Home Politics & Debate

Who is going to pay for Willy Wales' wedding then?

SystemSystem Posts: 8,629 Staff Team
Answer: almost certaintly you and me.

But that's alright, because the country needs "a lift" and this is the perfect occasion to people to come together and celebrate on the streets the happy event and....
*vomits*

The only question is how much it will cost us. I'm guessing it will easily reach an 8-figure sum. No matter. The families involived couldn't possibly paid for it themselves.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's OK, I've got this one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It should be the father of the bride. Either that, or just let a magazine pay for it like all of the other tacky celebrity weddings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh well, at least we'll get a day off out it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is what Cameron means by "We're all in it together".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Yawn* you really are becoming a parody of yourself Aladdin. Missing SG much? Your Spartist replies are so frightfully tedious. Look on the bright side. We will all get a bank holiday and just think of all the commemorative plates and tea towels.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well considering we only put 62p (or 69p depending which report you use) per year towards the Royal Family (... a pint of milk costs more...) I think they can spend a few of my pence on their wedding. After all, we may get a day off work- surely that's worth the cost?!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh well, at least we'll get a day off out it.

    When is their wedding? The only workplace I know that observes the Queen's birthday had have it as a day off is the MOD. I doubt that anywhere else outside of the MOD will observe Willie's wedding.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, when Diana and Charles got married apparently it was a public holiday- so there is hope.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    When is their wedding? The only workplace I know that observes the Queen's birthday had have it as a day off is the MOD. I doubt that anywhere else outside of the MOD will observe Willie's wedding.

    That changes my opinion, down with the royal family! I'm trying not to be too annoyed by this there is *nothing* anyone can do about it, you can't even vote against the interfering muppets kept in a life of luxury by the taxpayer because of housewives sentimentality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Yawn* you really are becoming a parody of yourself Aladdin. Missing SG much? Your Spartist replies are so frightfully tedious. Look on the bright side. We will all get a bank holiday and just think of all the commemorative plates and tea towels.
    I don't think questioning whether it'd be right for the taxpayer to pay for a royal wedding in these dire economic times (or at any time at all, for that matter) is an invalid question. Do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    When is their wedding? The only workplace I know that observes the Queen's birthday had have it as a day off is the MOD. I doubt that anywhere else outside of the MOD will observe Willie's wedding.
    We have the Queen's bday as a holiday too (Medical Research Council).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well considering we only put 62p (or 69p depending which report you use) per year towards the Royal Family (... a pint of milk costs more...) I think they can spend a few of my pence on their wedding. After all, we may get a day off work- surely that's worth the cost?!

    fuck that, I'd rather have the 62p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    fuck that, I'd rather have the 62p

    Exactly. 62p plus money lost for taking a day off. And you can do that any time by pulling a sicky. So glad I don't pay taxes in the UK any more. But the point remains, if the royal family are so big on tradition, why isn't the father of the bride paying?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm really not bothered. The UK is a monarchy who's Royal family generates far more money in the form of tourism and trade than is spent on them. If a wedding means we get a day off then it'll be a bank holiday which means I'll get 2 days off instead. Something I'm all for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The UK is a monarchy who's Royal family generates far more money in the form of tourism and trade than is spent on them.

    There's the crux of it. Tourism is one thing this country still does well. Plus there may well be a large spike in numbers on and around the big day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd rather spend a quid for the wedding than the money spent on the Pope's visit.

    By all accounts though, the wedding isn't going to be on the grand 'Charles & Diana' scale so it's not as bad as it could be, should William have been next in line to the throne.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    fuck that, I'd rather have the 62p

    Call yourself a taxpayer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So glad I don't pay taxes in the UK any more.

    Notwithstanding any obligations to the Student Loans Company ;)

    (An albatross that even bankruptcy will not discharge)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the point remains, if the royal family are so big on tradition, why isn't the father of the bride paying?

    I think their idea of tradition goes back further than yours. The patriarchal tradition appears to have been severely diluted over the years with the early concept of the bride price morphing into what you have suggested.

