1. The upcoming coronation of Charles III is estimated to cost up to £100m, which will be paid for by taxpayers rather than the super-rich royals.
2. The British royal family has a huge property portfolio and private estates that have yielded more than £1bn in the past, yet they pay no corporation tax.
3. The author argues that Charles should pay for his own coronation and start paying tax on his inheritance from his mother, as he can afford it.
The Guardian's article "Now we know how fabulously wealthy Charles is, why can’t he pay for his own coronation?" by Norman Baker criticizes the upcoming coronation of Charles III and the cost that will be borne by taxpayers. The author argues that there is no legal need for a coronation, and it is merely a PR event for the royals. The article also highlights the vast wealth of the royal family, including private estates that have yielded over £1bn in the past.
The article presents a one-sided view of the issue, with little exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives. While it is true that many people may not care about the coronation, others may see it as an important tradition and celebration of British culture. Additionally, while the royal family does have significant wealth and property holdings, they also contribute to the economy through tourism and charitable work.
The article also makes unsupported claims about the motivations of the royal family and their use of public funds. While there may be valid concerns about transparency and accountability in how public funds are used by the monarchy, these claims should be supported by evidence rather than speculation.
Overall, while there are valid criticisms to be made about the cost of the coronation and the role of the monarchy in modern society, this article presents a biased and one-sided view without fully exploring all sides of the issue.