I don't get all this hype about the royal wedding?

[Eoin247]

Can somebody please explain to me why is everybody excited about this royal wedding? Why am i looking at CNN and seeing barely anything about whats happening in the Middle East and North Africa? Instead why am i constantly seeing the same repeated things about Kate Middletons wedding dress?

Obviously I don't have to pay anything for it. Yet still to me there's something morally wrong about getting taxpayers to pay tens upon tens of millions for a single wedding especially during times like this when even in the UK that money could literaly save countless lives. Tourism isn't a very good excuse, you don't have to pay nearly a million dollars for flowers to get tourists. I'm just curious as to why not that many of you Brits seem to be bothered about this?

Before you say it though, i'm not "hating" on your monarchy. I wouldn't approve of taxpayers paying that amount of money for an overly extravagant wedding for anybody on earth.

Apparently these are some of the things you're paying for:

Three dresses of about $100,000 each have been made just so that one isn't "leaked out" by mistake.

Two cakes costing $78,000

Even the invitations were pricey. Mailed in late February, each invitation was individually die-stamped in gold, then burnished, and features bevelled and gilded edges.

[Triz]

In short, the USA have always been fascinated by our traditions, the Royal Family brings a lot of tourists to the UK, so for there to be a wedding is a historical event! Whereas us in the UK just see it as a day off work haha!

[Eoin247]

In short, the USA have always been fascinated by our traditions, the Royal Family brings a lot of tourists to the UK, so for there to be a wedding is a historical event! Whereas us in the UK just see it as a day off work haha!

Surely having a public holiday will take more out of the economy than any amount of tourists visiting this wedding will bring in to it?

[Alkaz]

I personally think that this country would just be 'another country' without the Royal family, we literally do nothing any more. Also you mentioned the cost, yes it may be extravagant but what else would you expect from it? I'm sure a few months ago they estimated a £1bn boost to the economy because of the wedding which if true surely out weighs the cost of the wedding. As well, when you think of some of the other crap that tax payers pay for including things like the EU, MPs dry cleaning etc then you think of this, we're sort of actually getting something out of it.

[peteyt]

I agree that it's good to have a royal family and history but they don't do anything for us. Kings and Queens used to have such a dominant and public role and now it just seems to be a title. They don't seem to do anything.

My work asked me if I wanted to work it and I said yes as I'd rather do something constructive than watch posh people who probably don't care about us and wont do anything for us get married.

[Jordy]

I'm sick of people complaining about the "losses for the economy" on a Bank Holiday. Most people get a day off work or school thanks to the bank holiday, you're not forced to watch the Wedding so ******* enjoy yourself a bit. How often do Royal Weddings happen? Another significant one won't happen for another 25 years at least till Prince William has a child and they choose to marry.

It's bringing in a ridiculous amount of tourists to London (and the rest of the UK) anyway and will do so for years to come, then there's loads of souvenirs etc to sell them too. Economically it all just about balances out, the Royal family and Middletons are putting a lot of the money towards it.

The Royal Family has done far more for this country than anyone else, it's largely down to them we live in such a great and wealthy country today. Today they're extremely charitable and help with an awful lot of causes and diplomatically, it's very surprising how busy all the Royal Family is, no pensioners of the Queens age travel around anywhere near as much as she does. It's simply not true that they sit at home all day and drain the taxpayer. Yes we maybe in a bit of a debt but this is just one day to have a bank holiday and celebrate.

[Jessicrawrr]

Big royal weddings have been a tradition in our country, I think it's not good the amount of money being spent on it, but how many royal weddings has there been lately?
and to be honest, if the country is paying that much money, you want it to pay off by everyone watching it.

[Hecktix]

I'm sick of people complaining about the "losses for the economy" on a Bank Holiday. Most people get a day off work or school thanks to the bank holiday, you're not forced to watch the Wedding so ******* enjoy yourself a bit. How often do Royal Weddings happen? Another significant one won't happen for another 25 years at least till Prince William has a child and they choose to marry.

It's bringing in a ridiculous amount of tourists to London (and the rest of the UK) anyway and will do so for years to come, then there's loads of souvenirs etc to sell them too. Economically it all just about balances out, the Royal family and Middletons are putting a lot of the money towards it.

The Royal Family has done far more for this country than anyone else, it's largely down to them we live in such a great and wealthy country today. Today they're extremely charitable and help with an awful lot of causes and diplomatically, it's very surprising how busy all the Royal Family is, no pensioners of the Queens age travel around anywhere near as much as she does. It's simply not true that they sit at home all day and drain the taxpayer. Yes we maybe in a bit of a debt but this is just one day to have a bank holiday and celebrate.

I agree, and may I highlight that when this Royal Wedding was announced it was announced that the Royal Family and the Middleton Family would be paying for around 80 or 90% of the wedding costs, I think the only thing coming from the tax payer is the security for the day, which is fair enough since this will be provided by the police, army etc - who are paid by the British tax payer on any other day.

[GommeInc]

Surely having a public holiday will take more out of the economy than any amount of tourists visiting this wedding will bring in to it?
Many companies will still be working, particularly those associated with tourism e.g. restaurants, transport etc. The transport industry will be raking in a lot of money, something the economy needs at the moment. Besides, the amount of sourvenirs people have bought to do with the wedding is epic :P

[dbgtz]

I don't see the fuss in it, but I can see why its fussed about as it's like a british thing which is admired world wide. In fact I'm interested in what americans are doing because i hear time and time again about how they are their royals too and how excited they are and were for diana etc.

[wixard]

i just wanna see her dress

[Triz]

i just wanna see her dress

There is this:


Ms Middleton’s wedding gown has remained a closely guarded secret as Palace Officials have claimed she wants to surprise Prince William on the day, but that hasn’t stopped the rumour-mill, regarding designers and styles, going into overdrive.

