The Royal Wedding and the Recession

[Celibin]

Why do millions of people struggling to pay their biils turn up to watch a very priviledged couple plus their rich entourage celebrate a marriage ?

God alone knows!!! Still, it's all 'romantic' and 'lovely' and blah blah yadda yadda. In fact, I care so little I'm going to stop posting now! Go outside and find something less boring instead... (to quote a TV program from 'yesteryear'....!!!)

Have a cup of tea in the sunshine and mow the lawn. that's what I'm about to do!
xxx

and I didn't even look to see what 'Kate's dress is like'

Hurrah for me!!!
x

Because they want to.

Maybe the ones in London who went to Hyde Park/B Palace and so on aren't struggling to pay their bills. Can you see into their bank accounts/wallets.

Or because the police put up a ring of steel around the M25 and asked to see statements before people were allowed in.

It was a few 100 thousand not millions and the security cost is £20m [chmm]

But it's not like they can just say "oh, well, let's just not worry about the security" is it?

Because either they get married in secret at Windsor (and the press goes nuts and many people are annoyed that there hasn't been the public spectacle side of things). Or they get married at Westminster Abbey and semi-public spectacle. And they have to have security, because regardless what some people think about them, there would be a massive massive hoo-hah with wider political ramifications if anything happened to them.

I did not mean the cost of the security The rich entourage is the 600 odd guests who go to the Reception. The rest of the spectators have tomake do with a picnic .

[cconfused] not sure I get you tbh. People like an occasion , weather good, day off work ...

The royal wedding will be good for the tourist industry in London. It is being shown all around the world. Just what we need at the moment.

Yes. Just what we need. All that money on security that could have gone on education or libraries or the health service. You know, something that might do some good... They didn't have to have a public ceremony.

I think it's good for the country on the whole. We needed something happy to happen...especially during such hard times. I'm pleased we saw a bit of pomp and ceremony. And it was much toned down too.

We pay out millions to other countries to help them recover from disasters and the like and I'm not saying we shouldn't, so why shouldn't the country pay for our future King's wedding day.

Well many people are glad they didn't have a private ceremony. Hundreds of thousands of people in London for it. Others watching around the country. So what makes you right and them wrong?

How much did the security cost to cover the Pope's visit last year? I'm not Roman Catholic so I objected to that more than the cost of the Royal Wedding security. It's right that the Royal wedding will have bought huge amounts of money into the country from tourism. I enjoyed seeing the pomp and ceremony which we do so well. Nice to see some happy news for a change.

the thing I don't get, right... is why (and I'm among them) people who don't really care and may even be anti-Monarch, are getting a bit of a hard time. I have got a rather rude 'who gives a shit' picture as my profile pic on FB.. and FROM FRIENDS who have nice pics of Wills and Kate as theirs (and I would argue that the professional engagement pics were bloody good....) they've flamed and said 'oooh, you miserable old bugger' etc etc. But I've not felt obliged to have a pop at their republican tendencies as a result of their profile pics.

Now. This may be true - a m.o.b. I may well be but all the same. Every time I've voiced a 'God, really, do we have to watch it' opinion, it's been major aggro!! I don't care if people want to - good luck to them and all -= honestly - each to their own, but I honestly do think that whether one agrees with them or not, the arguments about taxpayer paying for it (And the Pope's visit was another good one...) and there being money to pay for that, yet not for many other govt. funded projects - it IS an argument that is valid.

Incidentally (now that I@m well on me soap box...) am I the only one to find it surprising that Blair/Brown weren't on the guest list. Other ex Tory PMs were - I think that's a rather bad show, actually. Peter Tatchell put together a list of some 20 or so dictators from around the world who have been invited - yet they (10 Downing St?...) didn't see fit to invite at LEAST Blair - who had one of teh biggest landslide victories to power in recent years? Again - you may not like him/Brown and what they stand for... but what was Boris Johnson doing there if Blair wasn't? I do think that's party politics at its worst.

