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?

ajand they aren’t for the greater good though, and we shouldn’t be paying millions to a family just because of “ceremonial duties”. We’ve been brainwashed into believing they’re necessary and for our good.

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

The cost of the security is mainly because of the daft carriage ride around Windsor. If they'd just stuck with a wedding within the grounds of the castle then it wouldn't cost so much.

coolmule - my spare rooms are mine - but I wouldn't presume to tell others what to do with theirs!

We're clearly never going to agree - my view is that they pay taxes in the £millions, some of which is given back to them. IMO, on the whole, the Royal Family is an asset to the country (except for Andrew!).

puzzled there’s a lot more taxpayers in that country, but really if we consider the fact the royals have no real power but we are protecting such a large lot of their family.....we don’t do the same for our Prime minister. I bet Theresa Mays cousins don’t get a round the clock police guard, so i don’t see why the queens extended family get it.

Zara Phillips wedding policing cost £400k

It was a private family affair

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15656685

ajand but you asked me if i was willing to give up a spare room, i haven’t, but they are mine too same as yours. I don’t presume either that i can tell others what to do with theirs, but all the royal palaces aren’t owned by an individual are they. I’m talking about the disgrace of the government paying for umpteen royal palaces (which for most if the year are unoccupied) and at the opposite end of the scale allowing people in growing numbers to have to sleep on the streets. If you don’t see the wrong in that, fine. But i and many more do.

ajand the taxes in “their millions” that they pay is from the money that they get from us anyway. Please don’t imply that they contribute to the coffers of our country, the opposite is true.

I was being facetious @coolmule - obviously our rooms are ours, the Queens are hers too. She owns Balmoral and Sandringham. The millions they pay in tax is from the Crown Estates, and they receive a percentage back, which is around 63 pence per head of population.

There are many unoccupied buildings in this country (particularly commercial premises) that could be converted in to residential use. This would have a much greater impact than a few rooms in old palaces, stuck in the middle of nowhere.

Well lets agree to disagree ajand but the money the royals receive from the crown estates is only theirs because of their position, they wouldn't be allowed to keep it if the monarchy ceased to exist. I don't agree about the palaces having no impact. Just like the palace of Versailles in France there would be massive potential as a tourist trap... and all those other empty buildings you mention, they aren't being maintained by the taxpayer to the extent the royal palaces are.

But the money raised from opening these properties for tourism etc would mean that we could afford to build proper housing for people.

Around 3 million people visit the palace of Versailles each year, if we just opened Buckingham palace up and charged a tenner for entry to 3 million people that is 30 million, let's says half goes to upkeep of the palace. That's at least 15 million pounds a year in profit that the government could use. Imagine how many houses or cheap affordable 1 bed flats could be built for that?

Now imagine if we doubled the visitors, had 10 palaces open and didn't spend such a massive chunk on upkeep. Now think what we could do with that.

I actually wasn't suggesting the royal palaces should be used for the homeless anyway. I was just pointing out the stark differences and the injustices of the two extremes.

The cost of security vs the dual cost of cleaning up after an incident means they need security imo
but if they had had a less flash public event and cut out the 'drive about' they demanded, the need for security at this extravagant level would not be necessary. They clearly view the public purse they are raiding as their own! It's so typical of Andrew ~ contemptuous of everyone else.

As for Edward and Sophie doing a few 'gigs' when it suits them ~ look at their rewards. Completely in excess of any value they give. It's a complete con.

Seriously - all this talk about security for the royals! There are prison officers on a daily basis protecting us from some of the most dangerous people in our country. They are underfunded, under protected and very much have their lives on the line for us. Nobody seems to give a shit about them as 'funds are tight', but every time a royal gets married, goes clubbing, goes on holiday, goes shopping, goes hunting or goes to university vast funds are found to protect them!
It really is outrageous that the lives of one family are judged more important than hard working public servants.

Defrack
Correct ~ I've paid a lot to visit ex royal palaces in Russia and France and various other countries across the world. The fact they are not inhabited by royals is a bonus to tourism - huge crowds paying huge amounts of money - without the royals spending all the funds raised.

I read somewhere that Charles favours having BP open to the public more and making Windsor Castle his residence when the time comes.

Agreed, I've been to Versailles and would pay good money to visit the royal palaces here.

I was also being very over generous on giving half the money for upkeep and I'm pretty sure more then 3 million people would visit the royal palaces.

MissLingoss
No. I'm not bothered about anyone else's holidays. I'm just stating her lifestyle is about doing very little, having a made up 'job' - & her contribution to the Royal 'firm' is non existent. (& why the Queen withdrew the sisters daily security recently). So, why the huge fuss & the cost being met by us. Talks to televise it fell apart because the networks don't see it as of interest to the majority of us. Zara Tindall didn't have all this hoo ha.

worridmum your understanding of the history and ownership of the crown estates is seriously lacking.

But Zara Phillips isn't a 'Princess' like Beatrice and Eugenie. She seems very down to earth.

yes its unnecessary and over the top.

Zara doesn't have a title because she has sensible parents who realised it could become a hindrance. Unlike Eugenie - although I realise her title was automatic as she is the child of a son not a daughter. Edward and Sophie chose not to use Princess and Princess for their DC - again, sensible decision imo.