I don't see anything wrong with it.
besides all that, the plate is funking hilarious
Not wishing to get into it but just as a quick counterpoint to the post *A lot of people volunteered for 2 tours in afghanistan, noone is queueing up to buy their missus a quarter million pund dress and cake combo *The invictus games is a very good thing, if I had been given the time, money, public exposure and opportunity to do something similar I hope I would. *Yes they are not paid directly but he isnt going hungry to do these charitable projects, it could be argued that as they are paid a stipend under the sovereign grant act their "job" is in effect to represent britain, so all he is doing here is his actual job. (I actually think he seems a good person, thats not what Im arguing just that we arent getting this effort for free) *The crown estate brings in about that £400million which then the government gives the royal family their sovereign grant from. The crown estate is all of the land the royal family..ahem "came to own" over generations, George III signed over the revenue from that land to the peasants (though not the land itself) and it's the revenue from that land that is the £400million. Its not the royal family generating it - it is the land itself. If that were truly nationalised we could keep the revenue and just not bother paying them. Again, im not arguing we should do this just that on the list of facts its disingenuous to pretend that without the royal family that £400m disappears, wed actually get to keep more of it. *The tourism argument. I dont know how we would calculate whether people would stop coming to london if the queen didnt live there sometimes. If buckingham palace were a national museum you could go into instead of a private residence would no japanese toursits fancy a look? If we turned sandringham into an air bnb would we suddenly find americans didnt fancy the flight anymore? I mean its seems obvious to me that this 1.8bn is just a figure pulled from the air and we have no idea how the lack of a royal family would effect it at all. *I dont know where this country better off by 2.1 bn a year comes from - has someone just added the potential tourism money to the actual income from crown estates? if so see above? *So yes (some of) the source of funding for this £32m wedding is "private" in that its money we would have given to the royals anyway but that doesnt remove the fact it's original source is the people regardless of how far removed *the cost of that public security btw is estimated at matching or exceeding the figures for the last one - £6.82m. Again, just for balance. I am just a zombie who beleives everything they see on the internet and a daft liberal with no clue about reality.
No we didn’t actually. I was surprised too, check out the facts behind this post and decide for yourself (See pics)
Who paid for £200,000 dress and £50,000 wedding cake? Harry on his charity work salary? We did