As the city of Sydney prepares to roll out the red carpet for King Charles and Queen Camilla's arrival, a lavish welcome gesture has ignited a fiery debate among Australians.

The royal couple, set to embark on a nine-day tour down under, will be greeted with a grand spectacle that has left some citizens questioning the use of public funds.

In a display of pomp and pageantry, the iconic sails of the Sydney Opera House will be illuminated with a curated photo montage for four minutes from 8 pm, showcasing images from previous royal visits.

This grand gesture, intended to celebrate King Charles's first visit to New South Wales as Sovereign, costs $97,030.

A celebratory welcome is to be received by King Charles and Queen Camilla, with the Sydney Opera House sails illuminated by images of previous royal visits. Credit: Shutterstock

Premier Chris Minns has expressed that the light show is a 'fitting tribute' to welcome Their Majesties and to commemorate this historic moment.

The public is invited to witness the projection and even catch a glimpse of the King and Queen as they engage with the crowd on the Sydney Opera House Forecourt.

The royal visit will also feature a Fleet Review on Sydney Harbour, complete with an Australian Defence Force flypast and an on-water review of His Majesty’s Australian ships.

These events offer additional opportunities for the public to partake in the celebrations from various vantage points around the city.

However, the decision to spend nearly $100,000 on the light show has sparked outrage among many Australians, who have taken to social media to voice their concerns.

Critics argue that the funds could have been better allocated to address pressing issues such as the housing crisis, overcrowded hospitals, and the rising cost of living.

One Facebook user lamented the waste of taxpayer money on a visit by millionaires, while another questioned the excitement of 'battling Aussies' over such an extravagant expenditure.

Many echoed the sentiment of channelling funds to the needy, highlighting the disconnect between royal fanfare and the everyday struggles of the Australian people.

On the flip side, royal enthusiasts have expressed their excitement and support for the visit, with some planning to bring their families to the festivities.

Monarchists, in particular, look forward to warmly welcoming the King and Queen, showcasing the divide in public opinion.

As we delve into this contentious issue, it's essential to consider the broader implications of such expenditures.

While royal visits can boost tourism and international relations, they also raise questions about government spending priorities, especially in economic hardship for many citizens.

Key Takeaways

• King Charles and Queen Camilla are set to receive a celebratory welcome with the Sydney Opera House sails to be illuminated with images of previous royal visits.
• The NSW Government curated the photo montage to commemorate the King's first visit as Sovereign for $97,030.
• Public members have expressed mixed reactions to the cost, with some criticising the expense during economic hardship.
• Despite the controversy, some Australians are enthusiastic about the royal visit, planning to welcome the King and Queen in person.

Do you think the $97K light show is an excellent tribute to the royal visit, or is it a waste of money? How else could that money benefit Australians? Let us know in the comments below.

 

[Ann Melling]

Twiggy Forest and his wife have given more to this country than the other 3 put together

So why didn't you mention him?

 

[Ann Melling]

Not my king and consort a Republic is our right we have developed this country not the English we have created who we are not them, bring it on. Get rid of the yoke around our throat and stop having to bow and scrap to them.

Can't say our country is in a good way at the moment and that seems to be a lot of Republicans behind the scenes causing the mess.

 

[Rockyd]

She was 20 minutes away from us the last time she was out here. I never bothered to go there. Why would I . Marriage wrecker.

It takes two to tango. Diana certainly wasn't perfect either.

 

[Daibhin]

How far would 97K go on housing? Maybe you could get four small apartments in a not so good area, although where I lived places were selling for 1.5 million - in just a nice area not a great one and that was four years ago; possibly two small houses - probably fixer uppers because $500,000 doesn't buy much. It wouldn't pay for some public servants, you know, the ones who let robodebt roll out and cause some deaths.
Maybe not gifting our tax money to fossil fuel companies would enable about twenty Royal visits, or better still thousands of houses or, higher rates for job seekers and pensioners?
And again, $4.3 million is only buying one house for the PM and his future bride and that is being questioned.

