Royal Wedding

[jeremyp]

Nope - you might want to read what I actually said - I talked about 'security' not 'policing' - while the costs for policing outside the venue are shared,

Maybe you should have read what I said. I said “I resent the amount of public money spent on football matches” (and then retracted it in the same post). Who cares what the club itself spent, it’s about public money.

Accept the fact that some of our taxes are spent on policing public events including (but not limited to) football matches and Royal weddings, but it’s OK because it is part of what the police are for. Whingeing about one kind of event and not another strikes me as hypocrisy.

[SweetPea]

Did anyone actually see this wedding? I saw some of it while my wee granddaughter was having her morning nap.

The highlight for me was Eugenie's dress - just stunning, the best royal bridal dress I think I have seen so far. On the tv the material appeared plain but looking at close-up photos it can be seen to have an embroidered pattern running in parallel lines over the whole dress. As some may have read, Eugenie chose not to wear a veil purposely so that the scar from her operation for scoliosis would be on show, in support and to give others courage who had been through the same.

I'm not a great fan of Andrea Bocelli but his performance of Ave Maria was quite beautiful.

Sister Beatrice read a passage from The Great Gatsby because something the character Jay Gatsby had said reminded her of her new husband. This was quite a feat for Beatrice as she has dyslexic and although it had probably been practiced over and over she delivered the piece with confidence. Good for her....

I was taken with the bishop and his not-too-long talk. What struck me was how relaxed Eugenie was and her continued reassuring glances to her very nervous husband.

Something else that struck me was the differing from the BBC commentary of the ITV team, Eammon Holmes in particular who was referring to the Queen as "queenie" and coming out with quips such as "they have real jobs.. 'er and 'er sister". How he gets away with it goodness knows.

One last thing.... these two newly-weds seemed the most natural and genuinely in love royals I have seen... many blessings to them. And no, I am not a supporter of the Royals.... just looking beyond that at what I thought were a couple of decent young folk.





(Sorry, I'm tired, and the grammar above, I know, is appalling! Ah well, off to me bed.... )

[Robbie]

I was dozing, just woke up to go to bed Sweet Pea  .

Yes I watched the wedding, had day off yesterday tired and lay on sofa watching. It was charming, didn't seem overly long either. Beautiful dress! Everyone looked good and seemed to be enjoying themselves. The little ones were gorgeous.

I hope they'll be happy, she seems such a nice girl.

Like you I enjoyed Eamonn and Ruth's commentary, not familiar with Eamonn but he is quite humorous. The interview they did with Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank prior to the wedding, which was shown, was very good & natural.

All over 'til the next one (I have two to go to next year).

[Rhiannon]

Maybe you should have read what I said. I said “I resent the amount of public money spent on football matches” (and then retracted it in the same post). Who cares what the club itself spent, it’s about public money.

Accept the fact that some of our taxes are spent on policing public events including (but not limited to) football matches and Royal weddings, but it’s OK because it is part of what the police are for. Whingeing about one kind of event and not another strikes me as hypocrisy.

The cost of policing anti Trump protests that achieved nothing is another case in point. Some smug back-patting I guess, but anything else?

[Rhiannon]

I was dozing, just woke up to go to bed Sweet Pea  .

Yes I watched the wedding, had day off yesterday tired and lay on sofa watching. It was charming, didn't seem overly long either. Beautiful dress! Everyone looked good and seemed to be enjoying themselves. The little ones were gorgeous.

I hope they'll be happy, she seems such a nice girl.

Like you I enjoyed Eamonn and Ruth's commentary, not familiar with Eamonn but he is quite humorous. The interview they did with Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank prior to the wedding, which was shown, was very good & natural.

All over 'til the next one (I have two to go to next year).

I didn't watch it, hate actually having to go to weddings and don't have much time for marriage itself, although I was surprised at how moving I found Harry and Meghan's wedding.

But (and I know I've commented on this before) I love the aesthetic of a traditional wedding. I thought that her dress was beautiful. as indeed was her evening gown. I wonder why they always put their bridesmaids in ivory though. Flower girls look so pretty something floral.

[Robbie]

That's just a matter of taste I suppose. I like white or ivory for bridesmaids, they're classic which is why most people have them but it was Queen Victoria who decided to wear white for her wedding and was thereafter copied. I sometimes wish people would be more inventive but that's up to them.

The bridesmaids on Friday had colourful contrasting sashes taken from a picture at the gallery where the princess works.

Last wedding I went to the bride wore a silver dress -  it was some sort of silk. Looked gorgeous. Two nieces getting hitched next year, Feb and May, the Feb one will deffo wear something a bit different. As people say, you're only married for the first time once.

[Steve H]

it was Queen Victoria who decided to wear white for her wedding and was thereafter copied.

