Should the Tax payer foot the wedding bill for Princess Eugenie?

[SirGalahad]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-money-prince-andrew-labour-mp-a8497221.html

Princess Eugenie is ninth in line to the throne and carries out no royal duties.

The wedding was initially expected to cost around £750,000 and was set to be paid for by the couple’s parents, but security costs have more than doubled it to almost £2m, according to the Daily Mirror.

 

[Bosswhite]

Prince Andrew is well known for getting " Freebees" no reason why he shouldnt get the Gullible Tax Paying Public to finance his daughters wedding .

 

[EddieM]

Put a poll on it, mine would be a no to the question should the taxpayer contribute towards the wedding.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Apparently the country would have little tourism without this family so just look on it as a small investment.

 

[EddieM]

Apparently the country would have little tourism without this family so just look on it as a small investment.

Yeah, right

 

[ReganAndCarter]

If the wedding and the money spent on it annoys liberal republicans, I'm all for it. It's amazing that they are all for throwing billions of pounds on basket cases like Africa with foreign aid, etc, with little to show for it, but quibble over a measly 2 mil.

Just like Trump and Brexit, anything that gets liberals worked up is always worth it.

 

[Ihavenojob]

I'm pro Royal Family, but we shouldn't be paying for this.Can't see this being a massive tourist attraction .

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm pro Royal Family, but we shouldn't be paying for this.Can't see this being a massive tourist attraction .

You can't have it both ways.

Tourism is used as a reason for keeping the royal family so...
That's why no one visits France (or Portugal).

 

[ReganAndCarter]

France and Portugal have climates that attract tourists. No one comes to The UK for the weather. We need Her Maj, or we'd have nothing.

Ok, so we've got the Blackpool tower as well. Can't understand why the Yanks and continentals aren't flocking to Lancashire.

 

[Notch7]

If Princess Eugenie was a hottie, then the tax payer should foot the bill.

She is more horsey than hottie, so daddy can stump up the cash.

 

[Ihavenojob]

You can't have it both ways.

Not both ways at all. The security costs are a different thing to paying for the wedding. We pay when foreign heads of state visit, the Pope cost a few bob to protect, we also pay whenever a demonstration takes place, so pay for security but not the cake & dress.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

If Princess Eugenie was a hottie, then the tax payer should foot the bill.

She is more horsey than hottie, so daddy can stump up the cash.

Occasionally I can see where a burka would come in handy.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not both ways at all. The security costs are a different thing to paying for the wedding. We pay when foreign heads of state visit, the Pope cost a few bob to protect, we also pay whenever a demonstration takes place, so pay for security but not the cake & dress.

That's not what you said before.

We presumably have to protect the Pope and it is deemed necessary for demonstrations but I believe football matches and similar things are charged for security so...

Perhaps they could have arranged to get married, say at Buck House, without telling anyone.

 

[motorbiking]

I’m in favour of reducing the budget spent on royals. But my understanding is that the cost is for the security rather than the party. They have the same right to safety in public as the rest of us.

I’d prefer some compromises to reduce the cost if possible

 

[Bodd]

Apparently the country would have little tourism without this family so just look on it as a small investment.

I agree. But they can afford to pay for it.

No