As the United Kingdom (UK) grapples with a cost-of-living crisis and widespread strikes over pay, some Britons are questioning why they have to pay for King Charles III's extravagant coronation ceremony on Saturday. The actual cost of the coronation has not been disclosed and is not expected to be made public until after the event. Nevertheless, estimates suggest the cost could be as high as £100 million, not including the cost of providing extensive security measures.
An April YouGov poll indicated that 51% of respondents believed that taxpayers should not fund the coronation ceremony to crown Charles and Camilla, as the royal family has previously donated undisclosed sums to charity. Some members of the public feel that the lavish ceremony is in stark contrast to the struggles of ordinary Britons who are finding it challenging to make ends meet.
Despite the opposition, Buckingham Palace has stated that "efficiencies" have been made, including reusing ceremonial elements rather than commissioning new ones. Compared to the 8,000 guests who attended Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953, only 2,300 people will be present for Charles III's ceremony. The British Beer and Pub Association predicts that the coronation will generate an extra £120 million for pubs across the country, while the hospitality industry also expects a significant boost.
Anti-monarchy activist Graham Smith has called the coronation a "slap in the face for millions of people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis." Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace maintains that a national event of this magnitude attracts "huge global interest" and generates more revenue than it costs. The debate over whether taxpayers should bear the cost of the coronation ceremony continues to rage.