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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the British papers want the terrorists to win. The entire expense is because of fears of terrorists. No specific or credible threat, just a (warranted) abundance of caution.

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.

What is with you and the terrorists?

Government MPs and many of the public think Eugenie shouldn't have a carriage ride because she's NOBODY. She doesn't work as a royal. She shouldn't be costing 2 million in security.

Andrew's always been a spoiled brat (demanding his daughters get an HRH when Princess Anne didn't) but this takes the cake. Let HIM pay for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-eugenie-2-million-taxpayers-money-prince-andrew-labour-mp-a8497221.html

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the British papers want the terrorists to win. The entire expense is because of fears of terrorists. No specific or credible threat, just a (warranted) abundance of caution.

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.

Anonymous wrote:It's 2 million pounds to avert global embarrassment and the appearance of incompetence were something bad to happen during the wedding.

Read the articles. The wedding at the venue she selected with EVERYTHING included was only going to cost $750,000. She can still have the amazing gown, floral arrangements, walk up the stairs, all the royal family etc. Its the carriage ride which is the MOST DANGEROUS and the most COSTLY. She added it on and the cost ballooned to 2 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. I would bet they make 2 million back in publicity/tourism dollars for Britain. For a lot of people, the royal family is what makes them notice Britain.

I think they would if this was someone the public recognizes. But as every hit piece is pointing out...she doesn't work as a royal and most people couldn't care two toots about her and her alcohol heir.

They don't care so much about her, but a lot of people are interested in the fanfare of a royal wedding (the dress! the tiara! Fergie's return to the royal family!). I would still say this wedding is a publicity win for the royal family.

It's 2 million pounds to avert global embarrassment and the appearance of incompetence were something bad to happen during the wedding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the British papers want the terrorists to win. The entire expense is because of fears of terrorists. No specific or credible threat, just a (warranted) abundance of caution.

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.

Well I guess Harry got one so.......what's fair is fair? As an American, I've always known who Harry was bc of Charles and Diana....Eugenia, not so much. Any Brits on here? Is she the same level of fame as Harry over there?

Sounds like they need to scale back!

I agree it's preposterous-- 9th in line to the throne? This nonsense has to stop somewhere,

Anonymous wrote:Meh. I would bet they make 2 million back in publicity/tourism dollars for Britain. For a lot of people, the royal family is what makes them notice Britain.

I think they would if this was someone the public recognizes. But as every hit piece is pointing out...she doesn't work as a royal and most people couldn't care two toots about her and her alcohol heir.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the British papers want the terrorists to win. The entire expense is because of fears of terrorists. No specific or credible threat, just a (warranted) abundance of caution.

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.

Meh. I would bet they make 2 million back in publicity/tourism dollars for Britain. For a lot of people, the royal family is what makes them notice Britain.

Sounds like the British papers want the terrorists to win. The entire expense is because of fears of terrorists. No specific or credible threat, just a (warranted) abundance of caution.

Isn't it more about who will be attending the wedding? I.e. the queen and numbers 1-4 in line.

All the major UK papers are running hit stories on Eugenie's wedding which requires a $2 million security detail. And the government ministers are actually decrying it.



"Why on earth are taxpayers forking out £2 million to provide security for a woman who's 9th in line for the throne and carries out NO public duties????"
Twitter is a firestorm with 10,000 retweets. https://twitter.com/BolsoverBeast/status/1030342537213554688

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-eugenies-wedding-taxpayers-fork-13091797

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6069437/Princess-Eugenie-wedding-cost-taxpayers-2m-guard-her.html