Millions worldwide tuned in to witness King Charles’s coronation, yet critics continue to assail it as the ‘CUT-PRICE CORONATION.’ Here’s why:

1. Reduced Splendor: Despite being a historic event, some insiders and specialists lament the ceremony’s perceived lack of grandeur and tradition, citing compromises made for cost and accessibility.

2. Shorter Duration: The ceremony was notably shorter than Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation, reflecting modern television demands and safety considerations, which led to a drastic reduction in attendees.

3. Tiara Shortage: The absence of tiaras, symbolizing opulence, disappointed traditionalists, with even the Princess of Wales opting for a floral headpiece instead.

4. Missing Koh-i-noor Diamond: Camilla’s diplomatic decision not to wear the controversial diamond, due to India’s claim, raised eyebrows, despite her choice of an alternative crown.

5. Casual Dress Code: Guests’ daywear attire, instead of traditional evening gowns, irked purists expecting sumptuousness befitting royal occasions.

6. Limited Noble Presence: Health and safety restrictions drastically reduced the number of nobility attending, a departure from past coronations’ grandeur.

7. Lack of Regal Attire: Peers were initially instructed to wear lounge suits instead of traditional coronation robes, causing dismay among attendees.

8. Ecclesiastical Controversy: A shortage of white copes for bishops, and Anglican purists’ disapproval of borrowed Roman Catholic vestments, sparked further critique.

Despite attempts to modernize, controversies marred the event, from obscured sacred moments to truncated ceremonial rites, leaving liturgical experts and traditionalists disenchanted. While some welcomed the shorter duration, others found it rushed and lacking in the poetic language of tradition.