Eugenie’s wedding

OK Jalima, straight choice - millions of taxpayers pounds spent annually on the Royal circus, or that same amount put towards providing at least some housing to reduce the number of homeless?
Or would you prefer the current arrangement to continue so the minor royals have somewhere to visit on the odd occasion that they have a spare morning to fill?

Someone wise person, can’t rghtly remember who, said ‘the poor will always be with us’ (or words to that effect).

Would you seriously do away with security and have some idiot take a pot-shot at the queen or William for example? Think what a coup that would be for man extremist.

In a world worth less hate security wouldn’t be necessary anyway.

When we talk about doing away with the Royals and spending the money on alleviating homelessness, is that what would really happen ? It all sounds wonderful, but if the Royals disappeared , the money allocated to them would just blend in with all the other public money, and you'd never see any result in reduced homelessness.

The royals would be replaced with a President , so a Windsor or a politician as head of state? Another election every 4 or 5 years, still need an official residence , still need security, a president would have a political party supporting him/her.

^That sentence applies to ALL the RF ...(snip)...they live in a world of their own where the country is newly painted and beautiful well dressed ,well fed children ,arrive with bouquets of flowers^

I am not sure that applies to William, given his years of work in air sea rescue and air ambulance.

I do agree that expecting the public purse to fund the overblown expectations of a minor royal, who does no public work, is outrageous.
Sadly, I suspect there is little chance that 'Daddy' will recognise public mood and offer to foot the bill.

Cor, those who loathe the RF really do loathe them don't they. I can understand a rational argument about the post of Head of State but I'm genuinely surprised by the level of animosity and even hatred the mere mention of the RF stirs up in some people.
It's part of our tradition and heritage. I expect even the most ardent supporters of the RF (I'm not one of them) agrees that public funds should only go to the significant family members who work as pubic servants. The Queen and Prince Philip have given their lives to their work. I know I'd much prefer my own life, which I've lived out of the public eye, worked from 17 - 65 but without anyone telling me what I should wear, think, believe in etc.
Peace n Love folks.

Was that in Scotland?

Yes, Annie. He joined the Queen at Balmoral last week.

Thank you merlot, I am glad he was able to travel to Scotland and Balmoral

Cor, those who loathe the RF really do loathe them don't they
It seems like a malign abhorrence doesn't it!

Peace n Love folks.
Hear hear

They're cheap at the price.

I really think that the titles Prince and Princess should only be used by the offspring of the present monarch or the direct heir to the throne. Anne and Edward's children don't have these titles which says all you need to know about Andrew.
I don't think many people will be interested in seeing the carriage ride through Windsor so maybe that will tell the Yorks something. The Queen should have known better and realised that this was an unwanted or unnecessary public expense and advised against it. Heaven knows what Beatrice and her mother will wear as they are not noted for their dress sense. Eugenie seems the best of the bunch though but the royals need to be scaled down once the Queen dies.

I really agree with you Iam, my father was a bit of a half hearted republican, and I think I was for a while. When I worked up in London, fairly near Buck House it did occur to me that an awful lot of tourists are drawn to our country by the royal family and whilst it would be hard to quantify the money tourists bring into our coffers, it is no doubt a considerable amount and probably pays for them several times over. The Queen was always the backdrop to my life, I have never known another monarch, and whilst I took absolutely no notice of the royal family in my growing up years, I have of late thought she has really made the best of a quite difficult job, a job that if many of us were really honest, we wouldn't want. Even well into her 90s now she still has a multitude of paperwork to deal with and public appearances to attend. Yes there are upsides of being royal, but a multitude of downsides too, in some ways it must be hellish to have to live your entire life in the glare of publicity. Lets not forget how young William and Harry were when they lost their mother and how stoic they had to appear when they walked behind her coffin with the eyes of the world on them, all that pent up emotion and still only children None of them chose the life, I don't regard the main players as parasites, our royal family has an enormous following throughout the world and it's clear when there is a main event, that a lot of those lining the streets are overseas visitors, not all "fawning English" as one poster sees us down here south of the border. I personally don't know anyone who fawns over them, or bows and scrapes doffs their caps even though that poster has a tendency to describe the English collectively, because of course we are all the same, in thrall to the royal family so much so that we can't help turning into servile, grovelling peasants at the mere mention of their name.

