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?

All these sycophants jumping to defend them is embarrassing.

Oh dear, OP, looks like your revolution isn't coming. Maybe try again next century?

Haha uponthedowns it's funny isn't it when the plebs get ideas above their stations.

Why should anyone be bothered that some people live in a palace they didn't earn, being given money from people with a job, so they can continue their pointless existence?

I, for one, am really glad that we still have a monarchy. If we didn't, my children might end up with the crazy idea that they needed to work hard to achieve something, rather than having it handed to them.

Yes a republican website that provides clear evidence for its figures when the royals shroud there's in secrecy.

So sorry I embarrass you, teleport. I'm no sycophant but I do appreciate some of the very few things this country has left to admire. State occasions are top of the list and we wouldn't have those without a monarchy. With the rest of the world regarding us with pity or laughing at us, I think it's quite important to keep the handful of things we do well.

Yes let's keep paying obscene amounts of money to these people while they amass, a massive private portfolio.

What a great idea, we can shout that from the rooftops. Hey the rest of the world look at us, aren't we so great by saying one family is more important then the rest of the country! Look at us, bet you're so sad you don't have this.

When we stop paying obscene amounts of money to incompetent and inept politicians, I might have some time for that argument.

Without a monarchy we'd have no trooping of the colour, changing the guard, state opening of parliament or many other ceremonial occasions. I'm not prepared to ditch great swathes of our history to please a few republicans. I'm delighted the majority of British people agree with me.

As a foreigner I have to say from the ‘outside’ the monarchy looks kinda nice- it’s history, tradition, heritage etc.. quaint..
the issue is that it is an old fashioned concept and they need to modernise to fit in with today’s changing world .

The choice to demand the exact same scale of wedding as prince harry and Meghan Markle without a thought as to what people in the uk would feel/think about it just shows she either doesn’t think or doesn’t care, either option is really disappointing . clearly opinion on the matter is divided, on this forum as it is in real life, why be so selfish and rock the apple cart

@donutcone what mm spent on her dress is her own business isn’t it? Don’t think anybody has a right to tell someone what they should or should not do with their hard earned money..

Those figures come from a republican website and are about as reliable as if they were in the Morning Star.

Republican website? The information comes from the Sovereign Grant Report.

Non working Royals bill the tax payer for personal travel, accommodation and security on the grounds that their choices of travel and accommodation are "restricted".

The current fortune of the Royal Family was amassed last century when for decades they paid no taxes, no NI for employees and no business taxes on their businesses. They still are exempt from a number of taxes which competing local businesses have to pay.

I'm not prepared to ditch great swathes of our history to please a few republicans.

Yes, France and other republics have no pageantary/parades at all. Bastille day is marked by empty streets and an early night.

It isn't an either or. You could have a republic or a scaled down Royal Family business without losing any of the castles and pageantry.

Bluelady So let's keep them around because they put on a good show?

Teleport, stop either twisting my words or being disingenuous.

The post I questioned was literally copied and pasted from a republican website. www.republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/royal-family-funding-know-facts

But we can still have the guard regiments etc so they can still do parades, why do we need a monarch to do parades?

France got rid of its monarchy and makes more money out of them then we do with ours, as they allow visitors to visit all the palaces and royal residences etc

I didn’t realise any human beings were irrelevant!

The post I questioned was literally copied and pasted from a republican website

And the report I listed is the original source of the information quoted.

You can find that report on the Royal Family website.

I think we can assume that site isn't the hotbed of the Republican Horde.

The only members of the Royal family who are funded by the tax payer are the Queen, Philip, Charles, William and Harry. The Queen maintains the others from her considerable personal fortune. If they're scrounging off anyone it's Granny and I can't see how that's any of our business.

Does the Queen pay security costs?

Nope the metropolitan police have to fund the full costs of policing the royals.
Local councils have to fund everything to do with a royal visit to their area.

If they're scrounging off anyone it's Granny and I can't see how that's any of our business.
Granny gets a fortune off us, it enables her to fund her kids, so one way or another we're funding the whole damn lot of them.

I'm not prepared to ditch great swathes of our history to please a few republicans.

Our history? Not exactly a glorious history as far as the royals go. A family who only occupy the position they do thanks to centuries of incest, tyranny, murder, thievery and bloodshed?
We do have a rich and glorious history, but it certainly doesn’t depend on the royal family to feel any sense of pride.

Republicanism in the UK is like one of those minority fantasies that we know to exist, but whose devotees generally have the good sense to keep quiet about in public to avoid embarrassment. Kind of like foot fetishists, or fans of Nicholas Cage as a serious actor.

@UpOnTheDowns

''.... to avoid embarrassment. Kind of like foot fetishists, or fans of Nicholas Cage as a serious actor.''

I'll remember that!! Superb!!!

The only ones who embarrass themselves are those odd people who look up to the royals as their betters, who are often seen frantically waving those little flags having camped out in sleeping bags whenever there’s a royal wedding. Three or four nights camping out hoping for a little glimpse of one of their “betters” is enough to practically make them spontaneously combust.

Meanwhile the rest of the world look on in amazement, great entertainment but so thankful they aren’t saddled with such absurd nonsense themselves.

Just copied and pasted this from a republican site, it rings so true.

“Or you could fight for a future where no one dies alone, cold, starving and homeless on our streets, while a single family of leeches is subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of pounds every year. A world where the poor are not booted from their homes for the crime of having a spare room and the real benefit scroungers are targeted with the same gleeful spite and callousness as that experienced by the most desperate among us.”

I think the distasteful waste of money of this upcoming wedding will do nothing to help the royalist cause. Quite the opposite in fact.

A lot of previously apathetic people will be confused and disgusted by this bloated display and really begin to wonder what the point of the royals are.

Andrew and his ilk are hastening their own demise in their greedy clamor to be seen as something special.

Wouldn't the security threat be more about who is attending the wedding rather than the bride herself?