DG wrote:

Good luck to the bride and groom today

...a shame though that neither of their fathers could be there


Some have been making capital out of it

Click image to enlarge

The Dundonian wrote:

Oh, I don’t mind peps having a good time, weddings, procreating, whatever they wish - but at their expense, not ours, that’s the subtle difference.

It’s very hard to balance some poor old person getting told they have to pay hundreds of pounds a week for a care home if their assets are more than £16k when some minor Royal is whooping it up to the tune of £38m, entertaining and feeding the rich and famous from around the world and if that classed as miserable, so be it.

As someone who works in government I know a fair bit about how we cost things. Don't believe what you read in the press about costs. It's UTTER nonsense. What's important are the net additional costs. It's also important to understand the way in which government departments charge each other for services provided. All this nonsense about giving the money to the poor or homeless simply reflects the fact that the press and most of the public have no clue (and less interest in trying to understand) how costs are reached.

One example: when there's an information commissioner (FOI) request to MOD to disclose the cost of providing troops, say to support flood response, the costs are (often) based on what's called 'full cost'. So, a private soldier earning say £25k a year could (but isn't really any more) be billed to another department at a full cost basis of £55k, because that figure includes things like housing, pension, X-factor costs, costs of training, equipment, clothing, etc. The fact that the taxpayer is paying for that soldier regardless of whether he/she is filling sandbags in Wales, on patrol in Afghanistan or sitting on his in barracks with a hangover is always missed. The fact that he may be street-lining for a royal wedding is also ignored. The MOD will tell you the cost for providing the military for the wedding. But the net additional cost of providing them is actually a fraction, and might comprise transport costs for moving more soldiers to the venue, feeding, etc. Same for the police, with the exception of some overtime. The Home Office will provide the cost of providing the policing operation noting that the coppers would be paid whether they're lining the streets in Windsor or patrolling elsewhere in the SE.

There is no '£32M to give to the homeless' or spend on the NHS. It's government departments playing shops for the most part. It's not real money.

Now, cakes, flowers, food, booze etc is a different matter and as I understand the Family picks that up.

Plus no-one has mentioned the huge net benefits to the UK economy of the wedding itself. The UK exchequer will end up better off as a result of the wedding (through taxes), and that means more actual real money to spend on things, be it the NHS, homeless or whatever.

The Dundonian wrote:

Say what you like, excuse costs, justify the spend in any way, but these are inequalities that can’t be reconciled and are privileges of birth.

You either believe that what can only be called discrimination in that way is right or wrong and if you think it’s right, then you put one persons life above that of others.

We know it’s so wrong to do it on the basis of gender, sexuality, colour, race and religion, but if it’s the Royal Family, it’s obviously fine. No, it isn’t and it’s about time we got up to speed and the practice was stopped.