Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

UK Tax Payer to foot Royal Wedding Security Bill, why?

165 replies

EggFriedRice · 23/11/2010 12:26

Just been announced on the news that the UK taxpayer is footing the security bill for the Royal wedding in April 2011. I am not personally a fan of the royal family nor is my DH, we don't agree that our taxes should be spent on someones wedding security arrangements. Why is the Queen not paying for this after all she is one of the wealthiest women in the world? With all of the cuts being announced I don't feel that it is right or fair to make the taxpayer pay for the royals security wedding plans. They will never suffer the hardships that so many people are or will be going through in this country it is a disgrace imo.
I suppose the extra Bank Holiday on 29th April 2011 is to keep us happyHmm

OP posts:
Rockbird · 23/11/2010 12:28

Because they are the Royal family. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it but there is no point bleating on about it. I think the actual wedding is being paid for by the families which is more than they would have done in the past.

Original poster
EggFriedRice · 23/11/2010 12:35

Give me one good reason why the Queen & Prince Charles should not pay for the security of their grandson/son's wedding?

OP posts:
MaryAnnSingleton · 23/11/2010 12:36

yep, why shouldn't they pay for their security ?

werewolf · 23/11/2010 12:38

We paid for the Pope.
We've paid and will be paying for the Olympics.

I'm not interested in either of those.

Bucharest · 23/11/2010 12:39

Presume we pay for the Cleggeron's security as well, do we? I'm even less interested in them..

At least with kate and the Pope we get a nice frock.

plantsitter · 23/11/2010 12:41

As a Londoner I would rather the government were doing it and focussing on the security of the country rather than the Royal Family doing it and focussing on the VIPs. On the cheap I should expect.

I don't care about the wedding and I don't want to pay for it but I'd even go so far as to say I'd to pay a bit more tax before the wedding to guard against another major incident in London.

Fortheverylasttime · 23/11/2010 12:42

RE the Crown Estates. Is that separate from QE2's personal fortune?

I don't see why she can't sell Sandringham, not to pay in anyway for the wedding, but just to pay for repairs on her 'residences'. Sandringham is not a historical royal residence. It was bought in the C20th.

She is the head of state and in that respect I don't think she should pay for security, but I am pleased that the Royal Family's finances are being scrutinised.

Callisto · 23/11/2010 12:44

The royal wedding will be a huge money spinner for the UK. I would imagine that the UK economy will see a net gain from the wedding.

Ryoko · 23/11/2010 12:44

We are a bunch of cowardly saps, thats why should have followed the Frenches lead, it's not too late to lynch em and have a republic, it's never too late, we can lynch Cleggers as well while we are at it.

2shoes · 23/11/2010 12:47

I assume we pay security all the time for them and politicians and stuff like that.

Fortheverylasttime · 23/11/2010 12:49

Ooops, I don't think she (as Head of State) should pay for wedding security, but am pleased that royal finances are being scrutinised.

LaurieScaryCake · 23/11/2010 12:51

It's going to cost over 30 million apparently. I think the taxpayer needs to fund it as basically it will be about keeping London safe. Unless they got married on the quiet in a registry office with noone there we have to keep all the other leaders/peeps safe.

Frankly the day is catnip to terrorist threats/actions Hmm

2shoes · 23/11/2010 12:55

i wonder how much the pope cost
or the political conferencence#s (sp)

BadgersPaws · 23/11/2010 12:57

"RE the Crown Estates. Is that separate from QE2's personal fortune?"

Yes. The income from the Crown Estates all goes to the Government. It used to go the monarch but the monarch swapped it exchange for a fixed civil list payment a couple of hundred years ago.

The income generated is about £200 million a year, the civil list is £8 million, we got a surprisingly good deal.

"We are a bunch of cowardly saps, thats why should have followed the Frenches lead, it's not too late to lynch em and have a republic"

We tried that before the French, and it wasn't wildly popular or successful.

The revolution after that we avoided all the head chopping lark and achieved far better results.

"I assume we pay security all the time for them and politicians and stuff like that."

