Protests about Princess Eugenie's Wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

This has been a problem with Andrew, his wife, and his children for awhile. His divorced wife is living in a palace paid for by public funds. His daughter (Eugenie) demanded residence at Kensington Palace even though no one knows her. It got so bad that her wedding and engagement (from three years ago) was put on hold because the royal family wouldn't pay for repairs to her 'residence' and Andrew refused to pay himself.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/766168/damp-bill-row-cold-water-Princess-Eugenie-dream-home-plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

[Anonymous]

Ha! If the Brits are objecting to 2mn for a wedding, which is a high profile thing, imagine what they would have said about Melania's 100$mn security costs to stay in NYC with Barron for 6 months instead of moving to the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

Judging by the articles crucifying her - she definitely is not. And she's had her whole life (30 years) to build any sort of rapport with the British public. Apparently its non-existent because they know the Yorks are slackers and ungrateful.

Fergie's lashing out but no one cares because she tried to sell access to Andrew 15 years ago and no one is forgetting that -

“I am appalled at the vitriol that is expressed in the piece,” wrote Wade. “I would like to draw into question the purpose of the feature, is it to make a young couple feel embarrassed or ashamed of the choices they have made for their wedding day or is it to incite anger and hatred towards them? Either way, the outcome is negative and tantamount to bullying.”

https://people.com/royals/sarah-ferguson-reposts-open-letter-blasting-article-princess-eugenie-wedding/

[Anonymous]

"(Eugenie) is as constitutionally important as one of the Queen’s corgis.”

They are pulling no punches.

[Anonymous]

Thought it was just about the wedding but people are coming after her title too.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-right-royal-display-of-tactless-ostentation-m3b5l59n7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

Judging by the articles crucifying her - she definitely is not. And she's had her whole life (30 years) to build any sort of rapport with the British public. Apparently its non-existent because they know the Yorks are slackers and ungrateful.

And what does Prince Charles do to earn his keep? Have an affair and marry his mistress?

Most of the royals are tools. It would be fine if the inbreds just ceased to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

Judging by the articles crucifying her - she definitely is not. And she's had her whole life (30 years) to build any sort of rapport with the British public. Apparently its non-existent because they know the Yorks are slackers and ungrateful.

And what does Prince Charles do to earn his keep? Have an affair and marry his mistress?

Most of the royals are tools. It would be fine if the inbreds just ceased to be.

Charles, separately from his wife I might add, attends and conducts more 500 working events a year in addition to raising more than ten million a year for U.K. charities.

He's a tool as far romance goes but no one disputes his contributions to society or royal public perception. https://www.royal.uk/the-prince-of-wales

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

Judging by the articles crucifying her - she definitely is not. And she's had her whole life (30 years) to build any sort of rapport with the British public. Apparently its non-existent because they know the Yorks are slackers and ungrateful.

And what does Prince Charles do to earn his keep? Have an affair and marry his mistress?

Most of the royals are tools. It would be fine if the inbreds just ceased to be.

Charles, separately from his wife I might add, attends and conducts more 500 working events a year in addition to raising more than ten million a year for U.K. charities.

He's a tool as far romance goes but no one disputes his contributions to society or royal public perception. https://www.royal.uk/the-prince-of-wales

princess eugenie would love to be a working royal but Charles wants to reduce the # of people on the royal payroll. Which is fine-but then you have a second string group of royals who are too famous to hold a regular job but not close enough to the Throne to be royal full time.

[Anonymous]

None of them are necessary.

[Anonymous]

No, the entire expense comes from the fact that she wants an open-air carriage ride. The price of the security detail would drop by 1.5 million without that.


I had an open air carriage ride at my wedding. It was romantic. You're saying that Eugenie shouldn't because of the possibility of a terrorist attack. So you think the terrorists should win.

Did it cost $2 million? And did the government pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should get what she wants for her wedding. If they don't want to pay for security detail, don't provide security detail. But that shouldn't stop her from having (and I'm assuming paying for herself or using what she is allowed to use) what she wants.

Pretty sure the whole shindig is financed on the brit taxpayer dime.

Nope. Andrew is paying for the costs of the wedding. And the way that the queen gave the land and the rest to the government, the British government comes out ahead anyway.

The ceremony costs of 750K are being picked up by the Royal Family, Andrew, and the Brooksbanks. However the security costs of 2 million are being paid out of public taxes. Andrew should cover it all.

This woman who demands an open air carriage ride for her wedding is just nuts. She's no Meghan!

Judging by the articles crucifying her - she definitely is not. And she's had her whole life (30 years) to build any sort of rapport with the British public. Apparently its non-existent because they know the Yorks are slackers and ungrateful.

And what does Prince Charles do to earn his keep? Have an affair and marry his mistress?

Most of the royals are tools. It would be fine if the inbreds just ceased to be.

Charles, separately from his wife I might add, attends and conducts more 500 working events a year in addition to raising more than ten million a year for U.K. charities.

He's a tool as far romance goes but no one disputes his contributions to society or royal public perception. https://www.royal.uk/the-prince-of-wales

princess eugenie would love to be a working royal but Charles wants to reduce the # of people on the royal payroll. Which is fine-but then you have a second string group of royals who are too famous to hold a regular job but not close enough to the Throne to be royal full time.

That's funny. Her sister's not too famous to hold a regular job. And what's even weirder - plenty of royals hold regular jobs and don't expect the government to pick up the tabs because they 'want' to sit around.

His Serene Highness Prince Alexei Lubomirski is a professional photographer and a damned good one. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/g14479097/alexi-lubomirski-royal-photographer-facts/

David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon is a world-renown carpenter and former professional autioneer...in addition to being the nephew of Queen Elizabeth II and son of Princess Margaret.

Princess Beatrice, Prince Andrew's other daughter, lives in New York City and works in tech start-ups.

The Crown Prince of Greece, who regularly appears at royal events globally, is an investment portfolio manager in London.

Prince William - remember him - is a certified air ambulance pilot.

King William-Alexander of Denmark moonlights a commercial airlines pilot. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/dutch-king-reveals-secret-life-commercial-co-pilot/

[Anonymous]

Eugenie and Bea have asked to become full-time royals. Charles refused. The British public aren't keen to finance more expensive royals at present. Meghan is in hot water, at least with UK citizens.