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?

SamanthaBrique

Are you aware of the Sanctimonious Wazzock Law?

That is the posters who like to post one-liners to show how clever and witty they are without actually discussing or debating anything, and usually without having read the thread or post they are responding to.

Last time I looked St George's was inside the castle grounds, as are the apartments for the royal family, reception areas, the banqueting hall and much more

So since Eugenie's a mostly non working royal with a pretty low profile, why not keep as much as possible within the precincts where much less security would be needed?

I have read the thread @UnderHerEye, hence my comment that the Irish model works quite well. It doesn't always have to involve the invocation of Trump or Corbyn.

'Trump has enormous power' .... sweethope, are you familiar with the use of irony?

Yes @longwayoff but @sweethope was saying that we can't compare the US presidency to the Queen's role or of any potential U.K. head of state.

longwayoff I don't understand your point. What is ironic about what I said??

Also, the 7p thing is a misnomer. Is an extravagant wedding (for a royal that carries out no royal functions) really the best use of £2 million?

Sigh. Gives up and goes to bed

@sweethope suggested the Irish model @longwayoff not anything like the US where the President holds all the power, so not sure what's so ironic about that. Did you even read the rest of her post?

longwayoff why are you sighing, can’t you answer my question. I had said, in answer to someone saying they’d rather a monarch rather than someone like Trump, you can’t compare the two, because he has loads of power, the queen does not. Is it that you think the unelected queen should have more powersThat isn’t irony, because one is an elected president, the other is unelected with no real powers. Sigh, waits for your reply.

She’s gone to bed stoops, stuck for an answer i think, as monarchists often are.

2m for the publicity this gives to Britain in other countries is peanuts. It's the best sort of advertising for Britain as a tourist destination. Out of Europe we are going to need our tourist trade to be strong.

Other countries will see 'princess' without really being aware of all the negative press she has attracted. Really we should make them all do the carriage ride after weddings to boost the footage the press can get. All brides look beautiful surely her stylists won't fuck this one up for her, the poor cow

It will also be a free day out for lots of people. It's not my kind of thing but it's just as worthy a cause as football.

The taxpayer pays for a lot of people's weddings. Anyone who gets married that receives any benefits for 3xample and I bet that adds up to a whole lot more.

The wedding could have been kept within the castle grounds. The carriage ride will rack up security costs and may actually backfire in PR terms when not many people show up to watch. I live in the vicinity and a lot of the people I know who watched Harry's wedding made a last minute decision based on the weather! I just can't see people showing up in October.

I think the current system is balanced. A ceremonial head to do the state stuff and the prime minister to concentrate on actually sorting out the country. I also think of the Queen as a sort of emergency brake. The army swear allegiance to the Queen. I like the thought that someone could step in if a future prime minister Boris or similar was about to do something really stupid we do have a last resort.

I am seriously sad about this when public services are struggling so much and there are still children in our country going hungry every night.

So no I don’t agree and she should scale it back and have some consideration.
We really need to get rid of all the royal hangers on, they bring nothing but distaste.

2m for the publicity this gives to Britain in other countries is peanuts. It's the best sort of advertising for Britain as a tourist destination. Out of Europe we are going to need our tourist trade to be strong
Oh what nonsense, Britain’s always in the news, especially with Brexit looming. Do you really think that a minor royal getting married will increase our trade with the rest of the world. Our tourist trade doesn’t depend on the royals. Even the tourist board will confirm that.

starzig am i reading right, people on benefits get as much spent on their wedding as this “princess”? good grief. What strange thinking.

No you're not reading it right. Millions of small events that tax payers have contributed to compared to very few extravagant events. Yeah probably contributed to more at the lower end.

Of course we contribute to small events, but you said we pay for people on benefits weddings. We don’t, but even if we did you can’t compare the whole benefits package which has to be distributed round a lot of people to what is spent on one particular royal wedding. Eugenie s costing the taxpayer a few million, someone on benefits gets a pittance.

The Queen maintains the others from her considerable personal fortune.

And how do you think she and her ancestors amassed this considerable fortune?

In my opinion, minor royals should have minor royal weddings unless they want to foot the bill for the additional security costs themselves.

In an even better world, the royal family's anachronistic world of privilege and kowtowing would be consigned to the history books, and the family themselves could withdraw into obscurity, hopefully earning a living like the rest of us instead of luxuriating in the ill-gotten gains of their ancestors. Tourists would still come to see the royal palaces etc, just like they do in France.

Tourists would still come to see the royal palaces etc

Exactly,...All the arguments from toadying monarchists are nonsense. It presupposes that somehow, someway, were we to rid ourselves of this decaying, corrupt, anti-democratic, feudal hangover, people would suddenly cease to visit us. People come to see the sights, the palaces, the artefacts, and the visible reminders of centuries of history. It’s not as if the Queen, or one of her dysfunctional offspring, pop out onto the lawn at Buck House to pose for photos with Japanese tourists, is it?

I like the idea of a constitutional monarchy – it’s a clear distinction between a head of state versus the government aka politics. Working royals know that their job is to be apolitical. Younger working royals grow up knowing that distinction. It means that working royals can be sent to situations, especially tragic ones, without any implied comment on the political makeup of the local or county authorities.

The York princesses have never carried out such duties. Maybe they weren’t asked; maybe they weren’t seen as suitable; maybe they weren’t interested. All they seem to be known for is taking all those holidays.

Edward and Sophie had a carriage tour around Windsor; Harry and Meghan had a carriage tour around Windsor. But both Edward and Harry already had a track record of doing royal duties where they’ve met countless numbers of people and learned a bit about their lives.

Eugenie (and Beatrice) have done nothing or very little to engage with ordinary people. The proposed carriage ride is about “look at me, I’m a royal”. Photos and videos would work. But, no, nothing less than a parade will do for that kind of princess. Meanwhile, loads of police and council workers will have to be taken off their normal duties of looking after us, the common people. Let’s hope no common person needs an urgent ambulance which gets held up by the parade.

Working royals know that their job is to be apolitical

Shame about Charles, then ...

What did Meghan do?