Well, roughly:

The first documented instance of a princess who wore a white wedding dress for a royal wedding ceremony is that of Philippa of England, who wore a tunic with a cloak in white silk bordered with squirrel and ermine in 1406, when she married Eric of Pomerania.[1][2] Mary, Queen of Scots, wore a white wedding dress in 1559 when she married her first husband, Francis, the Dauphin of France, because it was her favorite color, although white was then the color of mourning for French Queens.[3][4]

This was not a widespread trend, however: prior to the Victorian era, a bride was married in any color, black being especially popular in Scandinavia.[5]

White became a popular option in 1840, after the marriage of Queen Victoria to Albert of Saxe-Coburg, when Victoria wore a white gown trimmed with Honiton lace. Illustrations of the wedding were widely published, and many brides opted for white in accordance with the Queen's choice.[6]

Even after that, for a period, wedding dresses were adapted to the styles of the day. In the early 1900s, clothing included a lot of decorations, such as lace or frills. This was also adopted in wedding dresses, where decorative frills and lace was common. For example, in the 1920s, they were typically short in the front with a longer train in the back and were worn with cloche-style wedding veils. This tendency to follow current fashions continued until the late 1960s, when it became popular to revert to long, full-skirted designs reminiscent of the Victorian era.

Today, Western wedding dresses are usually white,[7] though "wedding white" includes shades such as eggshell, ecru and ivory.

Later, many people assumed that the color white was intended to symbolize virginity, though this was not the original intention: it was the color blue that was connected to purity, piety, faithfulness, and the Virgin Mary.[8]

[Rhiannon]

That's just a matter of taste I suppose. I like white or ivory for bridesmaids, they're classic which is why most people have them but it was Queen Victoria who decided to wear white for her wedding and was thereafter copied. I sometimes wish people would be more inventive but that's up to them.

The bridesmaids on Friday had colourful contrasting sashes taken from a picture at the gallery where the princess works.

Last wedding I went to the bride wore a silver dress -  it was some sort of silk. Looked gorgeous. Two nieces getting hitched next year, Feb and May, the Feb one will deffo wear something a bit different. As people say, you're only married for the first time once.

I've only ever seen ivory dresses for flower girls at the Royal Weddings. I thought Beatrice's outfit was interesting given that she was Maid of Honour. Definitely a choice made by her there. I wonder if it was some kind of reaction to the dress worn by Pippa Middleton at Kate's wedding, which was so much like a wedding dress it made no sense.

Years ago I was at an afternoon tea dance at the Waldorf and there was another party of about twenty people, one of whom was a tall woman wearing a 1920's style full length gown in peppermint silk with a pale pink sash and a headband in the same silk. Turned out it was her wedding, as announced in the ladies' loo by some obnoxious woman who said 'well it's not as though anyone is a virgin of their wedding day any more'. The bride looked amazing and it stayed with me that you could break the mould on your wedding day.

Although I did choose my wedding dress, my mother made it clear that it had to be a traditional one or she wouldn't attend my wedding. At a time when everything that sequin and glitz, I wanted something simple, and after trailing designer boutiques I found it in Debenhams/Berketex of all places - it was raw silk, fitted and with a fishtail skirt, long sleeves, off the shoulder with silk roses in faded browns and greens around the neckline. After my marriage it was cleaned and it lived in a box on top of my dad's wardrobe, until I served divorce papers, when I donated it to a hospice charity shop that had a dedicated bridal department. I still wonder whether anyone fancied a vintage '90's frock or if it ended up getting binned.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe you should have read what I said. I said “I resent the amount of public money spent on football matches” (and then retracted it in the same post). Who cares what the club itself spent, it’s about public money.

Accept the fact that some of our taxes are spent on policing public events including (but not limited to) football matches and Royal weddings, but it’s OK because it is part of what the police are for. Whingeing about one kind of event and not another strikes me as hypocrisy.

It isn't hypocritical as the two 'events' are completely different.

Firstly, as I've already pointed out the general rule for events is that the event organisers are responsible for security in the venue, at their expense. Security, including policing outside the venue is shared in terms of costs. That's what happens with football matches, but we paid for the security inside and out, in full, for the wedding. Non equivalence.

Secondly you need to consider things in a broader manner if you are concerned with expenditure from the public purse - you need to consider the associated additional revenue from taxes.

So without doubt football matches result in a net benefit for the tax payer as even the direct tax take associated with the match far outstrips the costs to the tax payer for policing. This isn't the case for the wedding where there is a clear net loss to the tax payer - £2M paid out, and where exactly is the direct tax benefit.

So just so that are aware, in the 2013/14 season the premier league contributed £2.4billion in direct taxes to the exchequer - perhaps the most obvious match-related element VAT contributed £400million. This will be higher still now.

