General Chat

Eugenie & Jack are getting Married 12th October having a very lavish wedding , why does the tax payer have to pay 2Million pounds for security sorry she is 9th in line to the throne & doesn't have any royal duties am I on my own here, her & his family should pay surely ? Barbara

Totally agree Barbra but I think the argument is the need to protect the guest rather than the bride......still don't think she needs such a big wedding at the taxpayers expense.

We are all born 'equal'.

Death is unavoidable in spite of expensive protection. The most expensive anti-ageing cream doesn't work. Not many of us will have the opportunity to plan our own funeral service.

In any case, we will (Pope & pauper alike) look the same in the grave after the hungry slithering worms have had their fill.

Amen!

and on that cheerful note :-)

Well that has really made it a fun thread :-(

Made the slithering worms happy though. Big eats.

Think the security is more for the royal guests than the happy couple

Their safety too of course is important as a terrorist attack would be just as devastating and a Publicity coup for any terrorist group

It would cost the country considerably more money as well.

I think the lavish wedding is all about the pushy parents having their day in the spotlight.
Ugh

Her parents pushy...spotlight fanatics.....never... :-D

:-D ;-)

It's for security, not the wedding itself! Look on the bright side, it'll bring in the tourists, Americans in particular love anything to do with the RF and will probably flock to get a glimpse!!

This was one of the topics of conversation at our coffee morning. Not one person thought it was right.

I agree with Island - nothing worse than pushy parents who think they and their offspring are entitled!

If the couple had decided on an intimate family wedding without the bells-and-whistles parade (copying H and M), we would not be forced into a £2m security bill. I wonder how much their decision was down to A and Fergie wanting the same for their daughter as H and M got, forgetting that Harry will be the son and/or brother of a reigning monarch one day.

It will be October so it could be a washout.

Do you ever wonder whether the Queen has got so fed up with things that she's begun to acquiesce to anything rather than cause a right royal barney?

Ah well it's only October because Harry "had" to have his bash first :-)

I'm all for the Royal family but this shouldn't be such a big costly affair she's so low in the pecking order.

'Some posh families groan under the weight of privilege'.

I wonder if Andrew will be pushing for a title for his soon to be son in law?
There's plenty to be bought - how about Lord or twenty quid? :-D

Island, it would not surprise me but if I had the responsibility of handing out titles, I'd be telling him "On yer bike."

Who next? :-S

Biker Jack?


Sorry, I was thinking 'Grocer Jack' :-)

Respect & civility.

Apart from the Queen and, of course Prince Phillip, the only other member of the RF that I've taken too over the years is Princess Anne.

Her children, who you never really hear about, don't hold any Royal Titles. Anne herself , at least in Oz barely cracks a mention in the media and as far as I can gather is one of the more harder workers with respect to Royal duties than many of the others.

As for Prince Phillip I do enjoy his non-pc humour and comments :-D