new for a year.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Isn’t that what Diana did to raise money for her charities? She auctioned off her evening gowns?

      • CourtneyB says:

        Yes she did. And there was a history of similar behaviors from queens Alexandra and Mary. They donated necklaces, rings, brooches, handmade (by themselves in some cases) laces and embroidery, etc for charity sales ALL THE TIME. Queen Mary’s mother and Queen Mary were driving forces in the Needlework Guild which got practical clothing and footwear from aristocrats and nobles (and every day people) for donation. And just look up queen Mary’s carpet which she embroidered and which raised thousands of pounds for charity. In modernizing there could be benefit it looking backwards.

      • PrincessK says:

        Nobody will buy Kate’s clothing, she should not bother. Now if it was Meghan…..

    • Becks1 says:

      EXCELLENT term, love it. And it really nails the situation here.

      @SAS – I don’t know. How much interest is there in what Kate has worn? I could see her getting money maybe for what she wore for George’s baptism, or her blue engagement dress, and I know there are always people who will buy something bc of “royalty” but I cant think of something she has worn that is SO iconic that people would be willing to shell out significant money for it.

  6. A says:

    Chaz might say he wants a simpler coronation and be willing to keep most of his ermine and velvet in mothballs but I bet you couldn’t get the Kohinoor off Camilla’s head with a pry bar.

    • SophieJara says:

      YES. All this because they’re some of the colonial pillaging billionaires that people will come for first. I think this fake placation of the peasants is really a performance for the other billionaires, that they know not to overplay their hand and upset the haycart.

      • SarahCS says:

        Hard agree with both of you. Whether they show it off or not they still have all the looted treasures and goodies from dubious sources. That’s what needs to change, not cutting back a three hour coronation ceremony.

        I don’t think we’re anywhere near getting rid of them yet but I do hope William will be the last. He’s likely to come in with all the gold and jewels swinging (literally and metaphorically) and hopefully that will be the last straw for the country.

    • Andie says:

      Honestly this changeover from QE, crowned in the 1950’s, to Charles (born in the 1950’s) is such a missed opportunity for modernization and change within the Royal family and establishment. I thought they were holding on to certain things in the name of tradition, basically because the queen was so old. But it turns out that Charles is just as much an out of touch, entitled fusspot as she was (only arguably she had the justification of her age and her looooong career, where he has none.)

      Imagine if they donated some of their vast lands, vast amounts of money, turned some of their many properties into museums like someone suggested re: Balmoral. Returned their stolen jewels and artifacts (they will still have plenty!) They would still be beyond set as far as wealth and all their foreseeable generations to come. But no. Greedy grubby king red hands prevails 👀

    • Jais says:

      Charles is saying it will be scaled down but I’ll believe when it happens. I just don’t think he can help himself after waiting so long. He’ll scale down a few things and have it repeated over and over again by the usual RR hagiographers. But it’ll still be a fancy ass coronation and he will not be able to fully curb his indulgences. This almost seemed like a warning from Scobie, as in Charles needs to follow through and back up what he’s currently saying.

    • PrincessK says:

      I want to see ermine and velvet….

  7. Mslove says:

    Sure, let’s scale down the coronation and re-wear our designer clothes to fool the peasants into thinking the RF has suddenly become a family of penny-pinchers, lol.

  8. Noki says:

    So Camilla has quite the cozy set up. She has her own home to go back, she doesnt even have to be around this foolishness if she doesnt want to. I thought she lived in Clarence House.

    • sparrow says:

      It certainly is cosy, Noki; you could almost say she is one foot in, one foot out of royal life! I am sure there will be huge security around Camilla, including her separate home and separate travel to be with Charles when needed. All of this will probably fly under the official financial record. I was shocked when I found out she had maintained a separate home.

  9. OzJennifer says:

    I have zero interest in any of this frippery – as long as the coronation and PoW investiture doesn’t purposely clash with Invictus they can play dress-ups all they like.

    • Steph says:

      They’d be stupid to have the coronation or investiture at the same time as IG. It would get absolutely zero coverage.

      • OzJennifer says:

        I’m not sure that they wouldn’t do it out of spite, and as a way of “overshadowing” Harry’s success. Maybe I’m too cynical! We’ll see.

    • Amy Bee says:

      The next Invictus Games is in September around Harry’s birthday. The coronation is scheduled to be in Spring so there won’t be a clash. I don’t think an investiture is going to happen.

      • Boxy Lady says:

        Harry and Meghan’s wedding anniversary is in May, which is spring. I bet they schedule the coronation around then to force Harry to choose between his wife and his father, The King. I wouldn’t put it past them to do something like that, honestly.

  10. Blithe says:

    So, where’s Camilla?

  11. aquarius64 says:

    The coronation and investiture scream bad optics all around. Worst optics: the Sussexes don’t show up.

