The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 08-18-2018, 03:39 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
They weren't invited in for Peters wedding.



Peter is not a royal. Eugenie on the other hand is. It makes sense that her wedding should be more of a public event than Peter's .
__________________

  #682  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Peter is not a royal. Eugenie on the other hand is. It makes sense that her wedding should be more of a public event than Peter's .
They can't seem to decide whether it's private or public!
__________________

  #683  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:03 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
His article was quite clear, in my eyes, a revenge piece because he'd been turfed out not only from the inner circle but he's now been abandoned by anyone who he was connected with back then. This ex boyfriend dated Ella at minimum from 2003 to 2006, and chose the year of two royal weddings to give a story to the paper 12 years after breaking up with her.

I believe there is also significant difference between the Michaels and their situation and the Yorks as grandchildren of the monarch.
The only difference between Prince Michael and Princess Eugenie is Eugenie is the grandchild of the current monarch. Michael is also the grandchild of a monarch.

Agree 100% about Gabriella's ex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Peter is not a royal. Eugenie on the other hand is. It makes sense that her wedding should be more of a public event than Peter's .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
They can't seem to decide whether it's private or public!
Perhaps it should be a bit of both.
  #684  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,912
Where’s the public ‘outrage’? I see the same old republican MPs complaining, just like they complain about all things Royal.

Windsor doesn’t seem to be complaining. It’s a very traditional, very monarchist place.

It’s like any other royal event, people can watch/follow it or not tune in and ignore it but the wedding is going ahead as planned.

In addition to seeing a who’s who of ‘celebrity Britain’, I’m looking forward to seeing William and Catherine.
  #685  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:43 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,042
The "outrage" is mainly fueled by tabloids eager to sell their rags. But why do they focus only on the royals?

Perhaps they should cancel all public events where the state needs to provide security? Why single out royal events alone? Football matches, concerts, sport events, village fairs etc. And perhaps best to start with rallies of politicians.

Why this wedding -a public event with lots of spectators- would be treated differently and the state should suddenly be absolved from their obligation to provide security to its citizens is a mystery to me.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #686  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
In addition to seeing a who’s who of ‘celebrity Britain’, I’m looking forward to seeing William and Catherine.
The press has been saying that Pippa's baby is due about the same time, and Kate may not attend because she'll be with Pippa.

I know, I know. That seems very unlikely to me, especially if it's true that Charlotte and George will both be participating in Eugenie's wedding!
  #687  
Old 08-18-2018, 05:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
The "outrage" is mainly fueled by tabloids eager to sell their rags. But why do they focus only on the royals?

Perhaps they should cancel all public events where the state needs to provide security? Why single out royal events alone? Football matches, concerts, sport events, village fairs etc. And perhaps best to start with rallies of politicians.

Why this wedding -a public event with lots of spectators- would be treated differently and the state should suddenly be absolved from their obligation to provide security to its citizens is a mystery to me.
There is a difference in terms of public events. Some will be seen as more justified than others. There are grumblings over the cost of the Cambridge and Sussex weddings by a few, but most expect it. However the York princesses are a different story as they haven’t been branded as part of the working Firm and the future faces of monarchy. They are expected to live a private life paid for privately. So that’s a bit of a different situation. And of course, the cost of security for other public events are considered differently. For political and government situation like a foreign head of state visiting, that is seen as necessary, and obviously not comparable to the wedding of someone that’s not expected to dedicate their life to working for the monarchy. And of course the general level of interest also matter.

At this point, I’m really surprised that it hasn’t been decided to be televised. It’s out of touch to expect the public to not be annoyed at having to foot the bill, and I’m not just talking about public in Windsor as Windsor is likely to ask for additional funding like they did for Harry’s wedding to cover the cost, and not make it a full on national event. But I guess that also depends on the overall interest level in the couple themselves.
  #688  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:01 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,042
Many public events will not be televised. And yet, the state still provides security. Many public events can be cancelled if necessity is a requirement. Nobody needs football matches, the Olympic games, concerts of popstars etc. And yet, the taxpayer pays for the security of all these things and more. Why focus on this couple alone? It seems rather random and petty.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #689  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Many public events will not be televised. And yet, the state still provides security. Many public events can be cancelled if necessity is a requirement. Nobody needs football matches, the Olympic games, concerts of popstars etc. And yet, the taxpayer pays for the security of all these things and more. Why focus on this couple alone? It seems rather random and petty.
Except none of these can be seen as a "personal" event for one individual. And I have to wonder what the cost of a football match and such are. Events like Olympic games are different as they would bring in worldwide attention and tourism during the period. Like I said, public interest do also matter in events. Princess Eugenie having a private wedding is not going to be met with the upset as FIFA cancelling an important game because local police force want them to pay for the security privately.

