Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Badtasteflump · 12/09/2018 11:44

Happy to contribute 7p for this

Well I'm not, actually.

Bluelady · 12/09/2018 11:45

They get Civil List money in exchange for the cosiderably higher proceeds from the crown estates going into the exchequer. They're welcome to my 7p to protect the people in Windsor.

LaurieMarlow · 12/09/2018 11:45

Happy to contribute 7p for this

All those 7ps add up. I'd prefer if it was put to extra nurses.

Bluelady · 12/09/2018 11:46

All those extra nurses the NHS can't recruit?

topcat1980 · 12/09/2018 11:46

The Crown estates don't belong to the Royals, the belong to the "Crown" or the nation.

They certainly do not cost 7p.

LaurieMarlow · 12/09/2018 11:47

crown estates going into the exchequer.

The crown estates don't belong to the Windsor family, but the specially set up legal entity of 'the crown'. They have no personal claim to them.

Motherhood101Fail · 12/09/2018 11:47

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

Badtasteflump · 12/09/2018 11:47

Poncing around Windsor in a carriage with the chinless numpty she's marrying, vastly inflating the security bill - totally fucking Marie Antoinette. She is a nonentity who seemingly has little grip on reality

This with bells on. Although I do find it funny that she's copying her cousin's wedding the way she is.

Despite apparently living in a democratic country, we don't seem to have any say on who actually 'rules' us. Pisses me off massively, every time any 'royal' pops up somewhere.

Bluelady · 12/09/2018 11:47

They ARE the Crown. Are people really this uneducated?

LaurieMarlow · 12/09/2018 11:49

the Irish have done a great job at selecting their presidents.

LaurieMarlow · 12/09/2018 11:50

They ARE the Crown. Are people really this uneducated?

Haha, the irony.

No, 'the crown' is a legal entity, not an individual

topcat1980 · 12/09/2018 11:50

The cost of the Royals for the Royal Grant ( civil list was abolished) doesn't include protection, the cost of protection which falls to the Met, the cost of policing when visiting areas. It also doesn't cover the costs from the Royal Estates of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, both of which provide private incomes to the Sovereign and Prince of Wales.

topcat1980 · 12/09/2018 11:51

"Are people really this uneducated?"

Ironic.

Bluelady · 12/09/2018 11:55

No irony at all. Do your research.

butterflysugarbaby · 12/09/2018 11:59

I am a huge Royalist, but sadly, I have to agree with you OP.

YANBU.

MilkTrayLimeBarrel · 12/09/2018 12:01

Why shouldn't Eugenie have a wedding comparable to Harry and the awful Meghan? She is the Queen's grandchild, like Harry, so surely merits the same treatment? Zara and Peter Phillips chose not to have a public wedding, and Anne's first wedding was a huge affair. Her second wedding to Tim was quiet, yes, as was Charles' second marriage. I like Eugenie and Jack and wish them all the best.

butterflysugarbaby · 12/09/2018 12:02

Sorry @bluelady , but calling people 'uneducated' for seemingly getting something 'wrong' makes you look like a massive tool. And WAAAAY more 'uneducated' than the person you are attacking. Certainly makes you look odious and obnoxious.

TheNavigator · 12/09/2018 12:05

YANBU it is ridiculous. If they want a big wedding, they can pay for all of it themselves. If they can't afford the security costs, they should rein it in a bit. Cut their cloth, like we all have to (and we actually work for our money, unlike this talentless parasite).

viques · 12/09/2018 12:05

It's not the actual cost that is pissing me off actually, it's the fact that security personnel are having their leave and time off cancelled to police this not very important event at a time when we are heavily reliant on security personnel for national security and want them to be both available and alert to protect the rest of us.

LaurieMarlow · 12/09/2018 12:06

For bluelady

From the official page of The Crown Estate

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

DolorestheNewt · 12/09/2018 12:07

Despite apparently living in a democratic country, we don't seem to have any say on who actually 'rules' us. Pisses me off massively, every time any 'royal' pops up somewhere.

"MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showed support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people, but in 2005, at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped, with one poll showing that 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic. In 2009 an ICM poll, commissioned by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know."

Sympathetically on the fence though I may be to your feeling, Badtasteflump, I don't think we can argue that "we" have no say. These are healthy margins of support.

Bluelady · 12/09/2018 12:08

Yes, I'm a massively odious and obnoxious tool. One who manages not to call people names. I'll stick with my ostensible lack of education.

WindyWednesday · 12/09/2018 12:11

She is a real princess. MM or KM are not real princesses. I don’t begrudge this one.

MissusGeneHunt · 12/09/2018 12:12

We are where we are - we have a Royal Family, they bring in revenue (yes, alright, they also spend it) to businesses and individuals, it's part of history and sadly, we're a hot spot for a security risk in this country.

The money being spent on security would be spent whether they have a carriage ride or not - but it'd be far more behind the scenes. Protection of the family will of course be first and foremost in terms of what we actually see, but protection of the entire environment surrounding the celebrations, the public, the town, the transport, the area, will happen as a matter of course, whether there was a carriage ride (or any other very public facing 'display' of the celebrations) or not.

£2m is a massive amount of money, of course we could all allocate that to somewhere we hold dear. But no-one is going to say 'no' to the event, howsoever that presents itself (unless there was going to be another Royal 'It's a Knockout'), and therefore the allocated money has to be spent.

She isn't a 'non-entity' or 'irrelevant'. We don't know her, we have no idea as to her persona. As a nation we vote worse people in to represent us!!

Until we have a resurgence of the French or Russian Revolutions (god forbid in terms of the violence and destruction) we are 'stuck' with the Monarchy and there will be thousands of people who will love this event and all its public display. So be it. Personally, I won't be watching, but I'll be happier knowing that the security services will be doing all they can to mitigate the risk to the public.

Finnwood · 12/09/2018 12:17

She is a real princess. MM or KM are not real princesses

Oh God, Windy, you sound like Prince Andrew - always banging on that his daughters are Princesses of the Blood!

Swipe left for the next trending thread