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?

So the royals sovereign grant is there own money being given back to them minus a massive cut the government takes.
No you are wrong, the sovereign grant only entitles them to a percentage while the monarchy exists. If it didn't it would revert in its entirety back to us. You make it sound like the royal family are being overly generous letting the government take a "massive cut" when in fact the reverse is true, we are allowing them to take a huge chunk instead of the civil list payment they used to get. It's truly appalling just how much the royal family cost us, and no I don't fall for the "tourism" BS either.

Coolmule who are you quoting in your post? Would like to know the source.

Six reasons to oppose the monarchy – Owen abroad

There you are Margaret, a good old republican site, speaking much sense.

Sorry the link didn't work, perhaps google if you're interested?

Coolmule the royal family "owned" the crown estates as in personally owned then through changes in past law it blurred the lines on which belonged to the Royal personally and what belonged to the state (it was argued that the royals property and state property is one and the same since they are the figure heads of the state).

It would be no different if the government decided all farmland/ parcels of land became state property and all profits from the land is taken by the state for a portion to be handed back.

The Crown property was and should be the Royal family private property since it is THERE families, but for things in the 1800s with law changes it became blurred as the crown and state were merged so the royal family lost the vast majority of there private property (aka the whole crown estates) So the government now benifets from these estates, BUT in exchange for now (part owning/ controlling) the state agreed to pay back money coming from the crown estate for the Royal family to cover the cost of staff, maintenance of the properties and there own personal living expenses since the government had co-opted there private property due to the Crown being in effect a branch of state.

Would you rather the crown estates revert back to there true owners and the state only get what none royals would have to pay on equivalent value properties/income?

But I wish they would do that then people would not moan about the Royals costing the tax payers so much money when in bloody fact most of the money they do recive comes from property that is rightfully these to bloody begin with.

An excellent article, coolmule. Thank you, in particular, for reminding us about the issues around the royal prerogative

should be

*It would be no different if the government decided all farmland/ parcels of land became state property and all profits from the land is taken by the state for a portion of the profits to be handed back to the original owners / now tenets of the land.

Definitely interesting Coolmule, but written in 2006. Would like to see an update.

worridmum you do know how the royal family acquired all that land and wealth don't you? No perhaps not. But you really do need to do your homework before you talk as FACT about the royal family's "property that is "rightfully these to bloody begin with"

No less relevant today Margaret. as far as I know, nothing's changed.

Do you know how the USA, colonial powers property, farming, logging barons and oil tycoons acquired their land and wealth?

Most people from Rich family that own massive tracts of land acquired their wealth in the same way.

Its no different then the industrial Tycoons of today whose families wealth was built of the back of land theft and slave labor (you will be surpised just how many people owned slaves and no it was not just simply the rich people.)

At one point if you were a war widow you would be suggested to invest your pension into owner several slaves and the return on there work would increase your return. So normal people were slave owners as well also a fact.

The crimes of the past are not now crimes of the present, otherwise you would need to seize ALL PRIVATE land and make it state owned because it was most likely at one point or another stolen from someone to begin with.

Roman invasion, de-landed the native tribes, Norman invasion de-landed the anglo saxon land owners so basically no one today should own the land because it was most likely stolen in the first place.

The nations of the USA is basically a stolen land as is Australia but i doubt you would argue that people in those countries should be stripped of their land to return it to the decendents of the natives?

If it was really about the marriage not the wedding then they'd pop to the local registry office one afternoon with Beatrice and one of his mates as witnesses and get on with it.

Someone needs to remind her she's not a Princess!!

😜😜

Seriously though, thousands have applied for tickets. They generate plenty of media coverage and support several charities. They're wedding by merit of their familjy and social life is going to be full of people who would be targets to lunatics including several generations direct ot the throne and all the contingency plans. A bomb going off isn't some minor inconvenience! Then there's just the people trying to get close to Ed Sheeran and the like.

The cost of security vs the dual cost of cleaning up after an incident means thry need security imo

They acquired their land in the same way that any historic land owner did - do you suggest that all land is taken over by the state? Can see where this is going......

So obvious that one idiot with a complete lack of judgement would provide republicans with ammunition to use against all members of the Royal Family - even those who've devoted much of their time to the people of the UK and Commonwealth. Thanks Andrew!

worridmum the fact that others acquired land illegally doesn't make it any better. The royal family cost the taxpayer an estimated £365 million a year. That's without their huge security bill. It's bloody wrong that there are huge cut backs and draconian austerity measures affecting practically the whole country and yet it passes by this one family, in fact their wealth grows as the poor get poorer. They have all those big empty palaces used maybe a few weeks a year while people sleep in cold wet shop doorways, because the government doesn't give a damn, bloody shameful.

Have you got a spare room coolmule? Maybe you could help by taking someone from a shop doorway to share your home.

So obvious that one idiot with a complete lack of judgement would provide republicans with ammunition to use against all members of the Royal Family

I wouldn't have said he's alone in having a "complete lack of judgement", but I take your point about the encouragement it gives republicans

I also get the thing about others having acquired their wealth through dubious means, but at least many of them don't expect to enjoy the unique position of the Windsors ... or to flagrantly pick the pockets of the rest of us while they're at it

The royal family cost of protection pails in comparison to the USA on ALL heads of state bar the Bolivian one cost of sercuity are pretty similar and in line with the UK cost.

Obviously excluding the tiny nations with very small populations

worridmum that's exactly why I mentioned upthread that we wouldn't necessarily save money by having a president

But for some it genuinely isn't purely about the money or even Windsor individuals, however much we detest the way some behave. Rather, it's the whole ethos of having an unelected head of state and all that goes with it

I would be concerned if the non-elected head of state actually had any power. The real role of the Royal Family is ceremonial and supportive of the greater good. On that basis - on the whole - I think they do a good job.

ajandjjmum since a PP was good enough to remind us of the issues around the royal prerogative, why not go really into it and see if you still feel the same? (Though obviously ignore me if you already have)

I'm the first to agree such things maybe don't matter while we have a benign monarch of reasonable judgement, but what happens if we don't? A very different style might have worked in the days when the peasants knew their place, but I can't imagine it would wash now

The royal family cost of protection pails in comparison to the USA on ALL heads of state bar the Bolivian one cost of sercuity are pretty similar and in line with the UK cost.

Why would you compare it to a country the size of the USA. Why not compare it to the Irish presidency, the cost of their presidency is two and a half times cheaper, and thats without the cost of security. Do you realise that the taxpayer pays for the security of about 20 other members of the RF, even the minor ones. (which incidentally takes highly trained police officers off normal police duties, a force that has been cut to the bone) I don’t know of any presidency that has the financial burden of so many family members.

Have you got a spare room coolmule? Maybe you could help by taking someone from a shop doorway to share your home.
No i haven’t, i also don’t receive millions of pounds a year and have umpteen palaces at my disposal. Have you got a spare room?

I’m a royal family supporter but there’s no doubt they got a good deal when the Tories or was it the coalition exchanged the civil list for the sovereign grant and linked it to the crown estate. It was a HUGE pay rise for HM the Q and family.

coolmule it's perhaps not terribly relevant since at least they're elected, but you might be interested in this: www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-restores-lifetime-secret-service-for-former-presidents/