If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Who is going to pay for Willy Wales' wedding then?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
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.
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.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
Call yourself a taxpayer.
Notwithstanding any obligations to the Student Loans Company
(An albatross that even bankruptcy will not discharge)
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.
Do I?
Now,now. Do not let the side down.
I assumed you preferred to keep the red flag flying here.
+1
Thank you for reading my blog, sir. :d
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.
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!
agree
im quite happy if its a public holiday. Miserable if its not