A Royal Weekend: Pulaskians with U.K. ties react to coronation of King Charles III

May 8—This weekend, the eyes of the world were on London — no, not the one in Laurel County, neighboring Pulaski, but rather the hub of Great Britain.

That's where King Charles III was officially crowned, filling the role held so long by his mother, Elizabeth II, after she passed away last September.

The longtime Prince of Wales from the House of Windsor, Charles had been a figure of massive public interest for decades, most notably surrounding his marriage to Diana Spencer in 1981 that became the stuff of tabloids. The heir to the British throne had to wait his turn longer than many expected, as Elizabeth was 96 when she passed away.

But on Saturday, Charles' coronation took place at Westminster Abbey in an event covered by media from around the world, with over 18 million viewers in the United Kingdom and many more in other countries — including here in the U.S., where the event took place during the early hours of the morning due to the differences in time zones.

Ben Robertson, a native of Scotland, was not among those watching from his home here in Somerset — the Kentucky Somerset, not the one approximately three hours west of London, England. But it was something he was keenly aware of, having grown up a subject of the previous monarch.

"I like what the Royal Family does for Great Britain, but I wouldn't consider myself a huge royalist," said Robertson, a familiar face in this community at Forcht Bank.

"I'm Scottish; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom with Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we are ruled by Great Britain, but the Scottish support was less than the English (who) were all for it and very much behind it," he added. "... I'm a follower, I believe in the Royal Family, but I'm certainly not like some of the other Brits abroad that had the flags outside and such this past weekend, and having their tea and scones and cucumber sandwiches. That was not me on Saturday morning."

Robertson was not alone in being less than enthralled with the spectacle of the coronation. Many sources reported that the event — only the second coronation in the British monarchy ever to be seen on television — would cost up to 100 million pounds, or $125 million in American dollars, which Robertson noted could seem like an unnecessary luxury to many.

"In Britain, there are a lot of the similar problems that we see in the United States, to where the last few years (after) COVID has been a major struggle with an increase in costs and interest rates and unemployment and such, so I think there was a lot of resentment from the British public to the amount of expense that went into the coronation," said Robertson. "It was very, very extravagant."

That includes the massive parade involving thousands of Armed Forces members from both the U.K. and commonwealth countries around the globe as King Charles and wife Camilla, now Queen Consort, rode in the highly ornate Gold State Coach back to Buckingham Palace following the coronation.

The concerns about what was spent on the coronation were shared by James Rixon, a native of Doncaster, England, who went to Lindsey Wilson College in 1996 to play soccer and now lives here in Somerset as an American citizen and teaches at Russell Springs Elementary School, as well as coaches Pulaski County boys soccer.

"The country's still in an economic mess; there's still huge numbers of unemployment over there, and I know the Royal Family put money to that coronation themselves, but there was still a lot of taxpayer money that went toward it," said Rixon. "I look and think, 'Could it have been better served for something else?' ... For me, it was just a little over the top, and just the way the world is, I don't know that we need to spend that much money just to put a crown on someone's head."

Like Robertson, Rixon did not watch the coronation live, "just because of the time difference really, not that it was not of interest." He did have lots of text messages from his family and friends upon waking up, he noted, but he had a soccer game to attend and "that took precedence."

While Robertson acknowledges the practical debates involved with both the role and cost of the monarchy in modern Britain, he also understands the place that ancient institution holds in the U.K.'s cultural identity and the hearts of its citizens.

"It's neat to see. It's neat that they still have those traditions," he said. "... I think that really is the Royal Family's primary role — they are the huge ambassadors for Great Britain and bring in so much tourism money to the U.K. ... It's good to see Britain in the world news. That's neat."

Like Robertson, Rixon said he isn't really a royalist but knows that in America, there is substantial interest in the Royal Family and their customs.

"I've seen pictures and things like that, and the whole razzamatazz and everything, because it's maybe a once in a lifetime opportunity," said Rixon. "I can understand that some people were like, 'We may never see this again.'

"My mum and dad, they watched it, and obviously they're of an older generation, so I think (when they were) growing up, the Royal Family maybe meant more, did more," he added. "My generation (sees them) as more of a symbol of England rather than anything else. Obviously the Prime Minister is the one who makes the decisions with the Houses of Parliament and things like that."

After growing up in the northeast Scotland community of Peterhead, Robertson came to the U.S. in 2000. Like so many in the U.K., Robertson was very aware of then-Prince Charles growing up, and particularly the constant media attention, good and bad, on his marriage to Diana and subsequent divorce in 1996. Diana would die in a car crash in 1997; Charles would go on to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, a key figure in the scandals surrounding his marriage to Diana, in 2005.

"Charles and Diana were very, very popular, largely because of Diana; after Diana died, the press and the public kind of turned against Charles, even more so when the relationship with Camilla became public," said Robertson. "That was kind of unheard of and frowned upon, even more so in the Royal Family. I think the public has kind of warmed back up to him and warmed to Camilla as it's become more acceptable, and Diana has become, I don't want to say forgotten, but a more distant memory."

Rixon said that once Diana died, "the Royal Family died a little bit with her" in his sentiment.

"She was the royal that was the public — everyone could to relate to Princess Di," he said. "... (Charles) was (perceived as being) a lucky guy, because Diana, although she comes from money, she was more outgoing, would relate to the public better. So Charles was always really, when I was growing up, viewed as Diana's husband. He was the prince, he was the queen's son, but it was still Diana that got the headlines, and maybe that's why they could never really get on. I don't know obviously, but obviously there a lot of things going on.

"It got bad when she died; a lot of people resented Charles, I feel, especially because he was supposedly seeing Camilla, but as time has gone on, he has now become king, and people either forgive or forget or both," he added. "So it is what it is, you know? People move with the times, I guess."

Despite the shift in popularity back in the new king's favor, it's the eldest son of Charles and Diana that both Robertson and Rixon feel might have rallied more enthusiasm among the British populace.

"I think the popular choice would have been, had Charles chose to abdicate the throne, and Prince William become king. I think he would have been very, very popular as king," said Robertson, "but it seems like we'll have to wait a few years for that to happen."

Said Rixon, "Once (William) becomes king and (Catherine, Princess of Wales) becomes queen, then (public opinion) may change again, because they're more like Diana. They're really involved and want to be in charities and things like that. So a lot of the (modern) generation look to William and Kate maybe rather than Charles."