The latest person to give his thoughts on the gown is David Emanuel, the man behind Princess Diana’s iconic wedding dress.

Speaking to Shelagh Fogarty, on 5 live breakfast, he said: "A slightly classical, old-fashioned, Hollywood, lace dress could be sensational."

[Jssy]

I'm not hyped up about it lol, it's just another ordinary day for me.

[Eoin247]

I'm sick of people complaining about the "losses for the economy" on a Bank Holiday. Most people get a day off work or school thanks to the bank holiday, you're not forced to watch the Wedding so ******* enjoy yourself a bit. How often do Royal Weddings happen? Another significant one won't happen for another 25 years at least till Prince William has a child and they choose to marry.

It's bringing in a ridiculous amount of tourists to London (and the rest of the UK) anyway and will do so for years to come, then there's loads of souvenirs etc to sell them too. Economically it all just about balances out, the Royal family and Middletons are putting a lot of the money towards it.

The Royal Family has done far more for this country than anyone else, it's largely down to them we live in such a great and wealthy country today. Today they're extremely charitable and help with an awful lot of causes and diplomatically, it's very surprising how busy all the Royal Family is, no pensioners of the Queens age travel around anywhere near as much as she does. It's simply not true that they sit at home all day and drain the taxpayer. Yes we maybe in a bit of a debt but this is just one day to have a bank holiday and celebrate.


I agree, and may I highlight that when this Royal Wedding was announced it was announced that the Royal Family and the Middleton Family would be paying for around 80 or 90% of the wedding costs, I think the only thing coming from the tax payer is the security for the day, which is fair enough since this will be provided by the police, army etc - who are paid by the British tax payer on any other day.

I thought the royal family get all their money from the taxpayer anyway so why does that make a difference? Unless they have some other source of income i'm unaware about?

[Hecktix]

I thought the royal family get all their money from the taxpayer anyway so why does that make a difference? Unless they have some other source of income i'm unaware about?

In comparison to what the family is worth they get a small sum each year from the taxpayer, not much and anybody that says otherwise is foolish. This comment is quite silly itself, Eoin :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought the royal family get all their money from the taxpayer anyway so why does that make a difference? Unless they have some other source of income i'm unaware about?

This can be reformed, as I understand it at the moment the Royal family is funded via the Civil list - the other option is to return Crown lands (the Crown Estate) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#United_Kingdom) to productive use so that the family can manage its own finances as it formerly did so. I favour this as does the political party I support, from my memory. But the royal family compared to the costs of the European Union (which is not elected and exercises swathes of power over our national parliament) is nothing. The Royal Family ensures we have consitutional stability that other nations such as France can only crave.

Now the trend i've always noticed when the debate of the monarchy comes up, is that most republicans are to the left and are supportive of the European Union - I believe you yourself are, are you not Eoin? so Royalists will not take lectures from Republicans who bow to the bland grey empire over in Brussels which does not have our national interests at heart and does not care for our culture and traditions.

On another note, do you not pay via your taxes for your rather dull President and Taoiseach anyway? (security, offical functions and so forth)

[Firehorse]

You're complaining about a few million being spent on a royal wedding which was estimated to have been watched by around 15x the amount of people who watched Avatar and will bring millions back to the economy from other countries in terms of tourism. If someone has a day off work it isn't bad for the economy, the money "being lost" from people taking one day off work still stays in the country and continues to circulate. Millions for a royal family, but billions for the european union that does us little good and opens the borders to 28 other countries for easy immigration which causes a longer term problem through Britain's benefit system.

Also maybe if you stopped watching cnn and started watching a different news source you'd get a less tabloid styled coverage.

[cocaine]

because its british tradition, enough said

[Jahova]

The royal wedding was the best thing on television for years!

[Eoin247]

In comparison to what the family is worth they get a small sum each year from the taxpayer, not much and anybody that says otherwise is foolish. This comment is quite silly itself, Eoin :P

How is what i said silly? I wasn't talking about what they are possibly worth to the economy. It was you who differenciated between the royals and the taxpayer paying for the wedding. I was wondering why and asking if they had another source of income. Yet you didn't answer that and still called my answer silly. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a royal wedding. By all means do. I was just wondering how things like over 300,000 worth of dresses for the bride (i mean 3 dresses just in case one gets leaked out?) sit well with you all?


This can be reformed, as I understand it at the moment the Royal family is funded via the Civil list - the other option is to return Crown lands (the Crown Estate) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#United_Kingdom) to productive use so that the family can manage its own finances as it formerly did so. I favour this as does the political party I support, from my memory. But the royal family compared to the costs of the European Union (which is not elected and exercises swathes of power over our national parliament) is nothing. The Royal Family ensures we have consitutional stability that other nations such as France can only crave.

Now the trend i've always noticed when the debate of the monarchy comes up, is that most republicans are to the left and are supportive of the European Union - I believe you yourself are, are you not Eoin? so Royalists will not take lectures from Republicans who bow to the bland grey empire over in Brussels which does not have our national interests at heart and does not care for our culture and traditions.

On another note, do you not pay via your taxes for your rather dull President and Taoiseach anyway? (security, offical functions and so forth)

You know my stance on the EU. I believe that done the right way the EU can be a very good thing. It sure isn't perfect at the moment, but if we can get the right people to restructure it i believe the benefits for Europe would be huge.

I'm not disagreeing with paying some money for people who represent your country at all. A wedding however doesn't have to cost what the royal wedding costs, does it? If our preseident tried to be even a fraction as extravagant for her wedding, you would have half the country out on the streets protesting. In fact i'm not sure because i can't remember it ever happening, but i'm pretty sure that the taxpayer wouldn't pay for weddings for any politician or the president.



