Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
StoneofDestiny · 16/09/2018 18:54

It's outrageous ~ and I resent it too. I see the latest is that Andrew is throwing a tantrum because the BBC don't want to broadcast the event live! He is trying hard to make himself and his daughters relevant by shoving this extravagant non event in our faces.

sweethope · 16/09/2018 19:22

Raynedash sorry i wasn’t meaning to be rude, my post wasn’t to you personally, more to everyone who thinks the royals bring the tourists in. Until i see evidence of this i just can’t accept it. I think it’s one of those palace PR myths that they like to perpetuate.

Gersemi · 16/09/2018 19:33

I see the latest is that Andrew is throwing a tantrum because the BBC don't want to broadcast the event live!

Seriously? He's lost it, hasn't he? Prince Edward and Princess Anne really need to have a word with him. Prince Edward's wedding wasn't broadcast live, even though he was the son of a reigning monarch. The child of the person sixth in line to the throne really doesn't cut it in terms of public interest.

Bluelady · 16/09/2018 19:40

Edward's wedding was broadcast and watched by 200 million around the world.

Rainbunny · 16/09/2018 19:41

"The Queen is an amazing person, we are the envy of the world, that she heads our country."

The Queen seems very nice but that's a very bold (by bold I mean batshit...) statement to make that the rest of the world envies the UK for retaining a monarchy with even the slightest pretence of power over the government, however merely ceremonial it may be in current practice (and I don't trust Charles not to try interfering in government affairs when he finally gets the throne).

As for this wedding, I have nothing against the couple but a carriage ride requiring protection? That's too much and is guaranteed to backfire by looking rather pathetic in comparison to Harry's wedding, I doubt a fraction of the crowds will show up for it either. It will appear like a second rate copycat version of Harry's wedding and will sadly show how little anyone cares about Eugenie (who I'm sure is very nice but who is only known for partying and wearing ridiculous fascinators).

StoneofDestiny · 16/09/2018 19:45

You will always get tourists watching a spectacle, but the average British citizen won't give two hoots apart from knowing they are paying millions to 'secure' an unnecessary extravagance. It really is an insult and injury to public services scraping by on inadequate funding.

sweethope · 16/09/2018 20:39

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 doesCharles... The Queen is an amazing person, we are the envy of theworld, that she heads our country

What’s the army got to do with anything.

Our tax covers the cost of the royals but doesn’t give a shit about the weak, vulnerable and disabled.

The queen is not an amazing person at all, we are most certainly not the envy of the world, and she does not head our country, only as a figure head.

Anything else?

Brahumbug · 16/09/2018 22:22

The assets of the Duke of westminster are controlled by a trust, that is why the cunt didn't pay any death duties as he should have done. Yes George iii did come to an agreement, aso i said, he couldn't afford his commitments any more.

Gersemi · 16/09/2018 23:06

Fair enough, Bluelady, but Prince Edward did specify that it should not be a state occasion, so there was no ceremonial state or military involvement. And, significantly, the weddings or Princess Margaret's and Princess Anne's children were not broadcast.

swimmingagain · 16/09/2018 23:32

I'm with you OP! I don't have any gripe with her, but if she wants such an extravagant wedding, she (or parents) should pay (they can afford it), not the taxpayer! (If they can't afford it, scale it down! The rest of us have to!)

LanaorAna2 · 16/09/2018 23:39

The BBC have refused to cover it as say ratings won't justify expense. Palace now trying independent TV companies.

Please, ITV, Just Say No.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 16/09/2018 23:45

Maybe they could offer to eat Snowflake bars?

VanillaSugary · 17/09/2018 06:41

Peter Morgan is furiously taking notes for Series 5 of The Crown Grin

Puzzledandpissedoff · 17/09/2018 11:53

swimmingagain I really don't think it's likely this family will pay for anything if there's a chance of someone else picking up the bill. Let's not forget the following:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

And while I realise this could be passed off as "the advisers getting it wrong", I'm not convinced they'd have taken such a step if they'd known it would be unwelcome - or to put it another way, had they not been aware that it would fit nicely with the palace entitlement culture

MissEliza · 17/09/2018 12:39

Jeremy Vine did a piece about this morning. The general reaction was so negative I actually started to feel a bit sorry for Eugenie as her little carriage procession clearly isn't going to be as popular as expected.

BarbarianMum · 17/09/2018 19:44

The queen may or may not be an amazing person (I don't actually know her so couldn't say) but the vast majority of the rest of the world don't think about her from one year's end to the next.

bobbinsand · 23/09/2018 20:40

Anyone got a long range weather forecast?

StoneofDestiny · 23/09/2018 21:34

Yes - it’s raining taxpayers money all day over filthy rich royal layabouts

Original poster
lelepond · 23/09/2018 21:43

I attended a dinner party yesterday where a guest (who happens to be a GP) was bemoaning the fact that some of her patients seemingly prioritise "needless expenses" such as booze and fags. The snobbery was bloody awful. Did make me think of this thread though.

OP posts:
TerracottaDream · 23/09/2018 21:46

Have a royal family or don’t have one but stop ‘bullying ‘ this young woman and making such personal remarks!

StoneofDestiny · 23/09/2018 21:59

Think how much money the NHS could get if the whole royal spending spree was stopped in its tracks

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/09/2018 22:17

I'm not so sure, Stone - after all we'd probably have to spend just as much if we had a Presidential set up

It's not about the amount of money for me, more the fact that it's spent on an unelected, often non-working, frequently mediocre bunch who seem to feel they deserve it just for existing

StoneofDestiny · 23/09/2018 22:26

Puzzled - I agree, but at least we'd have chosen a President for good or ill, and could get rid of them too. Generation after generation we are stuck with a parasitic arrangement that allows one ever growing family and it's hangers to feel entitled to pickpocket our money at their whim.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/09/2018 22:35

at least we'd have chosen a President for good or ill, and could get rid of them too

Exactly Smile

littlebillie · 24/09/2018 07:10

I think we pay more than this for sporting events and the wedding will bring tourism. No issues with the cost