Ahem. Not Like I Care Or Anything... :o

Still - my lawn is lovely and mowed now. (Sits back with yummy G&T!)

It wasn't a state weding so they don't have to ask allt he living past prime minuisters to the wedding, if Charles was King then it would have been a state wedding and they would have had to ask borwn and blair - HTH

actually, it genuinely does. I did not realise this. Cheers, m'dear... So in that case, it's just partisan. :o

Actually, if my 'facts' are to believed - the Middletons are the only parents of commoners who have actually contributed to the wedding.

If you think about the added tourism and all the other associations, I think it balances itself out.

As you should respect those who want to watch the wedding so they should respect your decision not to ...

Think that the protocol people fucked up - blair and brown are not 'knights of the garter' which is why they weren't invited, whereas callaghan, ken clarke and thatcher are.

Think that major was made official guardian of the princes after diana died as he was the then prime minister.

Not inviting brown and blair because of protocol has caused way more of a hoo-hah than would have been the case if protocol had been overlooked IYSWIM.

There is a link between royal weddings and recessions (think Liz&Phil, Anne&Mark, Charles&Di). Not sure if it is intentional or co-incidental or what.

the arguments about taxpayer paying for it (And the Pope's visit was another good one...) and there being money to pay for that, yet not for many other govt. funded projects - it IS an argument that is valid.

No it's not a good argument at all. The royals have paid for this wedding themselves. The government have paid for the security. The cost of security is a few million quid. The expected revenues which it will bring in, in terms of tourism, merchandise etc is being estimated at half a billion quid. Now I don't know about you. But if someone said "Give me a couple of million and I'll give you back £500 million", it would seem like a jolly good idea to me.

Taxpayer this, taxpayer that. Oh please. I wish people would shut their moaning and just go with it for a day. It's a great moneyspinner for the nation. Many of us get a day off work and it showcases the UK for other nations to see and hopefully more will visit us.

If you don't want to watch it, go out for the day. Take your kids to the bloody park or something. No-one's forcing you to watch.

Me I woke up late, went to the pub with the kids and had a lovely day off. For that alone, Wills & Kate can get married every year!

NIceguy2 - I believe I said each to their own. Why should I shut up my moaning if my opinion is being actively solicited on a chat board? I wasn't forced to watch. I didn't. No need to get so narky!!

Seems a bit odd not to watch it, imo. We paid for it (I don't agree with Niceguy) and this is what we pay the Royals to do. This is them doing their job. Not watching would be like buying a theatre ticket then sitting with your eyes closed.

Besides, it's a historical event unfolding in front of our eyes. We don't have to go to an ancient castle and try to imagine what the royals looked like or what they wore - we can watch it on TV. We'd have even more cause to complain if they shut themselves up in their castles and never came out.

However, I do wonder about the timing of it. Are DC and co hoping that by giving us a public holiday (which isn't relevant if you're unemployed anyway) we are all going to go back to cultivating our gardens, in this the best of all possible worlds, and not bother about the destruction of the health service and the privatisation of our schools? If so, then they might have another think coming!

The feelgooey factor ... But I loved it. Thanks, royal people.

I expect the money brought in through tourism will far outweigh the security costs so I wouldn't worry about it OP.

This 'money brought in by tourism' idea ... Doesn't most of it go into the pockets of huge global hotel chains nowadays?

But, yes, that's the job of the royals. Let's let them get on with it. The alternative to having a monarchy might not be any cheaper, or even much fairer. President Cameron?

And where would all the journalists be without the royals to feed on?

the money in london today will go in to local shops, cafe's, our transport system, local hotels restaurants the list goes on. There are lots of Americans here who have a fairly strong dollar with which to go shopping over the next few days in our shops.

Asaik Prince Charles paid for the wedding from his money - I'm no big fan of the royal family but I think the wedding has done us a favour!