Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why is the tax payer paying £2M for Eugenie's wedding?

396 replies

lelepond · 12/09/2018 10:50

Why does this irrelevant individual (who is not a working royal therefore carries out no royal functions) feel it necessary to have such an extravagant wedding which necessitates a security bill of £2 million? I find it totally unacceptable given that so many of our public services are struggling. AIBU to ask why more people aren't outraged? Who even is she? What is her purpose?

OP posts:
sweethope · 14/09/2018 14:41

When we say "working royals* let's not take the word "working" too literally. Not even close.

twattymctwatterson · 14/09/2018 15:47

I'm not a fan of the concept of royalty but the legitimate debate in this thread is really undermined by snide comments about the groom being a barman (what's the issue with this?), as well as derogatory remarks about the couple's appearance

Defrack · 14/09/2018 16:17

Agreed, not a lot of working.
They make public appearances, are patrons of a few charities etc.

Apart from when they served in the military which I applaud them for.

sweethope · 14/09/2018 16:22

Yes their public appearances really can’t be described as work. They just turn up. All the planning, preparations and transports are done for them. They get to go to interesting places that others would love to go to and get a freebie lunch thrown in. Work indeed.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/09/2018 16:23

What did Meghan do?

I think the PP might have meant Meghan's alleged comments about being pleased at the "abortion referendum" result?

QueenOfTheAndals · 14/09/2018 16:38

Good for Meghan, heaven forbid a woman in that family expresses a view Hmm

Motherhood101Fail · 14/09/2018 19:04

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

QueenOfTheAndals · 14/09/2018 19:09

But they all “mouth off about pet causes” through the work they do - Charles with his organic farming, William and Harry through their mental health support. If Meghan wants to make women’s rights her “issue” then how does that differ? God knows a lot of women’s charities could use royal patronage.

LaDaronne · 14/09/2018 19:30

President Blair is such a fucking lame argument. We could end up with King Donald Trump. For sixty years.

Bluelady · 14/09/2018 19:37

Difference is he wouldn't have any power, just like Madge.

Motherhood101Fail · 14/09/2018 19:52

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

LaDaronne · 14/09/2018 20:26

a) aye right no king has ever held political power and b) he'd still be a fucking embarrassment as a national figurehead for sixty years, and you couldn't get rid of him. Unlike with elections.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/09/2018 21:34

Excellent post, Motherhood - though I'm not sure we can brush Meghan's alleged "feminism" aside so readily, any more than her supposed "humanitarian work"

They look to me like principles which can be ignored the moment it suits, which suggests she has more in common with some of the Windsors than was perhaps thought

sweethope · 14/09/2018 21:39

Why do people go on about “president blair” as if it’s a given that’s what we’d end up with. Confused
If we had to vote a king in we could end up with King Charles.... Why is it acceptable that we get someone as head of state regardless of who they are. It’s actually bizarre when you think about it.

LaDaronne · 15/09/2018 07:31

Gawd could you imagine if Andrew had been born before Charles? We'd be staring down the barrel of King Andrew and then Queen Beatrice for the next sixty years.

BlessedbetheFruitLoops2 · 15/09/2018 07:45

People forget that while it may cost us 2m in security, the amount of income any royal event generates for the country is multiplied tenfold through tourism etc

I'm by no means a royalist and find the whole thing a bit ridiculous but the country would be on its knees without the income they generate

QueenOfTheAndals · 15/09/2018 07:49

I doubt that, tourist still go to Versailles and Neuchwanstein even though neither country has a monarchy anymore. Windsor Castle isn't even the no 1 tourist draw in Windsor, let alone the country!

LaurieMarlow · 15/09/2018 07:53

People forget that while it may cost us 2m in security, the amount of income any royal event generates for the country is multiplied tenfold through tourism

People don't 'forget' that. It's a load of baloney.

Gersemi · 15/09/2018 08:07

People forget that while it may cost us 2m in security, the amount of income any royal event generates for the country is multiplied tenfold through tourism

Somehow I doubt that the world is flocking to the UK for this wedding.

VanillaSugary · 15/09/2018 08:45

@Gersemi 😂😂😂🤣😁😆😁🤣😂😂😂

Puzzledandpissedoff · 15/09/2018 09:11

It's often said that the Windsors have some of the best PR people speaking for them ... and from the number of folk who seem to believe the nonsense about "all the tourists they attract" they're obviously making a pretty good job of it

Depressing, isn't it? Hmm

SamanthaBrique · 16/09/2018 07:58

Article here says Andrew is behind all the fuss, not Eugenie. No surprise really.

VanillaSugary · 16/09/2018 08:18

"The couple is hoping that not everyone who has been invited will accept, because there will be a space issue, and we might have to have some people standing,” said the source.

VanillaSugary · 16/09/2018 08:19

Posted too soon

😂😂😂😂😂 at the thought of people scrabbling around like musical chairs Grin

Gersemi · 16/09/2018 08:24

It's going to be horribly embarrassing if no-one turns up to watch the carriage procession, which is really rather likely.