Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's the law in England and has been for a long time. Children of monarch's sons get called HRH. Anne's kids aren't entitled to that because she's a woman (same reason Queen Elizabeth's cousins through her aunt Mary aren't HRH) and they don't have any other titles because her husband didn't want a title. Andrew didn't make any "demands." Yes, it's admirable that Anne and Edward tried to keep their kids out of the spotlight by reducing their titles but that doesn't mean Andrew has to make the same choice.

Nonsense. Princess Anne and her husband Mark Phillips, specifically requested their children not be referred to with royal titles or protocol from their births. It allowed them much more natural lives, though as grandchildren of the monarch it's always a stretch. Both were offered titles by QEII when they came of age. They declined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's the law in England and has been for a long time. Children of monarch's sons get called HRH. Anne's kids aren't entitled to that because she's a woman (same reason Queen Elizabeth's cousins through her aunt Mary aren't HRH) and they don't have any other titles because her husband didn't want a title. Andrew didn't make any "demands." Yes, it's admirable that Anne and Edward tried to keep their kids out of the spotlight by reducing their titles but that doesn't mean Andrew has to make the same choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

She is. That's the point.

Are you dim? She's not paying the 2MM security costs. Her parents aren't paying. The Queen isn't paying. That is falling on taxpayers.

It’s the same philosophy we have in the US towards the First Family. People grumble about having to pay 100s of thousands in security costs when Donnie Jr and Eric travel the globe to do their business deals. But in the end we as taxpayers pay. They pay for their direct expenses but not the security.

William and Harry would be comparable to members of the first family. Eugenie is 9th in line and will be bumped further down once Harry and Meghan have children. Eugenie would be comparable to Don Jr and Eric's cousins who do not work for the Trump administration. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for her wedding security? Btw, it's only this expensive because she wants an open air carriage ride. She's not working royal but she wants to be treated like one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

She is. That's the point.

Are you dim? She's not paying the 2MM security costs. Her parents aren't paying. The Queen isn't paying. That is falling on taxpayers.

It’s the same philosophy we have in the US towards the First Family. People grumble about having to pay 100s of thousands in security costs when Donnie Jr and Eric travel the globe to do their business deals. But in the end we as taxpayers pay. They pay for their direct expenses but not the security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

She is. That's the point.

Are you dim? She's not paying the 2MM security costs. Her parents aren't paying. The Queen isn't paying. That is falling on taxpayers.

It’s the same philosophy we have in the US towards the First Family. People grumble about having to pay 100s of thousands in security costs when Donnie Jr and Eric travel the globe to do their business deals. But in the end we as taxpayers pay. They pay for their direct expenses but not the security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

She is. That's the point.

Are you dim? She's not paying the 2MM security costs. Her parents aren't paying. The Queen isn't paying. That is falling on taxpayers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

She is. That's the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Then she can have the wedding she can afford, like the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

The Yorks are causing the 2M pound hit to the taxpayers by insisting on an open carriage ride through Windsor as if she were a working royal. She isn't. Zara or Peter Phillips survived with more modest weddings. This is Andrew and his family trying to ring every bit they can before Charles comes to the throne.

If this goes through and there are no well-wishers on the parade route, it is going to be such an embarrassment and the press is going to go crazy!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.

The Yorks are causing the 2M pound hit to the taxpayers by insisting on an open carriage ride through Windsor as if she were a working royal. She isn't. Zara or Peter Phillips survived with more modest weddings. This is Andrew and his family trying to ring every bit they can before Charles comes to the throne.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2MM is a drop in the bucket. People have other motives if they ‘re complaining about this.

Then Andrew should have no problem paying.

2 MM is a drop in the bucket for the UK. Not a single person. Her mother has been bankrupt. She’s just a 30 year old. She shouldn’t have to spend all her fortune on security that’s necessary because of her title and the roles of her family.