If this were a Republic it's possible no one would be allowed to question such spendings.

 

[Ann Melling]

Get a grip lady, she is an adulteress he is a pampered mummy's boys who can't even open his own eggs, or tie his own shoe laces, they have never worked a day in their lives but expect everything , I am over people trying to excuse him and her for what they did, why should she get all the joy of being a grandmother, and Diana not. They both also need to be kept in knowledge they are not worth anything in this day and age.

Diana was an adulteress 3 times over, stop holding her up on a pedestal. Diana didn't get to be a grandmother because she wasn't wearing a seat belt. Charles is not one of my favorite people but can we stop bringing up the same old stuff. Yes we know what they did wasn't right but for some reason some people think what Diana did was OK. 2 wrongs don't make a right for 1 person.

 

[Ann Melling]

If that's the cost of a 4 minute picture display on the opera house, then all similar displays are a waster of money and could be better spent on poor people and the like.If we can't spend 97K on Chas and Milla, then we shouldn't turn on the projector for anyone or anything. In any case a tourist ship got in the way !

I agree

 

[Phantom55]

$20000 is equal to what Parliament House spends for morning teas in parliament per month.in isolation it seems a lot but a similar amount is spent occasional Poli attending a wedding or such via our national taxi service (Air Force) to ferry the occasional pollie about .Please dont look at our polls expenses unless you have a strong heart you will only upset yourself

 

[Ann Melling]

How far would 97K go on housing? Maybe you could get four small apartments in a not so good area, although where I lived places were selling for 1.5 million - in just a nice area not a great one and that was four years ago; possibly two small houses - probably fixer uppers because $500,000 doesn't buy much. It wouldn't pay for some public servants, you know, the ones who let robodebt roll out and cause some deaths.
Maybe not gifting our tax money to fossil fuel companies would enable about twenty Royal visits, or better still thousands of houses or, higher rates for job seekers and pensioners?
And again, $4.3 million is only buying one house for the PM and his future bride and that is being questioned.

If this were a Republic it's possible no one would be allowed to question such spendings.

So true

 

[Ann Melling]

One big waste of money, do they not realise that there are families out there who are starving? Do they,not see the tent cities that are springing up all over the place because people can't find places to live? A display of coloured lights worth $97,000 seems over done for a pair of overcooked rich dudes, who really don't give a crap about what happens to this country, if anything they should be giving us money to host them, after all they owe us rent for all the people they dumped on us all those years ago.

When did THEY dump people on us?

 

[David567]

Total waste of money that should have been spent on important subjects like Australians for example.

 

[beacon1]

Waste of taxpayers money

 

[Suzanne rose]

When are we, as a Nation ever going to grow up, and start looking after ourselves first!!!

While the Nation is under a growing economic pressure, cost of living continually going up, interest rates at a level high for over twenty years, electricity and gas at unaffordable levels, the Nation go and spend $97 thousand on a four minute light show for the King and Queen.

And, I’m certain that won’t be the last of the exorbitant outlay.
Day one, done and dusted for $97’s K.
What will day two to day nine, will cost our nation?

The cost is over A Million Dollars for their visit, we are paying for their security as well

 

[Suzanne rose]

Suzanne, as a very frequent contributor to Seniors Discount Club, I've always respected your views and obvious dedication to the Club. However, you've totally lost my respect with that comment.

That comment is one I'd expect to hear from a Year 8 mean girl, not a presumably mature, intelligent woman. But congratulations on being the first 'adult' to make a childish comment like that to me since I left high school in 1962.

To be honest I really don't care what you think of me.
I will still stick to my original comment.

Our money is being wasted and on two people not worthy of it

 

[Suzanne rose]

Oh Suzanne! Surely you know the reason for that! He begged his mother for almost 20 years for permission to marry Camilla, but was refused on the grounds that Camilla wasn't a virgin. And that was before she married her first husband. They met as teenagers.

