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

[EggFriedRice]

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 happy

BadgersPaws, I think the Buckingham Palace/Tower of London analogy may be a tad insubstantial. The figures are for hard ticket sales. But it would be difficult to physically count the number of tourists who simply come to gawp at BP or watch the Changing of the Guard & other ceremonial events for which you don't pay.

"it would be difficult to physically count the number of tourists who simply come to gawp at BP"

If they could go inside and see more of the palace then they can at present then a lot more of them might go and see it, do more than gawp and buy a nice expensive ticket too.

"or watch the Changing of the Guard & other ceremonial events for which you don't pay."

True that is hard to gauge. People like to see the Beef Eaters at the Tower of London and the ceremonies there and as said that's not been a full time royal residence for 500 years. So there's a very good argument to be made that tourists would continue to watch other ceremonial events too.

In the end though my point is that neither side can roll out any conclusive figures, the benefits are probably therefore slight.

I think yes they should pay for the whole wedding including security if they choose to get married. I know they are bringing in money etc through tourism but that's the least they could do including all security after we have looked after them all these years and it is a recession !

We pay for the security at football matches and gigs so why not I suppose?

As lots have alrady commented its not just there security but no doubts that thousands of people who will want to go along and get there part of the day.

Our council is closing down a respite care centre for disabled children.

I begrudge any money that is spent by the taxpayer on the wedding when we're being told that cuts like this 'need' to be made. The RF could either pay towards security themselves or hold the wedding in the middle of the estate at Balmoral/the Coach and Horses/the Moon.

But Vegas would be best.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the security bill to be covered, given that it's a state event with lots of foreign dignitaries likely to be there.

This wedding doesn't 'belong' to K and W in the way that our weddings belonged to us. That they should pay for the personal stuff like frocks and the food is important, but protecting the people that are there from potential harm wreaked by the lunatic fringe in the name of publicity, that's a collective responsibility IMO.

The ENGLISH royal family aren't even English! They're all German. LOL!!!

why do we have a royal family?
Whilst in principle I am anti-royal, there is a good argument along the lines of would we necessarily get better via elections? Key to this is that elections throw up those willing and able to stand. Are we sure that those people are any better than un-elected royals? If one looks at Presidents where the constitutions allow them real political power, are we sure they have done much better?

I would like to add a question? Why do we need a head of state anyway? British constitutionalists have often argued that the monarch acts as a backstop i.e. in extremis can dissolve a government. Really! Under what circumstances is this any more than entirely theoretical?

There is a view that longstanding tradition steadies the ship. I think this is just an excuse for maintaining outdated/outmoded structures, when a robust constitution is probably what is required.

Wouldn't it be great if instead of swearing allegiance to the queen and god, the government, people and armed forces swear allegiance to uphold a well framed constitution

Do you have a problem with her inherriting the roles and responsibilities of a constitutional monarch? I for one don't envy a life of being unable to express a political opinion in public and having limited private life to speak of. I don't envy the regalia, the rituals or the repetition. I don't envy being criticised for recieving money from the civil list, which amounts to a contribution of about £2 per person in the UK when I couldn't spend that money on myself, only on the legitimate expenses of my duties as sovereign and the upkeep of the royal households. I'd find it especially galling if my estates had been co-opted by the treasury and generated an income of more than 20 times the civil list whihc I never got to see either.

Yeah the queen inherrited a huge estate but it's not like she can sell up and retire to the Caribean. She's not so much the owner of her possessions but the guardian.

If you're looking to complain about people born into a life a priviledge you'd be better off to pick a target like Gerald Grosvenor, Hans Rausing, or Charlene de Carvalho all of whom inherrited amounts which dwarf the money under the Queens stewardship.

And vot is wrong vis being Cherman?

Most blardy people in the British Isles are hybrid something or other anyway. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Roman whatever, at best.

I'm a republican, but of course we should pay for security for people at risk of being killed. Same reason we pay for Salman Rushdie's, let alone Tony Blair's/Gordon Brown's. We currently have a royal family and most people want one, so until we can alter that, we have to pay for security for the system of government we have.

As to the "they're all German!" I do hope you don't say that to other British citizens of foreign descent. My husband's family are Russian Jewish if you go back a few generations, but I'd be annoyed to hear anyone deny their British status.

I do wish people could separate individuals and institutions. No time for the monarchy, myself, but I don't think that would change whether Satan or Gabriel were on the throne. It's the principle and not the person that bothers me.

I dont think we do pay for security at football matches actually. I think the football clubs pay the police force for it.

But I could be wrong I suppose, but feel sure I have been told that by a manager with the local police force before.

I think extra security at most large private events get paid for (or at least substantial contributions) from the event organisers or private individual for security.

I dont think we should pay for security in full - I think the Royal family should at least pay half. We are in a recession and loads of people are suffering and the country is apparently broke enough to be considering closing libraries.

Where is the evidence that it will generate a huge amount of cash. I really wonder who will buy the plates etc nowadays - we're not in the 80s now. There are few fewer people actually interested in the Royal Family nowadays in this country imo. And surely a lot of the income to be generated is on an assumption that there will be massive sales of stuff in this country, along with extra visitors to London which may not happen in the numbers they expect. I reckon security will run over budget and takings will be lower than expected.

I reckon it will make a loss and we cant afford that at the moment.

Nothing being german !! Its looks like all the so called British instutions arnt british but belong to foreigners and run by foreigners!!

Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. LOL!!