    • sparrow says:

      This is a really good point. What now for the coronation. Will the Sussexes be invited? Will they turn it down? What fresh hell of a press storm will Charles unleash either way. He should have let it be with the official government reading in of his kingship. No one in the UK is in the mood for this ceremony; I don’t even think many expected it to happen or remembered it should.

  12. Becks1 says:

    Does anyone really care about his coronation? At this point does it really mean anything? The Queen died, he’s king, the world leaders came to the funeral and met with Charles at a diplomatic reception where presumably at least some figuratively “kissed the ring” and acknowledged him as king. What’s the point of the coronation? I know I know Westminster Abbey tradition etc. But if there is real interest in scaling it back, then probably a starting point is the sheer size of the ceremony. Invite other royal figureheads and UK politicians and that’s it.

    Same with the PoW investiture – what’s the point? he’s the PoW. formal investitures weren’t really thing before, what, the last two PoWs, right? So let’s go back to that.

    • BeanieBean says:

      You forgot the ‘it’s what we Brits do best!’ line. Ceremony! Pomp! Circumstance! Red coats! Dead bears on our heads! Marching bands!

      • windyriver says:

        Speaking of things on heads, what were those helmets that had what looked like mops attached? Either white or red. That group was often (always?) around TQ’s casket. One of the dumbest things I’ve seen.

      • BeanieBean says:

        @windyriver: I just looked those up, because I’ve long wondered about those feather duster things flopping around on top of their heads. Turns out they’re swan feathers (bet they didn’t ask the swans nicely). That’s for the Gentlemen at Arms. Then there’s the Life Guards, who wear white plumes. The Blues & Royals wear red plumes. Both Life Guards and Blues & Royals make up the Household Cavalry. The Gentlemen at Arms make up the largest part of the Body Guard; they’re the one standing closest to the catafalque. They’ve been around since Henry VIII’s time (the organization, not the actual dudes. 😉 ) All these uniforms, at least, date to the Victorian Era and were apparently Albert’s brilliant idea. What a fun rabbit hole!

      • Margaret says:

        @BeanieBean Yes! All those dead bears! By the day of the funeral I was well beyond pomp and ceremony saturation point and I was finding it all just repetitive and tedious. I found myself focusing on the number of men in red uniforms with dead bears on their heads. There were hundreds of them and every one of those caps represents a dead bear. I became more interested in when and how those bears died and where all those bear caps are stored and looked after than anything else.

    • Deb says:

      Becks, I have the same questions. As an American I often get confused between what’s tradition, what’s pomp, what’s required, etc. Are the investitures required to “seal the deal?” Kinda like when we elect a President. Their election in November is a done deal but then they still have to do the swearing in in January. Is it kinda like that?

      • Becks1 says:

        Nope! William is PoW now that Charles has named him PoW. No investiture is required. Charles is king now that his mother is dead. Nothing else is required (Edward VIII, for example, never had a coronation, he was still king.)

  13. Well Wisher says:

    There is not much a head of state can do nor an unwanted prince of wales for the pressing economic crisis that Britons face.
    Barring the differing conditions and years between the two coronations, it was a different era, rationing was a way of life to repay the debt.
    Now the fear of not affording the basics is at the forefront.
    The interest for both ceremonies will be low, even if it becomes about the ?
    Would Harry attend or Meghan included?included?’
    The appetite for watching this will be almost nonexistent if varying situations remain the same as present.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Even a scaled down coronation is going to be seem extravagant. He should just have a regular church service.

    • Feeshalori says:

      I like how the Dutch monarchy does it in an inauguration ceremony. All the royal regalia isn’t even given to or worn by the monarch but just placed on cushions. A much simpler ceremonial since the successor becomes the monarch at the moment the former one dies or abdicate and just needs to be sworn in.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Feeshalori, well, that’s a common sense way to do it; therefore, the brf won’t do it that way.

        Here’s what I think if he really wants to make a statement and show the populace that he cares. Get whatever authority he needs to sell that gold carriage and use the money to fund some things that the government isn’t. How about giving everyone under a certain income MONEY. That should be his coronation.

      • Feeshalori says:

        So much a better way to do it to indicate he knows the pulse of the nation. But l fear Charles wants his extravaganza he’s waited so long for.

  15. Maremotrice says:

    If there is to be a Prince of Wales investiture, does it have to be at Caernafon? Maybe there should be a Eurovision-style bidding process among Wales’s many glorious castles. Or how about the Centre for Alternative Technology?!
    http://www.cat.org.uk

  16. Susan says:

    I’m not one for giving these people compliments but this is at least a *slight* attempt at reading the room unlike the recent past (cough cough Jamaica fiasco). We will see how scaled back things end up being, but for once, they are not making a bad situation worse. So far.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Susan, I think I’ll wait to see what he actually does. He’s going to make some type of splash–he’s waited too long to do anything else (from his perspective).

