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.

 

[HelenC]

British royalty has been an integral part of the growth & glow of this country, we would be silly to ignore that fact. $97,000 is paltry compared to the millions spent on fireworks displays at the end of the year & 26/1. The people love the royals - let them enjoy.

 

[Ebby]

Then why didn't he marry Camilla instead of Diana ? Oh because Camilla was married with children .
But that didn't stop them from having an affair and continue to have an affair after he was married

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 .

 

[MaralynMuir]

At least the NSW Premier showed up more than can be said for QLD SA And the rest

 

[electricblanket]

Anything spent on the "royals" is a waste of money. Spend it on the drover's dog

 

[Miss Chris]

That’s a paltry amount compared to the $600 million we are giving to PNG NRL….

 

[Whitsun]

It's a better use than lots of other rubbish that's promoted there.

And what does that cost , it must be similar. Or is it more expensive because it’s for the King

 

[Veggiepatch]

It has been reported that royal visits to Australia has cost the taxpayer more then $6 million since 2011.

What purpose did this "pomp and circumstance" frivolity serve?

ABSOLUTELY NONE WHATSOEVER?

Piss off back home to FuckingHAM Palace. I suppose the Muslims hate you too!!

 

[Frida1944]

Ccomplete and utter waste . His the King of England not Australia. Ask everyday struggles how that amount of money could be spent . Instead of going up in smoke. Can't believe whoever thought this up

He is actually the King of Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales and Commonwealth countries. Do your homework before making crass comments.

 

[Veggiepatch]

That’s a paltry amount compared to the $600 million we are giving to PNG NRL….

Are we? That's the estimate for setting up a PNG team in the NRL. Nothing has been set in concrete.

Meanwhile Charlie Wingnut is here for a blink of an eye and at what cost?

A PNG NRL team, if it eventuates, will be around for many years to come.

I would rather watch ONE PNG NRL game than suffer potential blindness by looking at Charlie and his bushpig for 10 seconds!

 

[Veggiepatch]

He is actually the King of Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales and Commonwealth countries. Do your homework before making crass comments.

That's crass? I haven't started yet!

 

[Mikeyboy2012]

Give me a break. Royalists, of which I am one, rarely have an opportunity to see the royal family and this is a celebration of their visit. Possibly the one and only by King Charles lll.

$97,000 would do nothing if reallocated elsewhere. It's pittance.

The happiness that this brings to many is well worth the money spent.

A similar negative reaction to the cost of new years eve fireworks, which cost millions, not thousands, ignores the benefits to the thousands. It brings joy and raises their spirits plus wonderful memories which can only benefit individuals and families.

Don't start me on who would be our head of state if we became a Republic. Albo? One of the Greens? A Teal? Shoot me now.

Only the Royals have the elegance, sophistication, presence, etc. that often lacks in "layed back Aussies". So refreshing.

Mind you, some of the Governors General did us proud. (Or is it Governor Generals?)

If you hate the royals, move onto something else. They don't affect your day to day life. The King is really only a figurehead that does as the government wishes, with rare but powerful exceptions.

 

[Miss Chris]

Are we? That's the estimate for setting up a PNG team in the NRL. Nothing has been set in concrete.

Meanwhile Charlie Wingnut is here for a blink of an eye and at what cost?

A PNG NRL team, if it eventuates, will be around for many years to come.

I would rather watch ONE PNG NRL game than suffer potential blindness by looking at Charlie and his bushpig for 10 seconds!

That’s harsh…

 

[Ezzy]

Catch up she is not his wife anymore.

But she was when most of the good work was done.

 

[Ebby]

Dear Lady, there are many who have done similar to this filthy pair but THEY DON'T ARROGANTLY SHOVE IT DAILY UP PEOPLES NOSES.

At least the fire works entertain the masses what does a pair of old farts do for us.

Fireworks pollute the air. '' Puff'' and they are gone but not the pollution .Plain stupid all that money for such a short time. Mmm takes an old fart to know an old fart

 

[jay2]

It's a better use than lots of other rubbish that's promoted there.

The King and Queens visit is the the important thing in Australia at the moment , so what else would have been put up , cost just as much and was just as moment catching. Love them or hate them .We are no longer convicts or bushrangers , a little bit of respect goes a long way. Enough disrespect has been shown to them by the state Premiers who found excuses not to be there . Their absence speaks volumes. Incidently we also turn our backs on the Dalai Lama because the Chinese dont like him. Who else are we going to be rude to because some people dont like them. jay2

 

[active2]

NO!!!

 

[Joydie]

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.

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!

 

[Joydie]

Dear Lady, there are many who have done similar to this filthy pair but THEY DON'T ARROGANTLY SHOVE IT DAILY UP PEOPLES NOSES.

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.

 

[Joydie]

I'm guessing most Australians who are happy with their visit must be English

I'm not.

 

[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!

I guess you have a crush on Charles otherwise you would recognise what he and Camilla did.

He gets paid for being King and remember he isn't God