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?

The wedding will bring tourism? Hardly! Tourists won't care about Eugenie the way they do about William and Harry. All this fuss is probably the work of her very spoiled father.

I am a huge supporter of the Royal Family on the whole - I think they are a positive feature of the our country at present.

Andrew and his girls are not central to the Royal Family, and their insistence upon this carriage ride around the streets of Windsor is the reason for the additional cost, and should have been refused. It is a pure vanity ride, and reflects badly on them.

Feel sorry for the Queen - her son hasn't got the intelligence to look at the wider consequences, simply stamps his foot and says 'I want my girl to have the same as your other grandchildren' - what can she do (bearing in mind that he is the favoured child!)?

Is this sum in addition to the security bill for those, who would normally have high security?
As far as I can remember there was a big "debate" some years ago as the Duke of York felt his daughters should have had protection, but it was withdrawn, so clearly the security detail isn't for the Yorks.

Feel sorry for the Queen - her son hasn't got the intelligence to look at the wider consequences, simply stamps his foot and says 'I want my girl to have the same as your other grandchildren'

I agree up to a point, but surely the answer is to simply say no?

It's often said that the Queen finds it hard to use that word to the kids, but if that's true then she can hardly complain if she's judged for the consequences ... especially when others are paying for them

Is this sum in addition to the security bill for those, who would normally have high security?

Much of it seems to be, yes. As PPs have said, had the entire thing been kept within the precincts of the castle - hardly a squashed space after all - much of the public cost could have been avoided

Isn't it widely understood that Andrew is her favourite and she's been indulging him for years?

It's a shame that she hasn't been more disciplined with him. Anne and Edward (mostly Anne) are much better examples of how royalty should conduct themselves.

Have they managed to persuade anyone to televise it yet?

Is anyone actually going to go to Windsor to lone the streets? I'd go, but I've got a jigsaw to finish that day.

I would have been there, but I need to clean the car.

Perversely I'm actually loving the fact that Randy Andy has insisted on this farce. Hopefully it will open a few more eyes to what a big waste of money the royal family are.

Anne and Edward (mostly Anne) are much better examples of how royalty should conduct themselves Edward does absolutely nothing at all! Neither use nor ornament. His kids and wife have titles earned only by being 'his family', and as a consequence we pay to keep them in unbelievable luxury. She keeps a low profile after being caught on tape boosting her own funds by cashing in on the royal name. He made a ass of himself by his 'temper tantrum' at the press on his attempt at 'theatre' on Its a Royal Knockout. In the real world both would have been sacked for their antics, but in royal life you can do anything and still keep your lifestyle.

Badtaste - yes Randy Andy, Airmiles Andy who has embarrassed our country at home and abroad by his dubious foreign 'connections' and freeloading reputation is demanding this farce to try and prove he and his offspring are relevant!

Look, I'm not much of a fan of any of the royals, I'm just saying they're better than Andrew low bar I know

Yes they are - well Anne seems to be anyway. Actually I have nothing against any of them personally, as people. What I hugely resent is the institution.

It is simply untrue to say that Edward does nothing. He heads up all D of E events now, often with Sophie. DD has been involved with these from an organisational point of view, and was very touched when Edward asked her how she thought an event at Buckingham Palace was going - like her opinion mattered! They've certainly screwed up in the past (haven't we all!), but they're now plugging away on low profile work.

I'm no big royalist but @ajandjjmum is right. If you look at the court circular you'll see the Wessexes carry out several duties each week. They certainly do more than the Cambridges but don't get as much publicity.

It's a Royal Knockout was an embarrassment, yes, but it was also 30 years ago!

We’d get by fine without having them perform any duties.

“The monarchy undermines our reputation abroad and is bad for business (even tourism).
The antics of our royal family certainly evoke an amused interest among foreigners. But the pomp and pageantry of Royalty project Britain as a theme park of Beefeaters, castles and soldiers in bearskins. In short, most foreigners see our royals as we see the King of Swaziland. This is a public relations disaster for our (economically important) efforts to project Britain as a modern democracy, with commercial strengths in modern sectors such as financial services, biotech and new technologies. The Royal Family does not convey the brand that our high-tech exporters want to project. If we want young people from around the world to come to our universities, or international investors to put their money into our businesses, we need to offer more than a quaint history. It is sometimes argued that royalty is good for tourism: but France has been a republic for over 130 years and attracts three times as many foreign tourists as Britain. The Palace of Versailles, which is the biggest tourist attraction in Europe, has more visitors than Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace combined, in part because it is fully open to the public, all year round. The British nation’s royal art collectionsand memorabilia, currently hidden from us by the monarchy, could behoused in galleries that would be a huge boost to tourism, both from within the UK and from abroad.”

'The monarchy undermines our reputation abroad and is bad for business'. What a load of tosh! Even if you personally believe they are not a force for good, quite how they are 'bad for business' is beyond me.

Be interested to know who wrote that article.

Ooh heading up DofE sounds like fun. I have a 2:2 in History, where do I apply? What do you mean, I'm wholly unqualified to head up a national organisation?

In what way are they good? and the article states quite clearly why they are bad, they don’t convey what a modern democratic country wishing to convey the best technology has to offer should. We certainly do not need an over privileged unelected family who are there purely through the accident of birth to convey our brand. I certainly don’t believe they are a force for good, but then i’m not brainwashed into thinking so.

I agree with others. It should have been a private occasion kept within the confines of Windsor Castle. The senior royals have their own police protection in place and the castle is already secured. That would have cut the bill to almost nothing.

You do know how the sovereign grant works right?

All the funds generated from the crown property is given to the government then a portion of the profits are given back to the royal family (not full amount by the way). So the royals sovereign grant is there own money being given back to them minus a massive cut the government takes.

Would you rather they get to keep 100% of the money the crown estates generate and just lose the minor amounts from standard tax? (The government share of the pie is around 70%) so its not public money in the first place.

quite how they are 'bad for business' is beyond me

Maybe try the letter from Stephen Day, prior ambassador in the middle east (and, incidentally, one time adviser to Charles, which no doubt calls for a certain mental stability) www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8375011/Stephen-Days-letter-Royal-envoys-are-crass-and-insulting.html

Extract: "it is surely now recognised that the Duke’s activities are doing such serious damage to the Royal Family itself and to Britain’s political, diplomatic and commercial interests that an entirely new role should be found for him as soon as possible"

It gets worse; apparently another diplomat - Simon Wilson this time - had views to share:

www.telegraphindia.com/india/from-hrh-to-his-buffoon-highness-former-uk-envoy-who-served-in-calcutta-mounts-blistering-attack-on-prince-andrew/cid/449957

worridmum no I would rather neither scenario.

I would rather nobody was 'given' enormous wealth and power just because they happened to be born into a particular family.