Post by hihgdm Post by Scott55 Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more
business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich
in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently
get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior
members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and
her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that
they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing
purposes in the country.
The Queen has the Sovereign Grant, Prince Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall, there are some houses where they have exclusive use, but just about everything else they "own" is actually state property.
It's not the Queen invested her inheritance from her mother in Apple back when it went public in 1980.
Post by hihgdm
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the chagrin of her father) so her
wedding is essentially a private affair. The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small,
thereby minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they could opt for a large public
bash, the security for which would increase accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of
any reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed anything associated with the
wedding. If there is a good reason, I would like to hear it.
In theory it should actually be quite cheap to secure since it's in a castle. That's kind of the point of castles. Lock the gates, have some vetted volunteers patrol the walls, all guests come through a checkpoint, etc.
If the security services want to be more elaborate that's on them, not the Princess.