  17. Elizabeth says:

    They should do what the Dutch Royals did. They had a short ceremony, the King read a speech and the crown sat on a pillow in front of him.

    • Feeshalori says:

      That’s just what l said above, Elizabeth. It’s a “We all know you’re the monarch, let’s just swear you in, you give a speech and be done with it” kind of ceremony. There’s still some pomp and ceremony with jewels and mantles, but no three-hour extravaganza.

  18. Queen Meghan’s Hand says:

    England has terrorized so much of the populated world in the name of this damn crown and I take so much pleasure watching it all fall apart for King Charles.

  19. sparrow says:

    Hi equality. This is meant to post under you, miles upthread! Researchers have proved that the royal family does not bring in tourism, and that people visit London and the UK despite them. Just a much repeated lie put out by the monarchy and Little Englanders. I’ve never heard of anyone visiting here to go see the royal sites. Maybe it’s part of a bus tour of London in general. Have you/your family or any posters come over here just to see the royal palaces? I’d be interested to know.

    • Auntie Anne says:

      Not just to see the royal palaces, no. But I toured Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court, Windsor Castle and the Tower of London when I visited England two years ago. I’m a huge history buff, and wanted to see all the places I’d read about. Now, I saw a whole lot more than just the royal sites, and loved every minute of the two weeks I spent in southern England. For me, seeing all those places helped me understand the history better.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the history may bring in tourists, but not the royal family themselves? Like, we went there last summer, and yes we saw the Tower of London and Windsor Castle, but that was for the history, not bc I was hoping to get a glimpse of the Queen, you know? It’s not like you get to see any of the personal rooms at Windsor lol or anything beyond the really formal rooms, so while it was fascinating to see from a historical perspective, it wasn’t that interesting from a “ooh royals!” perspective. And obviously no royals are at the Tower and none live at places like Hampton court.

      Versailles gets more tourists and there hasn’t been a royal family there for 200 years, soooo….I think the royals could leave and people would still go.

    • Lizzie says:

      Much it’s been proven like the rf bring little to no money or interest to their patronages. Another lie the tell.

    • equality says:

      Haven’t been to the UK. Scotland would interest me more for the countryside because pictures of Scotland look amazing. The same with England. I would be more interested in seeing the country/natural areas than in the cities. I wouldn’t be expecting to or interested in seeing the RF.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      When tourists pay for a ticket to tour Buckingham Palace or one of their other palaces, the royal fam keep that money, and as such it goes straight into the offshore tax evasion slush fund, and never benefits the real British economy or working people in any way.

      I’m tremendously cynical about Chuck’s plans for Balmoral, making it into a museum, or turning it over to public. Betcha a million billion bucks that if that goes ahead, it’ll be a deal for royals to continue having exclusive use, whilst taxpayer picks up the bills. Even regarding Balmoral and Sandringham as ‘private’ is shady, when they were bought using public money in the 19th century.

  20. Sunday says:

    How is Omid still parroting all their ‘slimmed down monarchy’ bs when it doesn’t actually mean anything if they’re receiving the same amount of money? Like, it’s actually worse if the same amount of money is being spread among fewer people. They actually spent MORE money on the last budget, so all this “wow, look at the slimmed down monarchy! they’re really doing it!” is baffling to me.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      Charles has put the pressure on for the royals to keep the whole of the proceeds of the Crown Estates, and not have to return any to the state. Grasping twat just wants to keep more for himself, no damns given about saving public money.

  21. Over it says:

    I pity the poor soul that has to tell Kate that she has to tone down wearing the queens jewelry.
    Also does a recession mean Willy and Katie will stop using helicopters like most people use their cars? No you say, okay just thought I would ask.

  22. Mina says:

    Out of curiosity, if they “slim” down the monarchy are the royals who are no longer part of the new version of the monarchy get any stipend?

    I know Harry and Meghan don’t; but does Andrew? How about his daughters?

    Asking because if they still get some stipend/ or allowance while they don’t do actual work makes it just hypocrite the whole concept of slimming down the monarchy. And I bet these people always will get a hand on tax payers money.

    Is just disgusting how many are struggling and how much just one family has.

  23. nutella toast says:

    Whelp, William just got saved from learning Welsh LOL. I don’t think for one minute it’s about not walking around in robes or whatever – William is absolutely down for that. I think it’s that he would have had to learn Welsh (work ya’ll) and would be booed and called-out – he decided to frame it as austerity, but I call BS.

  24. Krity says:

    Never forget: the coronet QEII put on Charles at his PoW investiture included a golden orb on it–which was actually a gold-painted ping pong ball.