[Rhiannon]

But how much of the money generated by football comes from match day attendance? Isn't most of it TV money and sponsorship? If you want to argue that having a crowd improves performance and therefore marketability fine, but equally having a visible royal family adds to the image of Britain to many abroad and makes us marketable to a particular tourist audience.

Note, I don't much care one way or the other, but we all shell out for security for events that we don't much care about and that don't offer very much.

[ProfessorDavey]

But how much of the money generated by football comes from match day attendance? Isn't most of it TV money and sponsorship? If you want to argue that having a crowd improves performance and therefore marketability fine, but equally having a visible royal family adds to the image of Britain to many abroad and makes us marketable to a particular tourist audience.

Note, I don't much care one way or the other, but we all shell out for security for events that we don't much care about and that don't offer very much.

Sure loads come from non match day activities. But even just from ticket sales I imagine a single Arsenal home game generates about £500k in VAT alone.

And the figures I gave are just from direct tax - i.e. generated by the clubs themselves, e.g. VAT, income tax generated from employment, corporation tax etc. There are of course huge additional revenues from indirect, e.g. travel, hospitality, tourism, sales of third party items, e.g. video games etc etc.

And like the Royals there is immense global 'soft power' of the English premier league brand which enhances the visibility and influence of the UK.

[Rhiannon]

Quite. So security for both is justified.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite. So security for both is justified.

The issue isn't whether security is justified, but who pays for it.

In one case the tax payer pays for the lot (outside and inside the venue).

In the other the club pays for security in the venue and the costs outside are shared, but even the tax payer funded element is easily covered (and some) by the additional tax generated directly by the event itself.

[Rhiannon]

The issue isn't whether security is justified, but who pays for it.

In one case the tax payer pays for the lot (outside and inside the venue).

In the other the club pays for security in the venue and the costs outside are shared, but even the tax payer funded element is easily covered (and some) by the additional tax generated directly by the event itself.

Personally I think that security should be paid for by the RF but it isn't. It is what it is. Security for all kinds of things comes from the public purse.

[jeremyp]

Security, including policing outside the venue is shared in terms of costs. That's what happens with football matches, but we paid for the security inside and out, in full, for the wedding. Non equivalence.

Except we know because I gave you the figures that policing outside of football matches is almost entirely born by the police.

Did we pay for security inside the venue in the case of the Royal wedding. Can you tell me what costs were incurrred?

Secondly you need to consider things in a broader manner if you are concerned with expenditure from the public purse - you need to consider the associated additional revenue from taxes.

Why? Do we consider the additional revenue when the NHS gives a hip replacement to a 70 year old? Have you considered the potential cost of not policing a Royal wedding?

[jeremyp]

The issue isn't whether security is justified, but who pays for it.

You’ve made a pretty good case that football clubs could easily afford to pay all of the policing costs associated with their matches. For example, Spurs policing costs were around about a million pounds last season (see the link I gave you that you refuse to believe) and they make over £30 million in profit.

[ProfessorDavey]

You’ve made a pretty good case that football clubs could easily afford to pay all of the policing costs associated with their matches. For example, Spurs policing costs were around about a million pounds last season (see the link I gave you that you refuse to believe) and they make over £30 million in profit.

Profit which will generate about £6M in corporation tax for the exchequer - on top of the VAT and all sorts of other tax. Sounds like good value for the tax payer.

And Policing isn't means tested Jeremy.

And where have I claimed not to believe your link - it is entirely consistent with my earlier claim of about £6M in total policing costs in London. The Spurs situation is somewhat unusual due to them currently playing at Wembley, but even so I consider a £1m policing bill for 29 games across an entire season, each of which involved about 70,000 people rather more justified than £2M spent on a single event lasting a couple of hours and involving sparse crowds.

Put it this way the per hour costs to the tax payer for the royal wedding are approx. 50 times greater than for even far and away the most expensive football club.

[ippy]

"Fuck the royals"? I quite agree! 

It's the institution that bugs me the individuals through no fault of their own get caught up in this brain dead, useless, soapy, insult to the intelligence, apart from that it's not that bad Steve.

Regards ippy.

[Harrowby Hall]

It's the institution that bugs me the individuals through no fault of their own get caught up in this brain dead, useless, soapy, insult to the intelligence, apart from that it's not that bad Steve.

Regards ippy.

But the Trump thread is in the Politics section ...

[ippy]

But the Trump thread is in the Politics section ...

I'm not as sure as you are about Trump but at the same time I agree it does look like that, but again I think it's a case of letting some time go by and then looking back before I'm going to condemn him completely out of hand.

As for the whole of the royal idea, I cannot work out how so many are taken in by this nonsense nowadays in this supposedly modern era such a senseless idea/stet up? As for drawing in tourists?

Regards ippy