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

[lelepond]

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?

There's an interview in The Times today with the woman who owns LK Bennett. She says the "Royal effect" has a massive impact on business. Anything worn by Kate or Meghan apparently sells out in hours. It can just be her business either.

Genuine question about those who endlessly repeat the falsehood that "they're really important for tourism"

Is it that they've not read the facts?
Or that they've read them but don't care (in which case why mention it at all?)
Or that they don't believe the facts presented by tourism bodies, etc?
Or something else?

Honestly not trying to be goady here - I'd really like to know

Kate or Meghan certainly @Bluelady but Beatrice or Eugenie? I don't think so.

The other Royal women will be there, so will many other well dressed guests. It'll definitely give the fashion industry a shot in the arm.

@sweethope I'm not falling for bullshit. They do bring in tourism as London is a big tourism spot. I think they should only take out what they bring in, just like everyone else.

I was trying to be unbiased so I didn't come across as bitter or just generally annoyed. My post was leaning towards that they don't really do enough and if you want a 3 million Pay out of our money then you should be working for it. To be honest I don't think any of them are doing nearly enough. People who rely on benefits are plastered all over the corrupt media for doing "the same thing."

If you're going to have a royal family (and I for one could be convinced to do without) then I think protection is part of the deal.

Have you of the Crown Estates.... 304 million profit in 2016... Some went to the Queen to look after all her staff and palaces... But 75% of that profit went to us...
Parliament and lots of Government departments... owned by Crown Estates... No rent paid...
So really this is her granny paying the bill... Not us...

If you're going to have a royal family ... then I think protection is part of the deal

You're right, and even if we had a president we'd still be paying for security

But I wouldn't necessarily expect that to include the cost of covering a carriage ride by some minor member of their family, especially when that carriage ride served no useful purpose

The so called crown estates belong to the nation, not the royal family, just like assets such as the crown jewels, which theoretically belong to the monarch. But even if you think the crown estates belong to the monarchy, we still lose out. The monarchy found it couldn't afford the army, navy, civil service etc, so it gave up the crown estates and the tax payer foots the bill instead. If they had them back do you think they could cover the defence budget etc?

I don't see why we should. She doesn't fulfill any royal duties. They were told they wouldn't get daily security protection officers before this for that reason. She's had about 5 holidays already this year & has a made up 'job' which she got purely by her status not ability or qualifications. Why invite the public who have so little interest in you. Glad Prince Andrews talks re televising it have fallen apart. He should pay for it.

The security will protect the important and more high profile royals in attendance - Harry & Meghan, William & Kate (and possibly their children), Charles & Camilla. No one is bothered about Andrew's family. They are too far down the chain of command to matter much.

She's had about 5 holidays already this year

I've had three. Is that allowed, or should I be looking to cut down next year?

Glad Prince Andrews talks re televising it have fallen apart

It's reported that ITV may step in to cover it, I think?

The security will protect the important and more high profile royals in attendance

Undoubtably some of it will, but how much extra security do they need when inside the castle grounds, above what they'd be getting anyway? Isn't the fact that most of the extra will be going on this blasted carriage ride?

Have you thought that the queen , who I guess is ultimately funding the nuptuals, might want to treat her grandchildren equally?

Have you thought that the queen , who I guess is ultimately funding the nuptuals

She isn't

might want to treat her grandchildren equally?

Well some of them are working royals and some of them aren't. Their role and status are radically different and that matters when tax payers money is at stake. We don't fund them for shits and giggles. They have a function.

But they aren't all equal. That's the point of the Monarchy.

Love Mumsnet! Obsessed about not reading “The Daily Fail” yet swallow everything that rag says about these young women.

...I forgot about the Queen!!

..and the duke!!

The Army protects the country as A whole..
We do pay taxes to cover these costs...
The Duke of Westminster has control of all his property, so does Charles... The Queen is an amazing person, we are the envy of the world, that she heads our country.

mummmy here's some info on the crown estates for you so you educate yourself on their history, function and ownership

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/

Let's consider, then, the other "non working" grandchildren, Peter and Zara. Peter wedding/reception were at St George's and Frogmore and Zara's at Canongate in Edinburgh and Holyroodhouse

No security-intensive carriage ride around the town for either of them, though Peter and Autumn did sell the wedding to Hello ... I wonder if these latest two will pull the same stunt?

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - what later became known as the Civil List.