Taxpayer funding for the Royal Wedding ⭕✔

Sign the petition ⭕✔


To: Parliament of the United Kingdom

We petition the UK parliament to commit no public money to the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and to call upon the government to publish a report of all costs to taxpayers.


Why is this important?
Polling by YouGov showed that 52% of us were ‘indifferent’ to news of the royal engagement. So the wedding won't be quite the national celebration some parts of the media think it is.

In 2011, the Financial Times found that Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding actually "held back growth", it wasn’t the boost to the economy the press often claimed.

A royal wedding is a private, personal event, dressed up as a national occasion. That lets the royals use the wedding as a PR exercise and to expect the taxpayer will pay a large part of the costs.

Who is paying?
The exact details of royal wedding funding are shrouded in secrecy, but we do know - at the very least - that expensive road closures and policing will be required. And we know local councils and the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.

Taxpayers should not be funding a private wedding, no matter who is getting married.

If Harry and Meghan want to turn their big day into a public event, they need to pick up the bill – all of it.

The Palace claims the wedding will be funded by the royal family, but royal funding blurs the lines between private income and public money. So, whether it's the cost of policing paid for directly by us, or costs of the wedding ceremony, paid for by the royals, the taxpayer still ends up paying.

If the royal family funds the wedding through the ill-gotten gains of a broken system of royal funding, then we have a right to know where that money is coming from and what it’s being spent on.

Taxpayers have the right to know
At a time of great strain on public spending and a rising cost of living, this is an opportunity for MPs to demand the highest possible standards of openness and transparency around the wedding finances.

If the royals want to turn a private wedding into a public PR exercise, they need to pay. The taxpayer needs to know who is funding what, where the money is coming from and the impact the wedding will have on local and police budgets.

This petition calls upon the UK parliament to ensure the highest standards of openness and transparency relating to the funding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding, to tell the government to commit no public funds to the wedding and to publish a report of all costs to taxpayers.


Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share by Email
Share via WhatsApp

https://www.republic.org.uk/petition/royal-wedding

 

I'll sign it. Anachronistic bunch of spongers.

 

Just wondering your thought process when you first saw this , " I'm putting this on the bbs " .

 

Who - The royals or these miserable old ******* pensioners with nowt better to do but spout communist rhetoric on a football board.

 

Signed.

It won't mek any difference, but **** the royals anyway.

 

Us miserable old ******* pensioners with nowt better to do have worked and payed our for our pensions,not like these freeloading royals who get about 40 million a year of taxpayers money for a lifestyle that us mortals can only dream of.You make me f@cking badley.

 

Please explain why wanting someone to pay for their own wedding is communistic...

 

Nurse!! Nurse!!............ He's out of bed again!

Yawn!!

 

I expected you to sign it - a foreign family, coming over here to inbreed and live off the state for several generations, I thought you were dead against that sort of thing...

 

I really can't be bothered to enter into a 'battle of wits' with someone so obviously totally unarmed. Have a good day.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=Wittiest+humorous+comeback

TekkyTyke, 20 minutes ago

 

I’m interested to see the battle between Pinillos and fryers unfold as they both seem committed to grabbing that shirt for keeps. Keep it up lads

 

I’m not putting my name to anything, the government might come knock on my door and kill me hahaha

 

I always find the irony in ‘royal family’ threads like this quite amusing. The very same people who combust when they hear phrases such as ‘sponger’ and ‘immigrant’ being used to describe other sections of society use them without a seconds hesitation to describe the royal family.

Throw in the phrase ‘inbred’ and they have undermined their argument to such a degree it is not worth entering into a dialogue with them. I’ve discussed the monarchy with some anti royals / republicans and they articulate a very balanced and reasoned argument to back up their view. Sadly some on the BBS are only capable of using the same old, tired and worn out, not to mention inaccurate insults to make their point.

 

Presumably then Barnsley FC need to go out of business. Privately owned private company but the tax payer funds policing in he town centre every match day. Why should the Barnsley tax payer foot the bill when 90% of the local population are indifferent to Barnsley FC?

 

Respect your views however much they oppose mine, but it’s fairly trite to pretend to not see the intention behind those sorts of comments.
As for myself I firmly believe all of us no matter what skin colour, gender, sexuality, creed are born equal and I virulently despise those that have built social contracts to convince us otherwise and those at the bottom that protect that turn my stomach. No one is born anything other than my equal.

 

In my defence I wasn't using immigrant as a slur but rather to highlight the irony on the other side of the argument in that people who complain about immigrants and people on benefits tend to be pro-royal. "Sponger" was a bit facile I'll admit.

The actual reason for my objection to the Royal Family isn't primarily based around the financial side of things. I see people argue that they are net contributors to the economy whilst others argue that they are a drain. I honestly don't know what the net effect of their continued existence is upon our economy - we prop them up and get an unknown benefit from it, but nevertheless we do prop them up.

My main objection is that they are a remnant of an outdated class system in that we have a head of state that is determined purely by accident of birth. In my view that is absolutely inconsistent with a modern democracy which should operate (as far as is reasonably possible) to promote the idea of a meritocracy. I despise the idea that some people are born better than others - to me this thinking has no place in modern society and certainly not at the top.

 

I don't dispute your point re: equality but the royal family are born into it, they don't get to choose. It's a different argument to the heritage and work ethic of the royal family and I too respect the views of anybody who oppose them but only when the argument is not one based in silly insults.

 

Good points MR, ones that I respect as a valid argument for the removal of the royals even if I don't agree.