Why do people find it necessary to comment in bold type and/or upper case letters. Neither of those things make a comment more valid in my opinion.

Where in the hell did you get that from.

He met Camilla and her husband the same time.
She was already married with two young kids.

It wasn't that she wasn't a virgin it was because she was married! It was adultery !!!

 

[Suzanne rose]

Camilla and Charles were very young when they first met.Charles had to do some military duty and while he was gone she married but later divorced when Charles came back.Unlucky for them and Diana the Queen would not let Charles marry the divorced Camilla. Charles had a duty to produce heirs and poor Diana who was unsuited and too young was taken in to believe he loved her. lt was said she tried to get out of the marriage the night before when she found out and was told she couldn't as her and Charles faces were already on souvenirs . Very sad for them all .

They weren't divorced ! They divorced many years later . Her poor husband Andrew Bowles couldn't stand it any longer

 

[Suzanne rose]

Negatively and bitterness towards people who have no personal affect on your life is soul destroying.

Thank you though for your respectful manner of address.

But it does have a personal affect on our lives. It's our money that is paying for their stay

 

[Suzanne rose]

Do not tell me to 'get a grip!' Do you realise what you're saying? Let me enlighten you:

1. You must spend a lot of time reading up on Charles to be aware of his personal habits. I suspect you do this to gain ammunition to bad mouth him in comments like this. Sad.

2. If you really believe they've never worked a day in their lives, I'm sorry, but that's where you totally lost all credibility! I'd like to see you keep up with the schedule Charles has maintained for over 50 years, and Camilla since they married.

3. Your comment regarding Camilla being a grandmother and Diana not, has me bamboozled! It's not Camilla's fault that Diana died. I know you'd like to believe it is, but that's because you seem to have a negative attitude to the royal family which distorts reality. Apart from that, Camilla has two children of her own to give her grandchildren.

4. Diana has been elevated to the level of sainthood in the eyes of many, and I don't think Charles treated her well in many respects. This doesn't change the fact that she was a woman with flaws like the rest of us. Her statement in the 1996 interview that there were 'three in the marriage', was wrong. She knew from personal experience that there were at least four.

5. Unfortunately, your attitude to the royal marriage is coloured by negative emotions. That's your right, but in order to express your opinion you don't have to be rude to someone who doesn't share your opinion. Are you another woman who has no friends or family who've ever experienced divorce or infidelity? If so, you must have a very small circle!

Looks like you have a gripe with alot of people on here today

 

[Suzanne rose]

She was 20 minutes away from us the last time she was out here. I never bothered to go there. Why would I . Marriage wrecker.

I'm with you

 

[Suzanne rose]

"LONG LIVE THE KING"

 

[Suzanne rose]

Some interesting reading on Camilla

Charles first met Camilla

1970: First MeetingAccording to the BBC, Charles and Camilla first met at a polo match at Windsor Great Park. Some reports claim that Camilla's first line to Charles was, “My great-grandmother was the mistress of your great-great-grandfather.

Camilla Parker Bowles and the Love Affair That Rocked the Royals.

After Charles left for his naval duties, Camilla rekindled her relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she'd first met at a party in 1965. The two married on July 4, 1973.


Camilla and Andrew subsequently had two children together: daughter Laura Parker Bowles and son Tom Parker Bowles. Fun fact: Charles is Tom’s godfather.

Supposedly having been on and off again in years prior, Charles and Camilla allegedly rekindled their physical relationship in 1986, after they were both married to other people and raising families.


In early 1993, an intimate phone conversation between Camilla and Charles was leaked, confirming the couple’s illicit relationship. The release of the tapes, recorded in 1989, caused a huge scandal for the royal family.

The details of the chat were reportedly what finally led to the dissolution of Charles’s marriage to Diana and Camilla’s to Andrew. Camilla filed for divorce in January 1995, while Charles and Diana finalized their divorce in August 1996


They were both Adulters!!!

Proof is there