Royal Wedding - who pays?

I understand all right. The royals represent a symbolism that really is irrelevant to ultimate authority in this day and time.

 

I wish the Tea Partiers would live up to their name and make themselves useful by picketing and protesting the offices of all the MSM channels who are hyping this thing to no end!

Didn't we fight and win 2 wars just so we didn't have to put up with this shit?

 

If you're counting the War of 1812, it's hard to call that a win.

 

I remember watching Diana's funeral live on national TV here in the U.S.

Presidential funerals will get all-out media coverage regardless of who it is. As for internationally, I'm not sure about Clinton. Reagan was remembered for being the U.S. President who ended the Cold War and stamped out communism for good (whether or not Reagan deserves that praise is another matter). And he was pretty close with then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I don't think Clinton was that close to whoever was the British Prime Minister or any other foreign leaders during his Presidency.

 

My wife is waking up at the asscrack of dawn to watch it. I plan to honor the people of Great Britain by sleeping in and giving their toy replica monarchy the amount of attention it deserves, which is to say I will spend more time deciding which kind of sandwich to make for lunch.

 

You might not think Clinton was close with Tony Blair. But you're, you know, wrong.

 

The fascination with these people astounds me. Why, exactly, do they merit all this attention? For that matter, why do they merit the lifestyle they enjoy at taxpayer expense? Because somewhere way back when, their ancestors killed the right person or the right number of people? Was it, "well, they're nice enough to let us start having elections, so we'll give them a free place to live?" Something else? I seriously don't get it.

 

Maybe it's because royalty is associated with fantasy. Little girls dream of being princesses. Even when people grow up, they still envy the prestige that comes with royalty. And since the monarchy no longer has any real power, it's not like it can do them any real harm.

 

Being what you'd term a 'romanticist' I've got no problem with the royals.
I watched the highlights of the wedding, plus just a bit live as I got ready for work with my wife and 5-year-old daughter.
She's got all the princess movies and stuff and talks about that sort of thing.
She thought Miss Kate looked awesome and has been talking about it all day.
I briefed her leading up to the wedding on Diana and Harry and it was fun talking with her about it for weeks prior to today.
It was good to see the Queen Mother and all the royals get the support of their countrymen. I enjoy seeing this thing once every 10 or so years.

 

They merit the attention because the British believe they merit the attention it's as simple as that. They royal family is - to the Brits - a vital part of the fabric of the country and worth the investment. Is that feeling universal in that country? Doubtful. But that doesn't mean its a waste of money.

As far as the taxpayer cost, well it's estimated that one million people visited London this weekend due to this wedding. How much tax revenue did THAT bring in?

How many people capitalized on this event by selling souvenirs, renting rooms, selling meals, etc.? My guess is more than a few.

In some respects the royal family is a very lucrative tourist attraction. Seems like no worse a tax expenditure than some of the shit we pay for around here.