We really have never had a 'British royal family'.
The first generally recognised king of all England was Egbert of Wessex who reigned from 829 - 839 AD - and he was of Danish decent (some say that King Offa (774 - 796 AD) was the first, but he didn't rule all of England.).
The following monarchs of England were then generally made up of the French from William I (also known as The Bastard due to his questionable parentage) in 1066 - 1141 (Maud). The following monarchs were also of French decent, but called themselves English (as they were born here) and making English language an acceptable form of speech.
In 1603, King James I reigned as the first King of all Britain - even though he was King James VI of Scotland first ( it was a differeny country connected to England) as Queen Elizabeth died with no heirs (she was his aunt).
All a bit complex really

Frogetyfrog, there's a difference between security for something chosen, and something imposed. The current system means that family are our heads of state, so the security they need is down to that status. I disagree with the system, but it's the one we have. I don't think they should have to pay for security they need because of that job, anymore than politicians should.

Having said that I am horrified that we pay for the York girls to have protection. They're hardly serious targets, and it's a pointlessly extravagant burden on the taxpayer. The wedding though - we'll need heads of state from all over protected as well as crowd control. We have a family as head of state, and the senior members need protecting as much as the Obamas do. Just how it is.

A referendum on the monarchy might be nice. Problem is, they'd win.

The royal family are of German-nazi and Greek ancestry with links to fascism

all the royals of britain and europe have all interbred with each other over the centuries.

I could understand paying for Prince Charles to marry Camilla as he is direct next in line. But I cant see why we should pay for a lesser royal to get married - which at the moment his sons are.

But each to their own. I personally cant see the point of the royal fmaily nowadays and I am not a hater of the rich. I think we would get more income if their palaces, residences etc could be opened up as country owned tourist attractions. I cant see that it is the Royal family that brings in tourists as much as the history and old buildings etc. How often do tourists get to see the Queen or any of the royals come to that. They come to see the buildings and the guards etc surely and we could keep those going as tourist attractions.

But I know nothing. Really cannot get excited enough to give it much thought apart from a little to post on here!!

Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for a lavish Royal wedding.

The cost of providing security alone for the nuptials is expected to run into millions of pounds at a time when police budgets are extremely stretched.

The wedding is Prince William and Kate Middleton's 'private matter' and it would be 'sickening' for the Government to spend 'a single penny more' on the Royals.

It is not for the taxpayer to pay for any part of this event - the Windsors must cough up.

'Inevitably there will be additional security arrangements for the wedding, but that must be paid for by the Windsor family from their own personal fortunes, not by taxpayers who are experiencing sweeping spending cuts.

'If people are being told to tighten their belts, if the Government is making thousands unemployed, if welfare payments are being slashed, it would be sickening for the Government to allow a single penny more to be spent on the Royals at this time.

'Spending public money on this wedding or affording it any special status would be no more appropriate than if it were Ed Miliband's wedding. This is a private occasion.'

www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=518316&in_page_id=2#ixzz16FE3Fuzv

'Ignoring the fact that some people being hit hard by punitive spending cuts might find a lavish event at taxpayers' expense a bit distasteful, the fact is that if it was not for funding for degrees like history of art which the Government is axeing, the Royal couple would not have met.'

Funding the security for the wedding is still funding the wedding in my book. Why cant they do it quietly and discreetly with no fuss, in secret.

That would impress me as it would show consideration for the fact that people are really struggling to survive as are many essential services, and that they dont want to be an extra burden.

I cannot buy it that the wedding will generate more income than it will cost. Just cant see it. I have yet to meet one person who is remotely interested in the wedding so far.

I'm so [shocked] that people in this day and age actually agree that we should still have this royal family, shouldn't we move on with our educated selves?

"Why cant they do it quietly and discreetly with no fuss, in secret."

and just how do you think they'd manage that?

And if you really think that no-one is interested then perhaps you'd better go and tell the many companies that have already rolled out their memorabilia for the event and put it on sale.........I doubt they'd be selling stuff like \link{http://www.chinachaps.co.uk/vmchk/Gifts/William-and-Kate-Wedding/View-all-products.html?gclid=CP-k3J3xuqUCFUhO4QodOFQoYQ\this} is no-one at all was interested.

According to \link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/17/royal-wedding-memorabilia-merchandise\this article} there were 120 lines of merchandise available for Edward's wedding!

You and I may not be that bothered about it - but other people are. Not just in the UK but around the globe

'shouldn't we move on with our educated selves?'

What, and have someone like Tony Blair as president? Do you REALLY think that if one of his kids got married we wouldn't be expected to close down central London?

Look what happened when Bill Clinton's daughter got married earlier this year? And the marriage of President Sarkozi to Carla Bruni didn't exactly pass off in a low-key way, did it?

cowboylover, my DH is a football fan and said that clubs are responsible for paying their security bills.
I don't worship any of the Royal Family, to me they are just people who have been given a celebrity status and unimaginable wealth.
To see the state our country is in is heartbreaking, so many young people are not going to have the opportunities that Kate & William have had, the chance to go to university is now not an option for so many. How this couple can justify taking public money for any part of their wedding is appalling. If I had a choice I would rather the 30 million be spent on funding university fees.
I also think that the Royals are out of touch with the real world, I would like to see them on Question time but as they are untouchable that is unlikely.

EgFried "they" are not taking any money for their wedding. Security is going to include trying to make sure no-one blows up Westminster Abbey, or blows themselves up in any public place where 1000's of civilians will be watching,(among many other aspects of it).

EggFried. "unimaginable wealth"??? Are you being serious? Rich yes...unimaginable? Hardly!

Even the queen is relatively poor as rich people go. She's what? About 20something in the UK but hardly registers as rich. Richard Branson is richer than HRH.

As for Prince William, Harry Potter is richer than him.

And has for taking public money for their wedding please! If someone said to you...I will make you £500million but you have to spend £30 million? What would you say? Er no? It's a no brainer.

But some people don't use their brains. They can't see past their own prejudices to think about the bigger picture.