    In a round about way the patriarch (of the state) is the one who will be paying. HER MAJESTY'S treasury.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Call yourself a taxpayer.

    Do I?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Do I?

    Now,now. Do not let the side down.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What side? What are you talking about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

    I assumed you preferred to keep the red flag flying here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Gah.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    I'd rather spend a quid for the wedding than the money spent on the Pope's visit.

    +1
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Notwithstanding any obligations to the Student Loans Company ;)

    Thank you for reading my blog, sir. :d
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I'm really not bothered. The UK is a monarchy who's Royal family generates far more money in the form of tourism and trade than is spent on them.

    Sorry, this is the biggest myth going.

    Top ten tourist attractions in the UK by visitor numbers:

    TOP FREE ATTRACTIONS
    British Museum
    Tate Modern
    National Gallery
    Natural History Museum
    Science Museum
    Sheffield Winter Garden
    Victoria and Albert Museum
    Grand Pier, Weston-super-mare
    National Portrait Gallery
    Tate Britain
    Source: Visit England 2008

    And there's certainly an argument to say that tourism would actually benefit from a lack of a royal family, since certain potential attractions could be opened up to the public more than they are at present. I'd hardly say the Taj Mahal or the Pyramids are suffering because the royals that they were built for are no longer with us.

    TOP PAID-FOR ATTRACTIONS
    Westminster Abbey
    Kew Gardens
    Chester Zoo
    Windermere Lake Cruises, Bowness
    Eden Project
    Tate Liverpool
    Canterbury Cathedral
    Stonehenge
    Roman Baths
    Tatton Park
    Source: Visit England 2008

    The top destinations for international visitors has pretty consistently been France, followed by either USA or Spain, the China and Italy. So 4 of the top 5 tourist destinations in the world seem to get on fine without needing a monarch to sit in their old buildings. The UK is 6th, but there's a pretty significant gap between us and Italy in 5th.

    And the statistics from Buckingham Palace support me too. When it's fully open (or as open as it gets), the visitor numbers are huge. But it's not open, because having a monarch actually limits our ability to use our potential tourist attractions to their full potential.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1) If the queen didn't live there, I don't think anywhere near the number that currently visit the palace would continue to visit.

    2) It doesn't matter if the entrance to the palace itself makes the money, its the money people spend on their food and accomodatio and travel that generates money for the economy.

    3) Places like buck palace are why we are 6th in the rankings, not the reason we are low, but likely one of the good reasons why we are so high for what we have to offer in conjunction with crap weather and fish and chips.

    4) Im suprised stonehenge is as popular as it is, I drive past it on a regular basis and once offered my parents the chance to see it, I promptly drove past it then turned around and headed back the way I came and subsequently passing it again. IMHO its not worth the money to pay, to get as close as you can just by driving past it, its one of those oh I've ticked it off my list now easily kinda attractions for me.

    5) A lot of the tourist numbers in mainland europe could be attributed to the fact that people dont have to pay to cross the border when they intermingle in committing acts of tourism. The same is strictly true of the UK, however you need to pay for the plane/boat/train journey because you cant just drive over.

    6) I think that if we got rid of the royal family then it is one less thing for extremist tourists to come to the UK, sure thats where the queen used to live, but I'd rather go where she does live. Would getting rid of the monarchy really not harm our tourism industry that much? After all there seems to be quite a lot of news coverage from accross the pond (yank land) compared to what you would expect, I think they love our royal family, sometimes to the point I bet they wish they hadnt rebelled!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    I'd rather spend a quid for the wedding than the money spent on the Pope's visit.

    By all accounts though, the wedding isn't going to be on the grand 'Charles & Diana' scale so it's not as bad as it could be, should William have been next in line to the throne.

    agree


    im quite happy if its a public holiday. Miserable if its not
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Pope is a head of state so diplomatic protocol states that the host country pays. Just as the Chinese paid for Dave's trip to China a week or so ago. That's the way it is. We have done this argument to death here: http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=142553
Sign In or Register to comment.