Jamie Samhan wrote a piece on this issue, and it pretty much sums up my point now and before as well. As time goes on, I suspect pieces like this will be come out more. The good thing is that the tabloids are relatively controlled in terms of inflating the numbers since this is on the heels of Windsor authorities releasing costs of the Sussex's wedding, which came in at about 10% of what was reported. However, I think most of us can agree the 2 million pound number sounds rather realistic.

Opinion: The public should not be paying for Princess Eugenie’s wedding security bill – Royal Central
  #690  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:35 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,912
The fact is the public is paying for the security costs, just like they pay for the security for ever royal wedding.

Not to mention the numerous royal events throughout the year. Can you even begin to imagine the precedent this would set and where would it stop?

If Harry and Meghan visit her mom in California on a private visit should they pay out of pocket for the massive security bill.

Royal central bloggers, daily Mirror reporters and republican MPs can complain to their hearts content. Not going to change a thing.

If The Queen wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.
  #691  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:44 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The fact is the public is paying for the security costs, just like they pay for the security for ever royal wedding.

Not to mention the numerous royal events throughout the year. Can you even begin to imagine the precedent this would set and where would it stop?

If Harry and Meghan visit her mom in California on a private visit should they pay out of pocket for the massive security bill.

Royal central bloggers, daily Mirror reporters and republican MPs can complain to their hearts content. Not going to change a thing.

If The Queen wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.



The Queen and most of the first 20 persons in line to the throne will attend the wedding, so there would have to be security in place anyway.
  #692  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Queen and most of the first 20 persons in line to the throne will attend the wedding, so there would have to be security in place anyway.
I don't think anyone would have issues with security on the grounds of the castle. However, there is a big difference between that and a carriage ride in public in terms of security cost. It's relatively easy to secure a place like Windsor Castle, but public street is a different story.
  #693  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:52 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Honestly, this opinion piece seemed very much like a copy and paste project. The themes and points they were using were no different from any I have seen from sites such as Mirror and Express. Also, it doesn't seem very credible since it brought up a rumor from 2016 that was debunked by the Duke of York himself. The rumor in question that Beatrice (and Eugenie) should become working royal(s), which really should have never been taken seriously because Eugenie was never going to become a working royal even if B was. Also lets say the rumor was true and Charles had the influence and authority in the Firm to not allow them to become working royals, than why couldn't the have stopped something as small as a carriage ride that definitely doesn't fit into his slimmed down approach?
  #694  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The fact is the public is paying for the security costs, just like they pay for the security for ever royal wedding.

Not to mention the numerous royal events throughout the year. Can you even begin to imagine the precedent this would set and where would it stop?

If Harry and Meghan visit her mom in California on a private visit should they pay out of pocket for the massive security bill.

Royal central bloggers, daily Mirror reporters and republican MPs can complain to their hearts content. Not going to change a thing.

If The Queen wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.
A precedent that someone who doesn't work for the Firm shouldn't receive publicly funded security in the tunes of millions? That's hardly a precedent. It's already happened. And Meghan and Harry's RPO are not the same thing as security for Princess Eugenie's wedding. Anywhere those that are deemed to be enough of a risk for 24/7 security will incur cost any point. I don't think anyone would expect members of royal family never to go out of castle or palace grounds whenever they aren't working.
  #695  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
A precedent that someone who doesn't work for the Firm shouldn't receive publicly funded security in the tunes of millions? That's hardly a precedent. It's already happened. And Meghan and Harry's RPO are not the same thing as security for Princess Eugenie's wedding. Anywhere those that are deemed to be enough of a risk for 24/7 security will incur cost any point. I don't think anyone would expect members of royal family never to go out of castle or palace grounds whenever they aren't working.
The precedent would be the royal family picking up the tab for security costs. Then it’s a slippery slope. Some people always complain about the security costs. Richard Palmer usually writes about it a few times a year, especially when the year end accounts come out.