This thread demonstrates very well how a cross section of the public, as I assume GN posters to be, have no appetite for a grand display for a very minor royal when she marries her Jack Whoever, certainly when the security will have to be met by the public purse. I think it only demonstrates how out of touch with the public mood they are. Nevertheless, I think there is a majority who wish to retain a slimmed down royal family, after all some of the most egalitarian European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Holland have much loved figure heads at their helm. As others have said a presidency doesn't come cheap either, The Macrons hairdressing alone comes to a stonking 60,000 plus Euros, a hell of a lot of money to maintain a couple of bog standard hair cuts. Then of course many of us were aware of how grabby one of our ex PM and his wife were. Further afield, in Africa, Presidential abuses of public money have and continue to be criminal. Quite honestly, I'd rather have our royal family, minus the irrelevant members such as the Yorks.

The word Parasites comes to mind.

Just thinking of the vile attacks Charles has had since he was a school boy , I admire him

Anne and Edward's children don't have these titles which says all you need to know about Andrew.
His children are 'entitled to titles' whereas Anne's were not
I think that that is just how it is quizqueen, ancient rules!
metro.co.uk/2018/01/22/isnt-zara-tindall-princess-eugenie-beatrice-7250764/

although, as you say, Anne and her husband Mark declined titles for him and their children.

The Macrons hairdressing alone comes to a stonking 60,000 plus Euros, a hell of a lot of money to maintain a couple of bog standard hair cuts
I could trim his hair for a tenth of that price
I'm not even a hairdresser but could do just as well

paddyann and gillybob well said both. Makes me rage at the taxpayers' money wasted on these overblown spongers. Sod off and have your wedding but pay for it yourselves (whatever THAT means).
And the dressing-up and polishing of places and people the Windsors pass though and so on, is horribly reminiscent of certain other staged photo-opportunities in Germany during the late 30s/40s. Just saying.

Voicing concern about taxpayer's money being used to fund security at an unnecessary show of entitlement does not make you a republican. It just means that sensible people do not think the royals are occasionally above reproach no matter how much they support a monarchy.

This wedding was always going to be controversial. Andrew is not popular, Beatrice and Eugenie have been the butt of criticism over their lack of jobs/holidays/dress sense/extravagant lifestyle for years - not to mention Prince Phillip's loathing of Fergie. Will he attend?

The best thing they could have done to win public approval would have been to have a low key wedding. It could still be at St. George's chapel but without all the razamatazz.

It's not the Yorks style though unfortunately.

.....not to mention 26,000 Euros on his and her makeup Jalima, for the first 3 months after they took up office. I can't help thinking, some French would express Rowantree's sentiments at such excesses, "sod off! you overblown spongers, buy some Rimmel products and do it yourselves, no one will see any difference" It's not just royal families who cost!

Why are Zara and Peter considered different to their cousins, Zara has never worked, yes she won an Olympic medal but she has access to her grandmothers stud farms. She lives on an estate bought by her grandmother , she appears on the balcony with all her cousins as does her daughter , she has a privileged life yet is held as a hard working woman who doesn’t benefit from being a Windsor.

The vehement posts about how much people 'hate' the RF are unfounded it is the institution and the hangers on it encourages we disapprove of. As for the President argument, it's fine to consider it is unacceptable, but how much more unacceptable would it be if besides the President his/her children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren had to be funded ad infinitum?

Perhaps it is always the lot of the people to moan about their leaders - the Macrons, the Trumps, after the French monarchy I expect the people complained about the Bonapartes who became a dynasty.

Just televise the wedding service and leave it at that. I watched Prince Harry's wedding service then switched off.
While the public continue to line the streets, waving their flags,then these coach rides will continue. Let those who are putting on' the show' pay for it and its not just about the money but how many police will be needed.?What if there was a major attack and I mean 'major' not just a one man band fanatic and in London itself. Doesn't bear thinking about.

I do think though, if people took the trouble to check, they would find that a lot of the funding does not come from the taxpayer, apart from a few of the RF who do carry out the duties asked of them. Any other duties by other members who are not funded by the taxpayer are paid on an ad hoc basis.
Their so-called 'profligate life-style' is funded from private money, whether from their own inheritance or by HM from her own private funds. Taxpayers' money goes to fund the household which is required for a Head of State to carry out the duties and for other members of the household to do what is asked of them by the public, charities, etc.

There are a few myths circulating about just what is and what is not funded by the taxpayer.

If I was a very rich granny, I would be supporting my family in the way I'd like them to become accustomed too.

The Royal family is not the main reason that tourists visit the UK, contrary to the tosh written in papers such as the Daily Mail.
So far this year I have visited France, Germany, Italy and Croatia, all wonderful countries with functioning democracies and thriving tourist industries.
And not a king or queen in sight.