Royal Wedding: Gifts And Costs

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
What's interesting to me is how well the families of us common folk manage to pay for weddings, considering that the millionaires in the royal family need to suck upon the public teat.
 
Jae said:
What's interesting to me is how well the families of us common folk manage to pay for weddings, considering that the millionaires in the royal family need to suck upon the public teat.
Click to expand...

We didn't actually pay for their wedding so maybe you should let a British taxpayer (@Pavlos Maros ?) comment on that. They're the ones on the hook. And I'm not sure how much was tax dollars and how much came out of their personal fortune. If you can find those numbers, then we can have a conversation. Right now, you're raging without really having a good handle on what you're raging against.
 
Mendalla said:
Well done. Now, if you read that, the only cost to the taxpayer is security. And it doesn't change the fact that even that is on the UK taxpayers, not us. In short, we didn't pay for it and really have no say in the matter. And getting rid of the monarchy in Canada wouldn't change any of that.
Click to expand...

Nice try Mendalla - but I did not say that the cost was on us.

As to the security, it is certainly NOT like it was an insignificant cost.

The cost to the Canadian taxpayer, as far as I know, was fifty thousand dollars. However, more may be disclosed in time.
 
Your rant was about the cost of the wedding, a wedding which cost Canadian taxpayers a $50K donation to a charity that already gets over a million in government funding. And that likely would have been given even if we were not in Commonwealth (the US is sending a gift and has to every royal wedding since Elizabeth and Philip). So in the greater scheme of things, the cost to taxpayers for the wedding is a British problem and not even a factor in deciding whether Canada should keep the monarchy.
 
Mendalla said:
Your rant was about the cost of the wedding, a wedding which cost Canadian taxpayers a $50K donation to a charity that already gets over a million in government funding. And that likely would have been given even if we were not in Commonwealth (the US is sending a gift and has to every royal wedding since Elizabeth and Philip). So in the greater scheme of things, the cost to taxpayers for the wedding is a British problem and not even a factor in deciding whether Canada should keep the monarchy.
Click to expand...

Okay... I did not even speak about keeping the monarchy or getting rid of it when I wrote, "What's interesting to me is how well the families of us common folk manage to pay for weddings, considering that the millionaires in the royal family need to suck upon the public teat."

Have you had a particularly difficult week or something Mendalla? Hope you have a chance this long weekend to get a good rest.
 
And my point, @Jae,.was that no public teat is being sucked on. Other than security, which isn't even a concern with a normal wedding.
 
Jae said:
Security was a major expense Mendalla.
Click to expand...

We have no idea how much the rest cost, though, so no idea how it fits in proportionately. And, as I already said, whether that qualifies as "sucking at the public teat" is for British taxpayers to decide. If they are happy, then it's all good. No skin off my teeth. And given public support for the monarchy in the UK, it's probably a safe bet that they are.

Have a nice night. I think we've taken this as far as we can.
 
Mendalla said:
We didn't actually pay for their wedding so maybe you should let a British taxpayer (@Pavlos Maros ?) comment on that. They're the ones on the hook. And I'm not sure how much was tax dollars and how much came out of their personal fortune. If you can find those numbers, then we can have a conversation. Right now, you're raging without really having a good handle on what you're raging against.
Click to expand...
a large part was paid for by the tax payer/state, however it has returns on it's investment which doesn't get spoken about, very often, for instance the TV coverage was not free the TV companies have to pay. literally all media has to pay. The right to produce paraphernalia, For the day, bunting flowers etc.. Have to pay. and after in statuettes, dolls, cups, photographs, etc.. You'll have the hard right complaining about the bill for such an event, but it is all covered. You wont hear about that though.

As will be Trumps visit in July to our shores. Though I think that will cost the tax payer.

And yes your are right the royal estate does contribute to such an event, the lions share in fact. After all it is there families wedding. Though hard line right wingers would try to claim it comes out of the states coffers. The reason why the queen and her family get paid as they do. Is because the British public want a monarchy. She and they earn a wage. For being who they are. They certainly aren't sponging of the state. All the queens properties pay for themselves now. With farming, farm shops, forestry, live stock, stud farms, public visiting, etc...
 
The hit to tourism could be devastating to the UK without the Monarchy. Who wants to go to see Theresa May and Jeremy Corbin?;)

I have gone through phases of just thinking the Monarchy is silly and excessive - especially when the world might have benefitted from them being a little bit more outspoken, not silent, on socio-political and geopolitical issues and not just show pieces. In a sense, the majority of the public does “elect” to keep the Monarchy or else they wouldn’t be there, because the public grants them any power they do have (which is no longer ruling power), to work for them. If anything, I feel sorry for them being born into a role that the public demands that they keep and represent with such scrutiny upon them all the time. I do, however, think they need to be able to, and I think need to, loosen up more and see the real world; and maybe this wedding will open up that opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
The hit to tourism could be devastating to the UK without the Monarchy. Who wants to go to see Theresa May and Jeremy Corbin?;)

I have gone through phases of just thinking the Monarchy is silly and excessive - especially when the world might have benefitted from them being a little bit more outspoken, not silent, on socio-political and geopolitical issues and not just show pieces. In a sense, the majority of the public does “elect” to keep the Monarchy or else they wouldn’t be there, because the public grants them any power they do have (which is no longer ruling power), to work for them. If anything, I feel sorry for them being born into a role that the public demands that they keep and represent with such scrutiny upon them all the time. I do, however, think they need to be able to, and I think need to, loosen up more and see the real world; and maybe this wedding will open up that opportunity.
Click to expand...

Are there unseen monarchies ... vivid scenes beyond us ... as an idealism in mind? Demon St Rable ... in tuit I'ves? Eve's ... tis in the dark domain ... under the veil 've bones ... scull 'n place! Extensively metaphorical ... with wide parallels ... surrounding environmental fluctuations ...
 
Jae said:
Okay. Can you imagine if every couple getting married did same.



That can be changed.

Do you feel that because he's in the royal family he's more deserving of gifts?



Nevertheless, hard earned big bucks out of our pockets went to cover the costs of documenting a couple's wedding.
Click to expand...

What's up Jae? Jealous? Envious that a generous donation given on behalf of all Canadians benefitted someone who isn't YOU?

You said your wedding was partially funded by donations. Your health care is greatly supported by donations made by others via the Income Tax. As is your education. As is the transit system to use to get around your home city. If you are indeed living as a low income family you should be expressing gratitude for this generosity, not whining about decisions made by your elected officials.

Let us know how you make yourself useful to a group of youngsters in Toronto who benefit form this wedding donation. If you are too self centred to volunteer to help kids than maybe just thank those who do.
 
KayTheCurler said:
What's up Jae? Jealous? Envious that a generous donation given on behalf of all Canadians benefitted someone who isn't YOU?
Click to expand...

Rather, disliking that the government would be donating taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to a charity of said government's choice. I feel people should be held as being responsible enough to make their own decisions about who to donate to. There are charities I would rather see get my bucks than JumpStart.
 
Jae said:
Rather, disliking that the government would be donating taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to a charity of said government's choice. I feel people should be held as being responsible enough to make their own decisions about who to donate to. There are charities I would rather see get my bucks than JumpStart.
Click to expand...

They do it all the time. Government grants to non-profits are part of how the government promotes various policies and initiatives. You didn't think the government did it all themselves?

And, frankly, taxpayers who are anything but Baptist are supporting your church. The religious and charitable tax deduction that I'm sure many of your members claim ultimately is a cost to the treasury and therefore the taxpayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top