Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 ··· 15 16

Original poster

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:

Bluntness100 · 13/09/2018 16:09

Exactly, thr Queen, prince Charles, William, Harry, George, Charlotte etc will all be there, they will be out in the public and there will be crowds.

UnderHerEye · 13/09/2018 16:16

Always on mn there’s Republicans who start saying they can’t understand why fans of the monarchy think the royals are their ‘betters’ - no body actually thinks that anyone is their ‘better’ by virtue of being a royal, the Queen is our head of state and I would rather have a family who is born into the job than vote in heads of state, far too much potential to end up with corruption in a position where the candidate is voted in.

Personally I think the money involved in professional football is a disgrace but I appreciate that other people don’t.

C8H10N4O2 · 13/09/2018 16:19

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

The carriage drive around Windsor and the 1000 members of the public at a picnic or whatever will account for a significant amount of it.

Zara and Peter Philips both managed to have weddings with all the family/friends without making a public spectacle of it for which additional security was needed over and above any other private event involving the Royals.

TooManyPaws · 13/09/2018 16:28

Zara Phillip's wedding would have involved security but that would be the normal security any time the Queen and her family is resident at Holyroodhouse. Certainly no more than the opening of Parliament or the garden parties. She married at the parish church attended by the Royal Family when in Edinburgh. Yes, there were crowds but not unusual for a capital city with an international festival and a huge tourist trade. To all extents and purposes, it was a family wedding at the parish church and a reception at Granny's.

Celticlassie · 13/09/2018 16:30

She shouldn't be having a wedding that requires such high security then. There's no need for a frickin carriage if it poses a security risk. I'm sure cars would be safer.

Original poster

lelepond · 13/09/2018 17:47

I would rather have a family who is born into the job than vote in heads of state, far too much potential to end up with corruption in a position where the candidate is voted in

What did I just read? So you don't believe in democracy then.

OP posts:

Defrack · 13/09/2018 18:00

Yeah @lelepond. She just said that.
Let people have the right to veto any laws and represent this country just because of who they were born too.

I also hate the ooh president Blair thing. Don't be stupid. We would elect the president, if they were doing a crap job, parliament would be able to call another vote etc.

Bluelady · 13/09/2018 18:04

President Boris, perhaps? Not fucking likely. And look at the other side of the pond. shudder

SerenDippitty · 13/09/2018 18:13

Prince Louis will be in the same position as Andrew when he grows up, any children George and Charlotte have will push him lower down the succession. I wonder if he will be complaining about his children being marginalised?

Defrack · 13/09/2018 18:15

And we could vote them out.
We are stuck with the royals regardless.
Isn't Charles the racist one or is that Philip, I don't pay any attention to them.
With the royals we have no way to vote them out, so if they're a shit head of state, start to veto our laws and generally behave badly we can do fuck all.

Why should someone be head of state of a country because of who gave birth to them?

HaudYerWheeshtBawbag · 13/09/2018 18:19

I'm happy for my pittance to go toward this, the wedding will attract Tourism, so not only does the 2M secure head of states/family etc.. it also protects the general public, if only we lived in a world where Terrorism isn't something that is at the back of our minds.

sweethope · 13/09/2018 18:47

How on earth will the wedding protect the general public. The police will be removed from their normal police duties, they’ll be even thinner in the ground. The wedding will attract tourists? you mean people are going to come to the UK especially to watch this wedding, encouraged by this unnecessary carriage ride. Wow, what fools. I bet there won’t be enough to make a tap of difference.

When William got married, the money made through tourism was overshadowed by the millions in lost revenue because of the public holiday. We can’t win, the royals just constantly keep costing.

UnderHerEye · 13/09/2018 19:12

lelepond

You are aware that we have something called parliament where MPs that WE ELECT TO REPRESENT US meet and work in something called the government??

Numpty.

sweethope · 13/09/2018 19:18

I would rather have a family who is born into the job than vote in heads of state
You mean as in having it handed on a plate rather than have to work at anything or make even the tiniest amount of effort......So regardless of the RF having the right qualities for the “job”, regardless of whether or not they’re a crazed alcoholic drug addicted buffoon, or even worse, you’d rather have them simply because they’re “born into it”? They’re “born into it” alright, born into a life of huge wealth and privilege, servants, valets, butlers, chauffeurs......Prince Charles has over a hundred servants just for him. It’s wrong on every single level.

AgathaRaisinDetra · 13/09/2018 19:27

I would rather have a family who is born into the job than vote in heads of state

Yes, cos that works very well in North Korea.

longwayoff · 13/09/2018 19:29

Cant believe things have come to this but Trump has made the royal family look like a Very Good Idea.

UnderHerEye · 13/09/2018 19:30

Imagine the potential chaos if Donald Trump was prime minister and George Bush was head of state . . . .

Or Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister and Dianne Abbott as head of state ....

I think having one voted in and one ‘born in’ leaves far less room for corruption.

UnderHerEye · 13/09/2018 19:37

Hitler was voted in so does that make a mockery of democracy?

No, so stop making twatty arguments.

SamanthaBrique · 13/09/2018 19:58

Ah Godwin's Law 🙄

The Irish model seems to work pretty well.

ajandjjmum · 13/09/2018 20:06

I am a supporter of the Royal Family - think that on the whole they are a positive asset.

But Andrew is a jerk, and to try and copy a cousin's wedding to prove they're equally important is idiotic. I feel sure this stems from Andrew and Fergie, and Eugenie is too keen to have her 'Princess' moment' to see the damage it will cause to their branch of the family.

ajandjjmum · 13/09/2018 20:08

The weather's not looking great on the long range forecast either!

SamanthaBrique · 13/09/2018 20:11

Well quite @ajandjjmum. Harry and Meghan were married in May, Willian and Kate in June. But an open-top carriage ride in October is a recipe for disaster!

sweethope · 13/09/2018 20:13

Cant believe things have come to this but Trump has made the royal family look like a Very Good Idea.
You can’t compare the two in any way. The president has enormous power, the queen has very little. But if you’re looking for a comparison why such a huge country as the USA. Why not model a presidency on Ireland’s. It works very well, is massively cheaper and you’re not having to support so many hangers on.

I don’t understand why people think having a royal family works well for us. Just because it’s always been there?

RedPanda2 · 13/09/2018 20:15

Totally agree with you, OP. I can't imagine anyone being interested in this wedding