You're complaining about a few million being spent on a royal wedding which was estimated to have been watched by around 15x the amount of people who watched Avatar and will bring millions back to the economy from other countries in terms of tourism. If someone has a day off work it isn't bad for the economy, the money "being lost" from people taking one day off work still stays in the country and continues to circulate. Millions for a royal family, but billions for the european union that does us little good and opens the borders to 28 other countries for easy immigration which causes a longer term problem through Britain's benefit system.


Firstly it's not just a few million? What's your definition of a few? A day off work for a country is bad for the economy in more ways than just retained wages. Things that could have been produced and exported on that day are not for example.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You know my stance on the EU. I believe that done the right way the EU can be a very good thing. It sure isn't perfect at the moment, but if we can get the right people to restructure it i believe the benefits for Europe would be huge.

The EU cannot be reformed and anybody who has remotely looked at the subject will see this, if you are going to be supportive of the expensive and rather useless European Union whilst criticising the British Monarchy (which is only a small cost to the British people, one we do not mind paying) then you should at least look into the EU and understand what the concept is and what its final aim serves to be.

But thats another - vast - subject.


I'm not disagreeing with paying some money for people who represent your country at all. A wedding however doesn't have to cost what the royal wedding costs, does it? If our preseident tried to be even a fraction as extravagant for her wedding, you would have half the country out on the streets protesting. In fact i'm not sure because i can't remember it ever happening, but i'm pretty sure that the taxpayer wouldn't pay for weddings for any politician or the president.

Because the President is political, the Royal Family are not - one of the benfits of having a Royal Family which gives us the stability we need as opposed to a political head of state which only servees to provide instability, see France and its numerous failed states. I agree to an extent on the costs, while I don't mind paying for them - I think it would be much more healthy for the monarchy to raise its own funds from the Crown Estates rather than being on the Civil List.

It does at present, raise more money than it takes anyway.

[Chippiewill]

I think the money issue is a matter of priority, I am not going to be missing that few million pounds whilst we leave many, many more at the footsteps of Brussels.

[ifuseekamy]

I thought the royal family get all their money from the taxpayer anyway so why does that make a difference? Unless they have some other source of income i'm unaware about?
Yes, like all wealthy families they own their own land, and lots of it too. There's the duchies which are worth a few hundred million and are subject to income tax. There's the Crown Estate which is worth a couple of billion and the money from that goes directly to the Treasury. I believe on these exchanges the Queen receives the civil list (which is a bit less than the US President or other heads of states get, to whom it'd have to go with or without a monarchy anyway). The wedding was paid for by Charles, I think the only thing the taxpayer would've paid for is policing, naturally.

[Chris]

I guess the hype was because it's a tradition and it's probably something that will be talked about in years to come, just like previous royal weddings.

[Mathew]

Because the President is political, the Royal Family are not - one of the benfits of having a Royal Family which gives us the stability we need as opposed to a political head of state which only servees to provide instability, see France and its numerous failed states.
You honestly can't be saying that the Royal Family are politically neutral? Sure, they might say they are... but obviously they're going to be Conservative and save money for the country. Hey, surely the proof is on their list of wedding invites? David Cameron, Nick Clegg, John Major and Margret Thatcher all received invites; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn't. Good on them :P I do see where you're coming from though in terms of being "political" or not (as opposed to political parties). Interesting and I agree.

Britain is one of the few countries who even have a monarchy these days and I actually found it quite amazing today to see the amount of support and pure passion that millions of people still have for their Head of State. Today reminded me of the World Cup, Diana's Death, 9/11 and perhaps time of War; the whole country just bonded together and it was simply impressive. Sadly, the Americans don't have that. Sure, millions saw Obama's inauguration... but perhaps those opposed to his political stance would decide not to.

The taxpayer paid £20 Million today for security and that is all. The rest was paid for by their parents. When you think about the amount of money being dished off to the EU and foreign countries, I honestly can't think of many ways in which £20 Million could be put to a much better use.

[GommeInc]

You honestly can't be saying that the Royal Family are politically neutral? Sure, they might say they are... but obviously they're going to be Conservative and save money for the country. Hey, surely the proof is on their list of wedding invites? David Cameron, Nick Clegg, John Major and Margret Thatcher all received invites; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn't. Good on them :P I do see where you're coming from though in terms of being "political" or not (as opposed to political parties). Interesting and I agree.
Labour has always come off as a party that doesn't like the Royal Family. Blair was hated as far as I am aware, and Brown wasn't really that amazing to be considered useful and worth inviting. It's hard to explain, but I can't remember a time I've seen Brown talk to the Royal Family :P



Britain is one of the few countries who even have a monarchy these days and I actually found it quite amazing today to see the amount of support and pure passion that millions of people still have for their Head of State. Today reminded me of the World Cup, Diana's Death, 9/11 and perhaps time of War; the whole country just bonded together and it was simply impressive. Sadly, the Americans don't have that. Sure, millions saw Obama's inauguration... but perhaps those opposed to his political stance would decide not to.

The taxpayer paid £20 Million today for security and that is all. The rest was paid for by their parents. When you think about the amount of money being dished off to the EU and foreign countries, I honestly can't think of many ways in which £20 Million could be put to a much better use.

For some reason I decided to cut your post. I felt the exact same thing in your second paragraph - it was great seeing the British socialising so freely with one another AND from people all around the world. I've never seen a country welcome others in so freely and happily :P It's like the Royal Family promote unity and world peace :P

[Eoin247]

The EU cannot be reformed and anybody who has remotely looked at the subject will see this, if you are going to be supportive of the expensive and rather useless European Union whilst criticising the British Monarchy (which is only a small cost to the British people, one we do not mind paying) then you should at least look into the EU and understand what the concept is and what its final aim serves to be.

