Stéphane Place, editing by Yanis Darras // Photo credit: Gareth Cattermole / GETTY IMAGES EUROPE / Getty Images via AFP 08:31, 06 May 2023

The coronation of Charles III will be less festive than that of his mother. Despite this desire for sobriety, some English people wonder about the interest of financing this event with taxpayers' money, while the country has been facing record inflation for several months.

Nearly 2,000 guests from around the world are expected in London this Saturday, on the occasion of the coronation of Charles III. An important figure, but which is four times lower than when his mother, Elizabeth II, was crowned in 1953. The new monarch wanted less sumptuous festivities in the face of the economic crisis that complicates the daily lives of the British.

>> Find Europe morning weekend - 6-8 in podcast and replay here

"It's not a problem"

While the total cost of the event is not known, estimates range from £50 million to £100 million. A large sum, "but it is not a problem because tourists arrive in the country, they bring money and the world will have its eyes on us," says at the microphone of Europe 1, Steve. "There will be positive financial benefits from this event," says the Londoner.

Yet in the country, the debate rages. One in two Britons believes that the state should not fund the event. But for Eric, a young retiree, that the taxpayer pays for the coronation is not shocking. "I can understand that it's going to cost money, but I guess if we had a president, it would also cost a lot of money," he said.

Irresponsible funding?

A point of view that is not shared by Terry and Matthew, in their twenties, who find that the bill is much too high. "I think it's very expensive. But I'm still happy to have a holiday," Terry said. "I think to be honest, it's too much money. With the current cost of living, inflation, it's irresponsible in a country where food prices have jumped 17% in one year" to finance such a project, Matthew added.

So, across the Channel, many wonder if Charles III should not have put his hand in his pocket himself.