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?

Topcat Tony Blair was an elected Prime Minister who served the country, Nope, he served himself, not the country. He was furthermore, an elected MP; we do not elect PMs. The PM is the current leader of the party who wins the majority of the vote. Nowhere on my ballot paper in 1997 did it say Tony Blair.

Oh pedantism at its highest there Scary, it did say Labour MP, and you knew that Tony Blair was the Labour leader, and you knew that Tony Blair would be PM if you voted Labour just like you knew that John Major would be PM if you voted Conservative.

He was furthermore, an elected MP; we do not elect PMs

Whether you, I or any other individual likes any particular PM is irrelevant. They are elected to the role as part of the democratic process and for a limited amount of time. They also do an actual job.

They don't have vast amounts spent on them for security, simply because they were born in a particular bed and choose a big public celebration for their private marriage whilst doing no actual service to the country.

The security for a former PM isn't for a limited amount of time. It's until they snuff it - and, in Thatcher's case, beyond.

Cull the royals I say, do like Denmark did, got rid of all it's minor royals and kept the major ones. I could live with that.

"WindyWednesday

She is a real princess. MM or KM are not real princesses. I don’t begrudge this one.".
I don't understand this. They married real princes

I don't understand this. They married real princes
But not royal in their own right. Beatrice and Eugenie are the product of royal blood.

Is there really a discussion about who is a real princess? Personally I don't care if she is a real one or a fake one (like dd - aged 6 - going to a party). Let her and her family pay for her own sodding wedding.

I just heard the most horrific tale of a mother dying because of nhs deficiencies. It is disgusting to be ponsing around in a horse and carriage when people are left to starve to death in this country.

The security for a former PM isn't for a limited amount of time. It's until they snuff it - and, in Thatcher's case, beyond.

The role is for a limited amount of time.

The fact that they need security for life as a result of performing that role doesn't alter the fact that they are democratically elected for a limited time.

topcat1980 I like a bit of pedantry now and then. No, I certainly didn't vote Labour. The only Labour politician who could have ever possible persuaded me had died, hence Bliar becoming Labour leader.

As some one else has pointed out the bill works out at about 7p per tax payer., and the security is not just for the bride but fir al the congregation and those working in the immediate vicinity. Her birth family was nothing to do with her choice. And, I am not a big fan of royalty but totally understand the cost of the wedding to the general tax paying public

MrsSteptoe

I don't understand this. They married real princes
But not royal in their own right. Beatrice and Eugenie are the product of royal blood"

Yes I get that. As were William and Harry. So what is the relevance to the cost of the wedding?

Ah, sorry -- I think that's probably me misinterpreting your post!

I don't watch football at all, have no interest in it. But it still cost over £6million in 2016/17 for the Met to police football matches in London.

Once I found that out, I was less annoyed about money being spent policing royal events. Just one of those things taxes gets spent on. And its not like there's a royal wedding every year (just 2 this year haha!)

I would prefer my 7p to go to those languishing in hospital wards. It's obscene that this nobody thinks she's relevant enough to warrant such a public event. She is not a working royal so why not have a private wedding in one of Granny's castles (as grandiose as she likes). It's obscene and indicates exactly what they think of their subjects.

Funding for the NHS and for national security come out of different pots for goodness sake. If there was no royal wedding with security forces on duty, the NHS would remain the same.

@rebecca36 that’s just being pedantic.
At the end of the day if you don’t spend 2mm here you can spend it elsewhere?

Isn't the £2m figure only because of the carriage ride? If she just got married like Peter or Zara did, with photos taken outside the church and some wedding shots released to the press, then there would be no need of it. It just smacks of keeping up with the Cambridges/Sussexes. And is a carriage ride in the middle of October really the best idea? I think the Yorks are kidding themselves if they think this is going to draw the public the way William or Harry's weddings did.

Even the title “princess” sounds ridiculous. Like something out of a fairy tale. The opulence and privilege of this undemocratic dysfunctional family disgusts me.

I have to budget my wedding taking into account all costs - so should she. If granny wants to chip in towards the costs of security then that is their decision.

But expecting tax payers to contribute is entitled VS.

B.S. not VS

In these awful times where practically everything is being cut to the bone, including huge cuts to the police, the royal family as ever with their huge sense of entitlement take the absolute piss. The queen has a personal fortune of approx £365 million, but here they are with their begging bowl once again. Let’s use up even more vital police resources, lining the streets so one of them gets to have a totally unnecessary carriage ride. Let’s hope there’s not too much crime happening on this day, Eugenie is far more deserving of having police protection it seems. What an absolute joke.

I'm a moderate royalist in that I think the working royals serve a recognisable publicity function and that it might therefore be money well spent to ensure that the key royals are visible to the public. So in their case, carriage rides might well be indicated. But I can't see that Eugenie serves any such function. She does not do royal duties, she does not spend her time on charity work, there is no reason to think it would benefit anyone except herself to have her parade down Windsor.