But thats another - vast - subject.
.

Personally i believe it can be reformed. Wheter it will or not in the end, I don't know.



Because the President is political, the Royal Family are not - one of the benfits of having a Royal Family which gives us the stability we need as opposed to a political head of state which only servees to provide instability, see France and its numerous failed states. I agree to an extent on the costs, while I don't mind paying for them - I think it would be much more healthy for the monarchy to raise its own funds from the Crown Estates rather than being on the Civil List.

It does at present, raise more money than it takes anyway.

That's not true. Our president is not a member of any political party and isn't supposed to voice political views. She's really just a face for Ireland and signs in laws.

As i said paying to some extent sits all right with me. But paying so much needlessly for a wedding? Is having such an expensive wedding compared to a much smaller and less extravagant one justified?

[Mathew]

As i said paying to some extent sits all right with me. But paying so much needlessly for a wedding? Is having such an expensive wedding compared to a much smaller and less extravagant one justified?
Of course it's justified. Tens of millions of people will have tuned in to watch the Royal Wedding today. My family are friends with quite a few Americans and a lot of them woke up at 4am this morning to watch the wedding. Heck, when we visited St. Augustine (Florida) last February, a lady there was asked us if we were "excited for the Royal Wedding" - she admitted that "us Americans are probably more interested than you guys" :P

How many times do you get news coverage and TV figures like that? In times of crisis is the answer - 9/11, London Bombings, Diana's Funeral, War. It's time to relax and enjoy a good day of a united country rather than moaning where your money has gone. There's 63 million people in this country; remember only £20 Million was spent.

The benefits of merchandise would have been huge too. It's a truly important, "royal" occasion :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

You honestly can't be saying that the Royal Family are politically neutral? Sure, they might say they are... but obviously they're going to be Conservative and save money for the country. Hey, surely the proof is on their list of wedding invites? David Cameron, Nick Clegg, John Major and Margret Thatcher all received invites; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn't. Good on them :P I do see where you're coming from though in terms of being "political" or not (as opposed to political parties). Interesting and I agree.

Being a supporter or a member of the Conservative Party does not make you fiscally conservative, afterall the Conservative Party is the party which signed us upto the most costly treaties we've ever had to endure throughout our entire history and not just in terms of money, but in terms of independence and political sovereignty; joining the EEC in 1972, signing the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. This of course isn't mentioning the increases in foreign aid (37%) and the continuation of Ed Milibands £18bn a year Climate Change Act.

But thats another issue, although that does need to be made clear. Now as the the views of the Monarchy, i'm not quite sure what they are but the Queen has made some very strange comments in the past regarding the surrender to the IRA a few years ago and the issue of multiculturalism - as Peter Hitchens points out here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/11/mr-clever-****-should-leave-this-little-old-lady-alone.html). I believe Mrs Thatcher once said of the Queen that she was a SDP type, but we can only hazard a guess.

The point is that the Monarchy avoid becoming embroiled in political issues which provides us the stability that other nations such as France (now on the Fifth Republic) can only dream of since abolishing their own Imperial/Royal families.


Personally i believe it can be reformed. Wheter it will or not in the end, I don't know.

If you believe that then you are wasting much of your time as is anyone who attempts to follow that path, all the while your national sovereignty is being eroded piece by piece and you are paying a heavy financial price for it.


That's not true. Our president is not a member of any political party and isn't supposed to voice political views. She's really just a face for Ireland and signs in laws.

But she can, being a politician, become embroiled in political affairs and can be dogged by political factions. The same applies for the Czech President of whom I have great respect, who does hold a political role but faced claims from the opposition of being unconsitutional a few months ago - those are the kind of situations you end up in when you become a Republic.


As i said paying to some extent sits all right with me. But paying so much needlessly for a wedding? Is having such an expensive wedding compared to a much smaller and less extravagant one justified?

I'm not fully on what the wedding cost, but the posts above seem to highlight that the cost to the taxpayer was minimal. Besides, when Ireland joined the disasterous Euro a few years ago didn't your politicians lay on a series of bland celebrations? at least with the monarchy I can say it is a real British asset and has some history to it.

Again, I have no idea why you are complaining about the costs of the British Monarchy compared to the costs of the EU on Ireland for example.

[ifuseekamy]

You honestly can't be saying that the Royal Family are politically neutral? Sure, they might say they are... but obviously they're going to be Conservative and save money for the country. Hey, surely the proof is on their list of wedding invites? David Cameron, Nick Clegg, John Major and Margret Thatcher all received invites; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn't. Good on them :P I do see where you're coming from though in terms of being "political" or not (as opposed to political parties). Interesting and I agree.
Major and Thatcher are members of the order of the garter which is why they were invited. The Queen was widely known to have hated Thatcher and even considered to be the one who got her to resign.

[:.:kaytay:.:]

I'm American, And i got up to watch the Historical event happen. Just like the Election of my President ( But, i didn't watch that :P Don't really care for Obama, actually), You gotta watch these things so your kids know theyre facts when they grow up and have there own family. I can't wait to tell my little girl that i watch the present king (maybe?) get married. :) But, i'm just a silly little american teenager, who cares about me and my opinion. <3

[HotelUser]

Although I don't know much about it being from Canada and such, I respect the people who make a "big hype and deal" about it because to people in other regions, or to the older generations in Canada it's a part of their culture and it's a big deal to them.