Yes we do, and like it or not the Queen is the Head of State and so in my opinion we've got to pay for her security.

MorocconOil · 23/11/2010 13:00

They should bloody well pay for it!

expatinscotland · 23/11/2010 13:00

I agree, Laurie. I wouldn't be surprised if Al Queda hasn't already named the mission.

I'd stay well away from crowds that day.

bacon · 23/11/2010 13:12

The security will be for every dignitry and its for the country not just individuals.

I think this is a stupid question.

Ryoko · 23/11/2010 13:17

30 million?

Send the fuckers to an Elvis chapel in Vegas.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 23/11/2010 13:21

Well to be honest I think it's the right decision.

As has been pointed out - it's a good "target".

And - like it or not, no matter what your views on the Royals are - there ARE an awful lot of people that will go to London to be "there" for the event and get a glimpse.

I think the government has a duty to protect those people that go.

Personally I rather like Westminster Abbey - would rather it didn't go up in a tower of smoke.........

mateysmum · 23/11/2010 13:28

The Queen is the head of state, William is a future head of state, therefore this is a public, not a private occasion. Much of the security will be to keep the public safe and other heads of state who have to be invited. The Queen should not be expeted to pay for this.
Whatever it costs, the income from increased tourism and related business will far exceed the cost.
for those of you who object to the cost in general of the monarchy - if we had a republic with a President, do you really think it would cost less? Apart from all the political shenanagins, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace etc would not just fade away: they would still have to be maintained and I can't see President Blair living in a place that hadn't been decorated or rewired for 50yrs.
To the OP. I'm sure if you want to work and be miserable on April 29th, feel free. The rest of us will enjoy the day off whether we watch the wedding or not.

LaurieScaryCake · 23/11/2010 13:30

expat - I can see a wee argument occuring in our house when dd realises it's in the Easter holidays and that 25 minutes by train isn't that far. She'll be almost 13 by then but I'm still not letting her go and there's no way I want to go.

Apparently there's never any loos at these things Grin

Original poster
EggFriedRice · 23/11/2010 13:36

It's a multi-million pound security bill we shall be footing, can Britain afford it in such hard cost cutting times? If the Royals paid even half the security bill that would be a good thing.

OP posts:
PanicMode · 23/11/2010 13:40

BadgersPaws - I think that was true until the CSR when the Queen will now receive a percentage of the surplus from the Crown Estate instead of a fixed Civil List payment. Given how well run they are, she'll probably be better off!

The taxpayer should pay because it's not just a private occasion - it will be a magnet for terrorists and London is a capital city - we have a duty to keep our citizens, and those visiting our shores, safe.

And as everyone else has said, do those who abhor the monarchy really think that we'd have a cheaper republic - surely the MPs noses-in-the-trough expenses scandal should alert you to the fact that the Queen and the Royal Family are actually immensely good value, and if we had a President we'd be paying a LOT more. The tourism benefits to the capital will be immense.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 23/11/2010 13:43

It's not the royal family specifically who will be at additional risk -- they all have security details already who will be able to keep them safe. The risk is more of a significant terrorist incident in central London timed to get maximum publicity, and there will be rather a lot of people who are not royal and not rolling in cash around. I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to pay for ensuring their security.

And I type as a republican with virtually zero interest in the wedding (I will probably look at a picture of the dress and say either "Oh, that's nice. What's for dinner?" or "Oh my goodness, how unfortunate. What's for dinner?" but no interest beyond that).

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 23/11/2010 13:48

IF the cost is £30 million I think that's quite a bargain for the a major Royal wedding - it cost "us" (well you as I'm not working.......although actually I was when the weeding took place) £5 millilon for Charles and Camilla to get married.

Charles and Diana cost £4 million in 1981 (not sure what that would equate to in todays terms but quite a lot I should imagine)

And it cost £7.4 million to police the G20 protests last year

£10 million for the Pope to visit.

The latter 2 of course had very little public/tourist appeal and probably bought in very little (if any) money