But it’s not going to happen in a hundred years. No one is in the streets with pitch forks marching on BP. A few republicans MPs that always whinge about this stuff. It’s the usual suspects

It’s a royal wedding by any definition and the security costs will be met by the public.
  #696  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:15 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
I thought that the fallout of the wedding and the cost was settled in comment 672, here is the link that was provided so what is the problem and what am I missing here....

https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/stat...28625529282561

Is this just some wanting their name in the news and another 15 minutes of fame? If people are so up set over cost that are apparently going to be paid by Prince Andrew then cancel the wedding and all other events at Windsor and Eugenie and Jack have a real private wedding with out anyone invited except family who can arrive privately in a car inside of Windsor.........
  #697  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
I thought that the fallout of the wedding and the cost was settled in comment 672, here is the link that was provided so what is the problem and what am I missing here....

https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/stat...28625529282561

Is this just some wanting their name in the news and another 15 minutes of fame? If people are so up set over cost that are apparently going to be paid by Prince Andrew then cancel the wedding and all other events at Windsor and Eugenie and Jack have a real private wedding with out anyone invited except family who can arrive privately in a car inside of Windsor.........
I think Dickie's comment is about the cost of the wedding such as ceremony and reception, whereas the comment he retweeted was about security cost? I don't think nearly as many people will care about the cost if it's paid for by Andrew. In fact, none of the people that have talked about the cost issue is talking about anything Prince Andrew and the Queen wants to pay for. It's always been surrounding the security cost that's paid by the public purse.
  #698  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:11 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
Thanks Jacqui, I always thought that the security cost above what is in place always at Windsor was paid by the royal family, meaning a royal wedding. I mean yes there are police around daily like anywhere and when HM is there and out and about the security is provided by Windsor so what really extra security is needed? Maybe I am not getting it or understanding how Windsor works on security issues.

I wish both Eugenie and Jack a very joyous wedding of their dreams yet the cost of a carriage ride through *part* of Windsor is sounding very petty to me by some. She is HM's granddaughter for heaven's sake, not a stranger. From my understanding so far is that some just want to complain as always about everything the royals do......just a way to bitch as usual.....

So what am I not understanding here. Besides all the people of Windsor that live there and the tourists that come there daily should more then make up for the cost of a carriage ride I would think. I have been to Windsor way back when and loved the area, my pictures bring back many happy memories of pubs and food and gray stone walls.....
  #699  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:16 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
Might be the wrong place but if the security costs for Eugenie are £2m and Harry only added 1-2 miles onto the same carriage ride - why were his costs £30+ M. It is just Uk media being difficult.

Its all tosh IMO and £2m is about 3p per capita in the UK.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #700  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:17 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The fact is the public is paying for the security costs, just like they pay for the security for ever royal wedding.

Not to mention the numerous royal events throughout the year. Can you even begin to imagine the precedent this would set and where would it stop?

If Harry and Meghan visit her mom in California on a private visit should they pay out of pocket for the massive security bill.

Royal central bloggers, daily Mirror reporters and republican MPs can complain to their hearts content. Not going to change a thing.

If The Queen wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.
If the senior members of the BRF family to pay for security themselves every time they set foot out of their homes for personal reasons it would be ridiculous. They would practically become prisoners in their homes.

Many weeks ago someone pointed out that in Windsor, Eugenie is a hometown girl. She grew up there and went to school there. The town may be interested in her wedding, some may look upon her as one of "their princessess."
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engagement of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank: January 22, 2018 JessRulz The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 228 03-15-2018 10:50 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names baptism biography bridal gown british royal family brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus diana princess of wales dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie future general news thread george vi gradenigo hill historical drama history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs introduction jewellery languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway palestine pless prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess dita princess eugenie princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings stuart swedish queen thailand tips tradition uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×