I think it's historically interesting, too :P

[Eoin247]

Of course it's justified. Tens of millions of people will have tuned in to watch the Royal Wedding today. My family are friends with quite a few Americans and a lot of them woke up at 4am this morning to watch the wedding. Heck, when we visited St. Augustine (Florida) last February, a lady there was asked us if we were "excited for the Royal Wedding" - she admitted that "us Americans are probably more interested than you guys" :P

How many times do you get news coverage and TV figures like that? In times of crisis is the answer - 9/11, London Bombings, Diana's Funeral, War. It's time to relax and enjoy a good day of a united country rather than moaning where your money has gone. There's 63 million people in this country; remember only £20 Million was spent.

The benefits of merchandise would have been huge too. It's a truly important, "royal" occasion :)

Firstly as i said before, the royal family get their money from the taxpayer anyway do they not? So the taxpayer and the royal family paying are the same thing pretty much.

My main question is not being answered, same with most people on this thread. Reasonable royal wedding, understandable. Overly extravagant royal wedding, not understandable. Do you find that paying so much for things, that could have cost a lot less, normal and morally right? Multiple hugely expensive dresses in case one gets leaked?

Just to add to that, both economy watch and the CBI have indeed said a 1 billion pound boost to the economy due to the wedding, as somebody earlier pointed out. However , they have also said that that it cost the UK economy 5 Billion in lost production. That's not taking into account overtime/ people going on short breaks. Believe it or not your royal wedding was actualy good for Ireland. We had many people from the UK coming over to Dublin for the day and spending here. The amount of people going from the UK to Ireland actualy surpassed the amount of people going from Ireland to the wedding. Which greatly surprised me, since i myself know a good few people who travelled to London for it.

[Arron]

It's a great moment in British history. I'm glad I stayed inside and tuned into the wedding because it will be something I can proudly tell my children, my grandchildren and possibly great-grand children in the future. It's not something that happens every day. The last one was 30 years ago! It was a spectacular event and I think all the hype, all the anticipation was worth it.

[Moh]

I think the main hype is the fact William is going to be the future king, so when he is King, it would be nice to say you witnessed his wedding.

Off topic(ish);

The public didn't pay for the wedding.. all the public paid for is the security, which they will get back easily. The royals and Middleton's paid for everything else lol.

I don't get why people complain about paying taxes which go to the royal family and say she's rich enough, she can do it without taxes? I don't think people realise that the money the Queen gets is to do her official state business such as keeping good relationships with other countries, the money pays for all the staff in their palaces (which the government will get some of it back in taxes).

I think we get a return on investment with the royal family. It costs 66p per person each year to fund the royal family, but they royals do a lot of charity work, they do the job of what a head of state would usually do, but for a lot less, they bring in a lot of money through tourism and they also have their own private businesses and the royals get a lot from the 6,600 million acres of land they own (which I also think they pay tax on?).


Surely having a public holiday will take more out of the economy than any amount of tourists visiting this wedding will bring in to it?Hardly anywhere actually closed. They simply worked sunday trading hours. As for the people who have the day off, they may do some shopping because they don't get the time usually, they may do something with their garden (so places like B&Q will profit from it) and most people on bank holidays go to the pub :)

[AgnesIO]

People make a huge deal out of the money for security - you seem to be forgetting that the security people would still have been paid if there was no wedding - just they would probably be doing less (so actually, you could argue it made them worth the money it cost).

William will be king one day, so obviously it is a huge event - people don't appreciate how much the queen does. She is 85 fgs, yet she does huge amounts of work - I would love to still be going like she is when I am 85.

The fact Kate had 3 dresses made is understandable. If someone found out about what her dress was going to be, there would be millions of knock off ones being sold within days - it is a bit like at a school prom. I think for most girls turning up in the same dress as someone else would be a nightmare - so imagine what it is like to have the same wedding dress as 50 thousand other people.

[Moh]

Surely having a public holiday will take more out of the economy than any amount of tourists visiting this wedding will bring in to it?


People make a huge deal out of the money for security - you seem to be forgetting that the security people would still have been paid if there was no wedding - just they would probably be doing less (so actually, you could argue it made them worth the money it cost).

William will be king one day, so obviously it is a huge event - people don't appreciate how much the queen does. She is 85 fgs, yet she does huge amounts of work - I would love to still be going like she is when I am 85.

The fact Kate had 3 dresses made is understandable. If someone found out about what her dress was going to be, there would be millions of knock off ones being sold within days - it is a bit like at a school prom. I think for most girls turning up in the same dress as someone else would be a nightmare - so imagine what it is like to have the same wedding dress as 50 thousand other people.The funny thing is, some people were planning on protesting about us paying for the security. If it wasn't for idiots like them, you wouldn't need the security lol.

[Eoin247]

I think the main hype is the fact William is going to be the future king, so when he is King, it would be nice to say you witnessed his wedding.

Off topic(ish);

The public didn't pay for the wedding.. all the public paid for is the security, which they will get back easily. The royals and Middleton's paid for everything else lol.

I don't get why people complain about paying taxes which go to the royal family and say she's rich enough, she can do it without taxes? I don't think people realise that the money the Queen gets is to do her official state business such as keeping good relationships with other countries, the money pays for all the staff in their palaces (which the government will get some of it back in taxes).

I think we get a return on investment with the royal family. It costs 66p per person each year to fund the royal family, but they royals do a lot of charity work, they do the job of what a head of state would usually do, but for a lot less, they bring in a lot of money through tourism and they also have their own private businesses and the royals get a lot from the 6,600 million acres of land they own (which I also think they pay tax on?).

Hardly anywhere actually closed. They simply worked sunday trading hours. As for the people who have the day off, they may do some shopping because they don't get the time usually, they may do something with their garden (so places like B&Q will profit from it) and most people on bank holidays go to the pub :)

In answer to this i quoted my last post, as you missed it i think (see further down in this post).


Firstly as i said before, the royal family get their money from the taxpayer anyway do they not? So the taxpayer and the royal family paying are the same thing pretty much.

