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?

I'd far rather that money is spent on security for Eugenie's wedding than for Tony Blair. I really, really, resent the latter.

Anne's children are every bit as royal as AirMiles Andy's children, none of them will ever get near the throne, none of them are "working Royals".

There is no earthly reason why a non working Royal who half the country would struggle to recognise, needs a big, public Royal Wedding with carriage procession paid for by the tax payer.

Zara and Peter both had perfectly splendid weddings without the agrandisement.

It is only our expectations of being able to see it, be there at Windsor and St George's that mean it costs extra.

But does anyone seriously have any expectation of being able to see it? I can't recall anyone making a fuss about not being able to see the weddings of Princess Anne's or Princess Margaret's children.

scaryteacher, it's not an either/or. Do you seriously imagine the security services are going to withdraw security from a former Prime Minister just because they've overspent a bit on Eugenie's wedding?

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

So being the progeny of Prince Andrew of all people, supposedly makes her better than anybody else?

That's as good an argument against the royal family as any I've heard.

It’s not her fault she needs security, it’s the fault of some strangers who pose a risk. So blame those anti-Royal demonstrators who might be inclined to take it too far for the use of your taxes.

Gersemi Where did I say it was an either/or? If we pay a shit ton to protect Blair, then we should pay to protect HM and the Royal Family. I dislike paying for the former, I don't begrudge the latter, if that makes it clearer for you?

""Poncing around Windsor in a carriage with the chinless numpty she's marrying,""

I'm tempted to say that they deserve this day, to make up for how their children will look.

""So blame those anti-Royal demonstrators""

I think Isis is a bigger threat. Then there are other groups that come before anti-royalists.

Lets face it, this sort of event is what we do best and is what the rest of the World look at us for. We are a bit of a joke at the moment. But our Royals are unique to the UK.

Other than that we are an insignificant little wet/cold country that is imploding, in World terms.

What do we want to be known for, just Football, music and the odd bit of medical research? All of which is becoming overshadowed.

On the subject of Football, that takes much more of tax payers money, for security and the like.

It’s not her fault she needs security, it’s the fault of some strangers who pose a risk.

Its a choice though to have a big, fancy public wedding when you are not even a working Royal.

7p is 7p. If you were 7p short for a loaf of bread you couldn't buy it could you.
If I was to get 7p every tax payer in Great Britain. I'd be on to a bloody good thing.
I'd rather it go on vital services ie Police and nurses ect.

Both sides have valid points... when I first read about the estimated cost I was shocked given the current economic climate and the state of funding of various public services like the met police and nhs..
Zara Tindall is equally ranked I believe within the royal family but elected to have a smaller scale, still elegant wedding NOT at Windsor..
A previous poster pointed out that needing security was not her choice .. agreed , but I’m pretty sure if she had to pay 2mm pounds to have a Windsor wedding herself vs maybe 1/4 or half that to have it somewhere else ( like Zara Tindall) that a different decision might have been made?
It’s a question of appropriateness.. just because you are entitled to something doesn’t mean you have to take all 100 pct of it if it’s not really necessary or appropriate (back to my first point about the current economic climate).

What makes this harder to swallow is the fact that she has no public duties.. prince Harry and Meghan have been very busy with public appearances /state work and charity work .. Furthermore there was intense global interest in their wedding as well so comparing the two events is a little unfair..

Suspect the York family got away with running up these huge bills because no one has the guts to tell them they don't matter.

Let alone the guts to say no one has the faintest who the bride and bridegroom are.

They're miles away from the succession now and none of them is a working Royal.

The Royal family do not "bring in revenue", the Royal Estates do not belong to them.

Nor do they bring in tourists, not one of the Royal attractions is in the top 25 of tourist attractions in the UK. The calculations that do give these figures do so through the "heritage of the crown", heritage doesn't change and these tourists would come anyway. Just like they go to Paris and lots of other cities.

Tony Blair was an elected Prime Minister who served the country, you can resent it all you like, ex PMs need protection.

I'm sure you would have thought Thatcher needed it.

To honest I wonder what the security bill actually. How is it calculated? Does the £2m actually mean anything? What is the additional cost over and above the usual cost of security for that group on a Saturday afternoon?

Because £2m doesn’t sound right. All I can think they need to pay for is the police and security equipment such as barriers etc, for a maximum of a couple of days. £2m? Really?

The security will be the extra police needed to be on the route of the parade, the ones protecting the barriers, set up cost, planning costs etc.

If they had a private Windsor ceremony the security costs are much lowerl. Usual Police presence for the Queen and DofE ( and of course the Army outside), with protection officers for the rest for the journey to and from.

Completely get that but it’s still hard to understand how that comes to £2m? So Notting hill is quoted at about £8m. That’s closure of an entire residential area (2-3 miles?) for 3 days- all metropolitan police, hundreds of officers, search equipment etc

She is taking a horse and cart down Windsor high street for 10 mins. It seems a bit odd, and I wonder if it’s even accurate

Notting Hill costs more per day though.

What do you mean? It’s £8m for the whole operation, it can’t cost more than that per day.

Or do you mean 8/3 is £2.6m per day therefore more expensive than the wedding? I’m not denying that, but I’m making the point that NHC is a ginormous event in comparison

I think most people would recognise Eugenie but it’s a bit sad she couldn’t think of an original venue or idea for her wedding and is simply copying her cousin. Unkind comparisons will be invited. The carriage ride just smacks of entitlement, and I’m a Royal family supporter.

Notting Hill involves a community not just one young woman and her barman fiance.

The point isn’t about what Notting hill is and isn’t

Had a look at the reports about this.

Its not clear if the security costs are "extra" or the entire security bill of RF presence that day.

There must be some extra though.

The point is that the security is there to prevent people being killed or injured, regardless of why it's needed. The security for Margaret Thatcher's funeral cost a not so small fortune too and, much as I resented the event, it was to protect the crowds lining the streets.