UK: Prince William & Kate Middleton Engaged

One could argue that the job of the monarchy is to ensure its continuance and that getting married is the sanctioned indication that you're undertaking that endeaver. I don't know about you, but while I have no problem with televising the wedding, I'd feel pretty creepy if they televised their efforts to engender an heir - or the delivery for that matter.

We are trying to speculate where this 40 million is going towards. DH says security and stuff is not part of that as they are already paid?
any other speculations

You have to increase security - hire a lot more people, pay the people you already have for working longer hours. There will probably be a lot of guests staying in the palace so you need extra (under)servants to cook and clean. That doesn't even touch on renting bollards, have buntings made and hire people to hang them all over the place...

The good news is that stuff like this really does pump money into the economy. It would just be better if it was pumping their money into the economy and not just repurposing the people's money.

One could argue that the job of the monarchy is to ensure its continuance and that getting married is the sanctioned indication that you're undertaking that endeaver.

you could argue that, but it doesn't really follow.  If the job of the monarchy is largely to ensure the line of succession, then Elizabeth I was one of the worst monarchs ever as she never even married, whereas in actual fact she was a vastly successful stateswoman.

that said, I wish this couple all the best, I just wish I wasn't footing the bill.

that said, I wish this couple all the best, I just wish I wasn't footing the bill.

That seems to be such a common thought these days.  I was watching the news the day after it happened or so and they were saying that things have changed since Chuck and Di, and the family will probably have to pay at least some of the bill themselves because the public doesn't want to.   

you could argue that, but it doesn't really follow.  If the job of the monarchy is largely to ensure the line of succession, then Elizabeth I was one of the worst monarchs ever as she never even married, whereas in actual fact she was a vastly successful stateswoman.

that said, I wish this couple all the best, I just wish I wasn't footing the bill.

Elizabeth I had a lot more power than Elizabeth II does. Elizabeth II couldn't even keep her boat from being decommissioned.

Elizabeth I had a lot more power than Elizabeth II does. Elizabeth II couldn't even keep her boat from being decommissioned.

That's absolutely true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point I was making.

That's absolutely true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point I was making.

You were comparing apples and oranges. Elizabeth I was a different kind of monarch than Elizabeth II and they are held to different standards.

You described Elizabeth I as a stateswoman - which is to say that she had power and she used it to the betterment of her kingdom. She had a very big say in how the government ran and she guided it wisely.  Therefore she was a successful monarch because she lead the country well. Also, while she did not herself produce an heir she did name her cousin as her heir and he followed her smoothly to the throne without causing civil unrest the way her half-brother's death did. That fulfilled the second half of her duties as a monarch - ensuring the continuation of the monarchy.

Elizabeth II does not weild political power, therefore all that is left is the bit about ensuring the next generation, which she has done with four children and 8 grandchildren, including the direct line of succession - Charles, who did his bit with William and now William is starting the process of legally producing an heir.

if the primary role of the monarchy is to produce its own next generation, doesn't that make the monarchy a bit, you know, pointless?

if the primary role of the monarchy is to produce its own next generation, doesn't that make the monarchy a bit, you know, pointless?

It brings tourists to the UK - That's the main argument I've heard for keeping the monarchy. (Not that there aren't plenty of other things that would attract tourists to the UK.)

It brings tourists to the UK - That's the main argument I've heard for keeping the monarchy. (Not that there aren't plenty of other things that would attract tourists to the UK.)

It isn't just that though, it's the symbolism of that and the statesmanship of the role.  There are plenty of things that the US president does as far as dinners, banquets, hosting foreign dignitaries, etc, that go a long way towards diplomatic relations.  A lot of US money is spent for the same things.  No 10 doesn't do this here, it's generally left to the monarchy with them inviting the government--and is frankly a greater honour anyway (I'd be much more excited about going to dinner at the Palace with the Queen than with just the PM).  Sometimes tradition and symbolism goes a long way and holds a lot of weight, even if it doesn't appear to hold much political power.  I don't think a nation should just forget its heritage and traditions just because it isn't as PC as it once was or may cost a bit at times.

(I swore I wasn't going to get into this--I HATE arguments about the monarchy, and usually avoid them--oh well, damage done ).

(I swore I wasn't going to get into this--I HATE arguments about the monarchy, and usually avoid them--oh well, damage done ).

FWIW, I agree with you completely .  They say that the monarchy costs every UK taxpayer something like 62p a year.  That seems a ridiculously small amount to begrudge an institution that is such an integral part of the culture and a link to the past.   

Sometimes tradition and symbolism goes a long way and holds a lot of weight, even if it doesn't appear to hold much political power.  I don't think a nation should just forget its heritage and traditions just because it isn't as PC as it once was or may cost a bit at times.

I completely agree with you and I frankly get a bit tired of all the 'royal-bashing'.

It isn't just that though, it's the symbolism of that and the statesmanship of the role.  There are plenty of things that the US president does as far as dinners, banquets, hosting foreign dignitaries, etc, that go a long way towards diplomatic relations.  A lot of US money is spent for the same things.  No 10 doesn't do this here, it's generally left to the monarchy with them inviting the government--and is frankly a greater honour anyway (I'd be much more excited about going to dinner at the Palace with the Queen than with just the PM).  Sometimes tradition and symbolism goes a long way and holds a lot of weight, even if it doesn't appear to hold much political power.  I don't think a nation should just forget its heritage and traditions just because it isn't as PC as it once was or may cost a bit at times.

(I swore I wasn't going to get into this--I HATE arguments about the monarchy, and usually avoid them--oh well, damage done ).

What I meant was that if I ever suggest that there is a possibility that royalty are unnecessary, the only argument that I've ever heard from British people is that they bring tourists to the UK.

Regarding the Queen's role as head of state - there's no reason that the UK can't have an elected head of state, like the US does.

Since the UK seems to have much more of a focus on social equality than the US (universal healthcare, paid maternity benefits, carer's allowances, etc.), I find it a bit strange that the UK still retains a monarchy.

I don't like discussing this very much, either, so I won't post about it anymore. I've had my say.

What I meant was that if I ever suggest that there is a possibility that royalty are unnecessary, the only argument that I've ever heard from British people is that they bring tourists to the UK.

Regarding the Queen's role as head of state - there's no reason that the UK can't have an elected head of state, like the US does.

Since the UK seems to have much more of a focus on social equality than the US (universal healthcare, paid maternity benefits, carer's allowances, etc.), I find it a bit strange that the UK still retains a monarchy.

I don't like discussing this very much, either, so I won't post about it anymore. I've had my say.

My hubby would agree with you completely.  I don't feel qualified to say, and I'm not particularly interested in following the news about the wedding, but I will say I'm looking forward to that extra bank holiday!

I don't think a nation should just forget its heritage and traditions just because it isn't as PC as it once was or may cost a bit at times.

I'm not sure why you just mentioned something being or not being PC.  What does political correctness have to do with this situation?

My hubby would agree with you completely.  I don't feel qualified to say, and I'm not particularly interested in following the news about the wedding, but I will say I'm looking forward to that extra bank holiday!

They've just announced the wedding date.  April 29.  That's DH's birthday, so he's REALLY hoping for a bank holiday lol!