My main question is not being answered, same with most people on this thread. Reasonable royal wedding, understandable. Overly extravagant royal wedding, not understandable. Do you find that paying so much for things, that could have cost a lot less, normal and morally right? Multiple hugely expensive dresses in case one gets leaked?

Just to add to that, both economy watch and the CBI have indeed said a 1 billion pound boost to the economy due to the wedding, as somebody earlier pointed out. However , they have also said that that it cost the UK economy 5 Billion in lost production. That's not taking into account overtime/ people going on short breaks. Believe it or not your royal wedding was actualy good for Ireland. We had many people from the UK coming over to Dublin for the day and spending here. The amount of people going from the UK to Ireland actualy surpassed the amount of people going from Ireland to the wedding. Which greatly surprised me, since i myself know a good few people who travelled to London for it.



People make a huge deal out of the money for security - you seem to be forgetting that the security people would still have been paid if there was no wedding - just they would probably be doing less (so actually, you could argue it made them worth the money it cost).

William will be king one day, so obviously it is a huge event - people don't appreciate how much the queen does. She is 85 fgs, yet she does huge amounts of work - I would love to still be going like she is when I am 85.

The fact Kate had 3 dresses made is understandable. If someone found out about what her dress was going to be, there would be millions of knock off ones being sold within days - it is a bit like at a school prom. I think for most girls turning up in the same dress as someone else would be a nightmare - so imagine what it is like to have the same wedding dress as 50 thousand other people.

They were actualy all paid double since they were technically working on a public holiday. You think that making 3 wedding dresses (two that wont even be used) that cost such an amount of money is understandable? That amazes me, but if that is truly your opinion then that's fair enough i suppose. The prom comparison isn't a very good one as nobody attending a wedding dresses anywhere near the same as a bride. Also the fact is that now she is going to have the same wedding dress as 50,000 other people, as you say, anyway.


The funny thing is, some people were planning on protesting about us paying for the security. If it wasn't for idiots like them, you wouldn't need the security lol.

Well that's not true in the slightest. I'm not too sure if you meant this as a joke or not.

[Moh]

In answer to this i quoted my last post, as you missed it i think (see further down in this post).
But like I said, the royal family generate a lot more money than what we pay them in taxes? So it's just as if we were giving 66p per person straight to the government. The money that we give to the Queen is for her TO DO HER JOB. She doesn't just sit in the palace drinking tea you know? She still advises the prime minister, she organises national events, she does a lot of charity work and she represents England, such as meeting other head of states in other countries. She works a lot harder than most people do, yet they just complain because she lives in a palace. She still actually does A LOT of paper work, as that's what shes responsible for.

In order for the public to pay for anything other than the security, I'm pretty such there would be a vote in parliament to allocate extra funding.

I don't even think the royal family would even dare spending any of the public money, because if they did, there would be a lot of people trying to end the monarch - which I don't think they would risk surely?

I don't even think the bank holiday would lose much in production. On bank holidays, the people who aren't at work will end up spending more money at the places that are still open. Even if businesses didn't bring in as much profit, they don't generally lose any money, they just don't make as much profit. Those people who do work over time, will be taxed even more. So over time pay still adds to the economy.


Well that's not true in the slightest. I'm not too sure if you meant this as a joke or not.Well I didn't mean it seriously, I was kinda relating to the spending cut protests. The people who got violent actually cost the money because:
- Anybody injured would be treated at the NHS, funded by the government - most costs
- Anybody arrested would cost the police force in paper work and holding people in the cells
- Anything public that got destroyed would need to be replaced by public money
- When Charles and Camilla were attacked in their car, that car had to be repaired which comes out of the tax payers money

So the protests pretty much cause more spending cuts

[Eoin247]

But like I said, the royal family generate a lot more money than what we pay them in taxes? So it's just as if we were giving 66p per person straight to the government. The money that we give to the Queen is for her TO DO HER JOB. She doesn't just sit in the palace drinking tea you know? She still advises the prime minister, she organises national events, she does a lot of charity work and she represents England, such as meeting other head of states in other countries. She works a lot harder than most people do, yet they just complain because she lives in a palace. She still actually does A LOT of paper work, as that's what shes responsible for.

In order for the public to pay for anything other than the security, I'm pretty such there would be a vote in parliament to allocate extra funding.

I don't even think the royal family would even dare spending any of the public money, because if they did, there would be a lot of people trying to end the monarch - which I don't think they would risk surely?


I never disputed what work she does. I don't really know much about the work she does and thus never mentioned it. All that i was saying was you like previous posters differenciated between the royals' paying for the wedding and taxpayers. Anyway to stay on topic (everybody keeps going off point from my question for some reason), i'm going to quote yet again from my other post.


My main question is not being answered, same with most people on this thread. Reasonable royal wedding, understandable. Overly extravagant royal wedding, not understandable. Do you find that paying so much for things, that could have cost a lot less, normal and morally right? Multiple hugely expensive dresses in case one gets leaked?


Now you say:


I don't even think the bank holiday would lose much in production. On bank holidays, the people who aren't at work will end up spending more money at the places that are still open. Even if businesses didn't bring in as much profit, they don't generally lose any money, they just don't make as much profit. Those people who do work over time, will be taxed even more. So over time pay still adds to the economy.


Again i'll quote from previous posts to answer this.




Just to add to that, both economy watch and the CBI have indeed said a 1
billion pound boost to the economy due to the wedding, as somebody earlier
pointed out. However , they have also said that that it cost the UK
economy 5 Billion in lost production. That's not taking into account
overtime/ people going on short breaks. Believe it or not your royal wedding was
actualy good for Ireland. We had many people from the UK coming over to Dublin
for the day and spending here. The amount of people going from the UK to Ireland
actualy surpassed the amount of people going from Ireland to the wedding. Which
greatly surprised me, since i myself know a good few people who travelled to
London for it.



