Is it right to spend £8 million of public money on a photograph of King Charles?

[Angela Channing]

In the UK, as in many part of the world, there is a cost of living crisis. Around 17% of people here are in absolute poverty (government figures) and according to UNICEF child poverty levels amongst the worst of world’s richest nations. The Conservative Government think instead of using £8 million pounds to address some of these issues, the money is better spent to fund providing photographs of Charles for schools and other public buildings. It's a colossal waste of money at any time but particularly now when money is so tight.

The photo they have chosen shows Charles wearing too few medals considering how valiantly he fought in zero wars and all his military service was in non-combat roles. Just imagine how many medals an actual veteran would have.

King's portrait for public buildings unveiled

Public authorities, including schools and councils, can request a free, framed photograph of the King.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Karin]

Sounds really expensive. But then again the photo can be ordered for free by the people. So I guess the British tax payers gets something back for their money. But I agree the money could be better spent!

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of King Charles, the way he treated Princess Diana particularly irks me.

I'm not interested in acquiring this photograph and the price of having it set up and taken beggars belief.

My allegiance will always be with his mother, Queen Elizabeth II who will always and forever be my Queen.

 

[anndra w]

I guess it is a waste of money - but keep wasting money on him is what I say. He’s not a popular King despite the way the media now treats him as a kind, caring figure worthy of our respect - so I think any waste of money helps to build dissatisfaction with the institution itself which ultimately weakens it for the future. My concern is that the popularity of William, who is meant to be pretty short tempered, despite the nice guy media portrayal, will shore support for the monarchy when he becomes king.

 

[Angela Channing]

I guess it is a waste of money - but keep wasting money on him is what I say. He’s not a popular King despite the way the media now treats him as a kind, caring figure worthy of our respect - so I think any waste of money helps to build dissatisfaction with the institution itself which ultimately weakens it for the future. My concern is that the popularity of William, who is meant to be pretty short tempered, despite the nice guy media portrayal, will shore support for the monarchy when he becomes king.

William is only popular with an ever shrinking group of people (mainly old white Britons). In the Caribbean, for example, his last visit went down with the locals like a bowl of cold vomit and was widely considered to be a disaster. He and his work-shy wife were booed when they went to the USA and their public appearances in the UK are often greeted with protests or apathy. They wasted £5.5 million of taxpayers money refurbishing their home in Kensington Palace before promptly moving to another house in Berkshire. Their constant taking the pee with our money will only erode their popularity.

I think Willie is only popular in comparison to the rest of the Royal parasites. In fact, the popularity of the whole family is on the wane and more than three quarters of people under 25 are not interested in the monarchy. This bodes well for people who believe in the UK becoming a true democracy because by the time Willie becomes King the public will not want him.

 

[Biggie]

The photo they have chosen shows Charles wearing too few medals

I doubt that you and the hoi polloi (including me) have a working understanding of how and why and the circumstances that need to be satisficed to be awarded a medal. How do we know whether or not the medal that have been pinned to our man right here a just for aesthetic effect or reflect his service. We are not furnished with military records.

The £8 million price that is being suggested. How was that calculated, and what was taken into consideration and was the figure an estimate or the final figure?
£8 million is a huge sum to the masses, but in the grand scheme of things it's pocket change. £8 million.... what would that be spent on, what meaningful difference would that make to anyone. When improvements to a local road cost more.

 

[Angela Channing]

I doubt that you and the hoi polloi (including me) have a working understanding of how and why and the circumstances that need to be satisficed to be awarded a medal. How do we know whether or not the medal that have been pinned to our man right here a just for aesthetic effect or reflect his service. We are not furnished with military records.

The £8 million price that is being suggested. How was that calculated, and what was taken into consideration and was the figure an estimate or the final figure?
£8 million is a huge sum to the masses, but in the grand scheme of things it's pocket change. £8 million.... what would that be spent on, what meaningful difference would that make to anyone. When improvements to a local road cost more.

You're right, I don't know why Charlie was given that plethora of medals but it wasn't for active military service as he never did any.My dad, for example, fought in World War II and was given 2 medals which was significantly less than that apparently given to Charles for not doing any active military service. Maybe they now award medals for adultery.

The £8 million cost of the photograph is the amount the government have allocated from taxpayers' money to stroke Charlie's ego by providing this photograph for public buildings. You're correct in the overall budget in isn't a large sum of money but it still could be used better. Just think how many homeless people could be provided with some shelter for £8 million which would make a very meaningful difference to them.

 

[Biggie]

Just think how many homeless people could be provided with some shelter for £8 million which would make a very meaningful difference to them.

I agree with you, the money could have been spent elsewhere. Homeless shelters of course would be of great benefit. The £8 million would provide little in the way of a permeant solution. But a few days/weeks of the streets would be a Godsend I'm sure. I give homeless people on the street corner a few quid, in the hope that it'll help them get what ever they need. I know that in my hometown the shelter has some very restrictive rules that are counterproductive, so many are thrown out for breaches.

Homeless shelters have their place but I'm quite the reality of they help isn't as positive as one might imagine.

Maybe they now award medals for adultery.

Why not give medals. The powers that be should raise a statue to me... I've done some great work in my time. Casual bystanders have no doubt either been impressed by my work or disapproved of me being "tired and emotional". What I do is not the concern of bystanders, as long as I don't visit my choices on them.

Charles and Diana's marriage was little more that a pantomime played out in the public eye. We don't know everything that was happening away from camera lens. If her committed adultery, so what. His choice has not been visited on the public in any meaningful way.

I've got a feeling that his image in public buildings is not intended to stroke his ego, but rather the expected norm. Similar to his image appearing on banknotes.