They were actualy all paid double since they were technically working on a public holiday. You think that making 3 wedding dresses (two that wont even be used) that cost such an amount of money is understandable? That amazes me, but if that is truly your opinion then that's fair enough i suppose. The prom comparison isn't a very good one as nobody attending a wedding dresses anywhere near the same as a bride. Also the fact is that now she is going to have the same wedding dress as 50,000 other people, as you say, anyway.

[Jordy]

Frankly it doesn't matter that she had three wedding dresses because we didn't pay for them, The Royal Family and the Middletons did. Your lack of knowledge on the issue (which you even admit) yet your determination to continue arguing is getting somewhat tiresome.

From what I've seen, all republican arguments are easily squashed. The thought of a President is unthinkable.

[AgnesIO]

They were actualy all paid double since they were technically working on a public holiday. You think that making 3 wedding dresses (two that wont even be used) that cost such an amount of money is understandable? That amazes me, but if that is truly your opinion then that's fair enough i suppose. The prom comparison isn't a very good one as nobody attending a wedding dresses anywhere near the same as a bride. Also the fact is that now she is going to have the same wedding dress as 50,000 other people, as you say, anyway.

Yes, but she would have been the first to wear the dress, rather than the last. The fact the taxpayer didn't pay for the dresses, what the **** is your problem with it?

Also, many of the so called "security" (which includes police?) Would have STILL BEEN WORKING! Just because it is a bank holiday, doesn't mean the police just stop working.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you are so concerned about the costs of public holidays for the United Kingdom then make a start on your own Saint Patrick's Day, Eoin.

[Red]

Well I suppose your never going to understand because your not British? I'm kinda getting sick of reading negative comments on fb etc. from nationalists about the wedding. Its beyond pathetic. Its the future Kings wedding... of course its going to be lavish and people would of been disappointed anyway if it was a minimal affair! You weren't funding it so you have nothing to worry about =]

[GommeInc]

Well I suppose your never going to understand because your not British? I'm kinda getting sick of reading negative comments on fb etc. from nationalists about the wedding. Its beyond pathetic. Its the future Kings wedding... of course its going to be lavish and people would of been disappointed anyway if it was a minimal affair! You weren't funding it so you have nothing to worry about =]
I like the arguments nationalists/republicans keep vomiting and regurgitating ad. nauseum about the cost of having a Royal Family. They're pretty weak arguments most of the time, but I guess they like the idea of living in a country about as bland and uninteresting as a blank, white wall. It's even worse when they say "if the Royal Family ceased to exist, we would still have our traditions and culture" when it's the Royal Family and the country as a whole that created such a culture filled with rich traditions.

It wasn't even that "lavish" as far as weddings go. Infact, it was pretty bog-standard.

[sweet]

I don't get the hype about it either. It was so annoying yesterday - it was all over my television and I think there was only a handful of boring channels that weren't broadcasting it. I like to sit and watch the news in the morning so it was really frustrating when the only thing on it was the wedding. It's only a wedding. Weddings are supposed to be intimate and for family and friends, even if your royal or not, that's the way they should be. It was too over-obsessed with. I didn't even like her dress much. Sure, I liked the lace (I've always loved long-sleeved lacey stuff) but that dress was just horrible to me. The neckline was disgusting. It would have looked better if it was simpler.

And @Kirst, I'm British and even I don't understand it.

[Hecktix]

Firstly as i said before, the royal family get their money from the taxpayer anyway do they not? So the taxpayer and the royal family paying are the same thing pretty much.

My main question is not being answered, same with most people on this thread. Reasonable royal wedding, understandable. Overly extravagant royal wedding, not understandable. Do you find that paying so much for things, that could have cost a lot less, normal and morally right? Multiple hugely expensive dresses in case one gets leaked?

Just to add to that, both economy watch and the CBI have indeed said a 1 billion pound boost to the economy due to the wedding, as somebody earlier pointed out. However , they have also said that that it cost the UK economy 5 Billion in lost production. That's not taking into account overtime/ people going on short breaks. Believe it or not your royal wedding was actualy good for Ireland. We had many people from the UK coming over to Dublin for the day and spending here. The amount of people going from the UK to Ireland actualy surpassed the amount of people going from Ireland to the wedding. Which greatly surprised me, since i myself know a good few people who travelled to London for it.

You keep saying, "The royal family paying for it is the same thing as the taxpayer paying for it as they get their money from the taxpayer". You say that as if the Royal Family recieve benefits and do nothing else, lol. The Royal Family are one of the richest families in the world, I am sure they could survive for a very long time with little or no income from the taxpayer at all, and as Undertaker rightly pointed out, the Royal Family make much more for this country's economy than they take in tax. As far as I'm aware and my knowledge is quite scarce on this topic, most of the tax the Royal Family recieve is spent on security for the Royal Family (as it was here in this wedding), and I cannot complain about, as it's protecting one of the most valuable assets this country has.


I don't get the hype about it either. It was so annoying yesterday - it was all over my television and I think there was only a handful of boring channels that weren't broadcasting it. I like to sit and watch the news in the morning so it was really frustrating when the only thing on it was the wedding. It's only a wedding. Weddings are supposed to be intimate and for family and friends, even if your royal or not, that's the way they should be. It was too over-obsessed with. I didn't even like her dress much. Sure, I liked the lace (I've always loved long-sleeved lacey stuff) but that dress was just horrible to me. The neckline was disgusting. It would have looked better if it was simpler.

And @Kirst, I'm British and even I don't understand it.

Did you not get the whole sense of good mood everywhere you went? I went out in town last night and it was way more lively than most Friday nights and Friday nights are already pretty lively. People were trailing union flags behind them and wearing silly hats, all the clubs had drinks offers on - it was generally just a feel good day across the country from what I could tell. Days like this are just what the country needs in terms of morale.

[Eoin247]

I'm simply stunned that most people seem to refuse to answer my question and constantly attacks me saying that I having a problem with the royal family. That said a few people have answered what i asked.

Theres a huge problem on this forum with people not reading posts properly. I asked why everybody was so excited about it and i asked the moral question of having such an extravagant wedding during times like this. Yet I'm getting these types of replies constantly. People saying i'm "complaining"? Really lol?

Repeating myself is getting fairly tiring, so i'll make my responses short for some people. People consistently say i'm complaining when all i'm doing is questioning. I don't have anything to complain about anyway since it's not costing me anything. In fact as i said considering the large amount of people that came over here from the UK on that day, it can't be a bad thing for our economy.



Frankly it doesn't matter that she had three wedding dresses because we didn't pay for them, The Royal Family and the Middletons did. Your lack of knowledge on the issue (which you even admit) yet your determination to continue
arguing is getting somewhat tiresome.
From what I've seen, all republican arguments are easily squashed. The thought of a President is unthinkable.

You say what i'm saying is weak and i don't know what i'm talking about. Yet the only thing you have in this post is something i've replied to a few times already. If you don't like me asking why and if you are going to repeat points at me pointlessly that i've replied to, then don't look at the thread.


Yes, but she would have been the first to wear the dress, rather than the last. The fact the taxpayer didn't pay for the dresses, what the **** is your problem with it?
Also, many of the so called "security" (which includes police?) Would have STILL BEEN WORKING! Just because it is a bank holiday, doesn't mean the police just stop working.

Same problem as the above poster. Everything you are saying here i've already replied to. So i'm not going to bother saying anymore here.


If you are so concerned about the costs of public holidays for the United Kingdom then make a start on your own Saint Patrick's Day, Eoin.

A fair point. However i never said i didn't agree with having public holidays. The only reason i pointed out the cost of having an extra public holiday was because nobody seemed to take this into account when they contantly said all this tourism would bring loads into the economy.


Well I suppose your never going to understand because your not British? I'm kinda getting sick of reading negative comments on fb etc. from nationalists about the wedding. Its beyond pathetic. Its the future Kings wedding... of course its going to be lavish and people would of been disappointed anyway if it was a minimal affair! You weren't funding it so you have nothing to worry about =]

One of the only people who at least partially answered my question, and for that i thank you. That's a good point, there may be reasons that cannot be explained to me through words, as kirst says you may have to be British to understand.


I like the arguments nationalists/republicans keep vomiting and regurgitating ad. nauseum about the cost of having a Royal Family. They're pretty weak arguments most of the time, but I guess they like the idea of living in a country about as bland and uninteresting as a blank, white wall. It's even worse when they say "if the Royal Family ceased to exist, we would still have our traditions and culture" when it's the Royal Family and the country as a whole that created such a culture filled with rich traditions.
It wasn't even that "lavish" as far as weddings go. Infact, it was pretty bog-standard.

Before i start, you honestly thought that wedding was bog-standard?

I'll give an answer to this even though it's off the point from earlier. I'm not sure if you were specifically talking about England here or republics in general, so apologies in advance if i made a mistake. I live in a republic, yet you can hardly say it's "as bland and uninteresting as a blank, white wall". Our culture is well know around the world and we have a day that is celebrated world wide just to do with our culture.


You keep saying, "The royal family paying for it is the same thing as the taxpayer paying for it as they get their money from the taxpayer". You say that as if the Royal Family recieve benefits and do nothing else, lol. The Royal Family are one of the richest families in the world, I am sure they could survive for a very long time with little or no income from the taxpayer at all, and as Undertaker rightly pointed out, the Royal Family make much more for this country's economy than they take in tax. As far as I'm aware and my knowledge is quite scarce on this topic, most of the tax the Royal Family recieve is spent on security for the Royal Family (as it was here in this wedding), and I cannot complain about, as it's protecting one of the most valuable assets this country has.

Well i didn't mean it to sound like that. I only meant in the way i wrote it, not to sound like anything otherwise.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do we have a Royal Wedding with all the pomp? because the Royal Family represents the state of the United Kingdom and Prince William is the heir to the throne after Charles, therefore the marriage between he and Catherine (who will one day be Queen Catherine) is a rather important event which will likely result in the birth of another heir to the throne, a continuation in the Windsor dynasty.

The expense is due to British tradition and due to the fact that whenever something occurs with the heir (a celebration, a public holiday) then events are usually put on which link in with the wedding itself - hence the drive from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey. We do this because we always have, the entire event is based upon over a thousand years of tradition which we wish to keep going as its part of our heritage and show Great Britain off at its best.

The costs are very minimal, if not resulting in a surplus (as the Crown Estate does) and we are rather happy with our Monarchy as opposed to a dull, boring Republic staffed full with politicians as you have in Ireland hence why we are rather happy to pay a small price in tax for this just as you do in Ireland for the politicians, but how many people around the world can name the Irish President? very few can. The pomp of the armed forces is used because it is the reason why we have military bands and so forth for large scale events such as this, usually do to with royalty as the Queen is the head of the armed forces.

Our Monarchy gives us stability and compared to other costs which many do want cut back/scrapped altogether (the astronomical price we pay for the European Union, the billions we pay into foreign aid which ends up in the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators) this one off event is not a big financial issue as you make it out to be.

Does that answer your question?

[RyRy]

In my opinion, I don't really care about the monarchy, there's more pressing issues than what style Kate Middletons dress was gonna be and the outside world love to see a bit of old-fashioned fun. It's just one day, now it's business as usual, move along.