Harry & Meghan Markle's wedding cost ca. $45 million

Markle is paying for her own dress.

And here's a breakdown of the estimated 1.4 billion the wedding is bringing to the economy (by sector).

Source that she already paid for it herself, R1?

$1.5 billion return on a $45 million expenditure seems like a good return on the investment.

um, yeah

no way it generated 1 billion. what a joke.

why do you so want to hate it?

270k for that plain dress. i would ask for a refund.

Here's a breakdown of who is paying for what.

[quote]Markle is paying for her own dress.

Ha! And if you believe that one, I have a bridge in London I'd like to sell you.

I have a difficult time believing that 1 billion figure. I guess, the idiot monarchists don't mind the underfunding of the NHS.

R11 that's the Tories' doing. Austerity. And it's destroying the healthcare system.

R10 stop over from Fox News?

They always exaggerate the boost to the economy. Then later it quietly turns out the boost was not nearly what was projected.

They always exaggerate the boost to the economy. Then later it quietly turns out the boost was not nearly what was projected.

And that's been the case for decades:

A lot of that is exagerated to make the wedding seem more splendid than it was. The dress couldn't have cost 300k - it was a pattern and it was plain fabric. Lovely fabric, but that's it. No weeks and weeks of lace making and lace sewing and beading that ran up the cost of Kate's dress. This thing didn't even fit Meghan.

R16 the Guardian hates the monarchy so I'm not sure they are the most unbiased source.

Regardless, even if it's wildly overestimated, it should cover the forty million as well as provide the UK with some desparately needed good PR in the middle of a ridiculous Brexit.

you forgot to add that Diana's wedding cost 110 million and that was in 1981. Don't know what that would be in today's money

R17 the 53 different fliers hand sewn on the train (or veil, can't remember) were pricey. They represented each of the Commonwealth states.

I think Meghan lost weight before the wedding too. She seems the type to eat less when stressed.

NOBODY IS PAYING ANYTHING FOR HER DRESS. That dress was free, I guarantee it. The designer will make millions off that dress for many years to come.

I think the problem was that everything was so white. You couldn't see the detailing. I know there was some, you could see it when the light hit it just right but I never got a good look.

I liked her wedding dress but loved her after-party dress.

I give this marriage about 7 years.

The whole affair was worth every penny in my view.

Now, how much does a Mar-a-Lago golf weekend cost, and how many have there been so far? Now, THAT is a waste.

Kate Middleton is worth it if she bring nylons back in style.

R23 great, thanks for sharing.

R26 = Pathetic fat frau who lives vicariously through Sparkle.

No way Meagan has $300k to pay for that dress. Yes, I bet it was free.

Taxpayers must love paying millions to support the royal family

R27 no, I just don't have time for idiots who are just being dicks to be dicks. You're not funny or clever, you're just dead inside.

R28 she's made millions from Suits. Don't be silly

R30, LOL. you are so clueless.

It was on USA network not hbo or showtime. they pay peanuts!

R31 darling you can Google and see how much she was paid for her episodes. It's not that hard to do the math. And she will continue to make money from it.

R20, I side eye that whole commonwealth in the veil thing, just as I side eye the report that Harry picked the flowers from his own personal garden for her bouquet. This whole wedding was so full of shit.

The Monarchy costs each UK taxpayer less than 1 lb. per year. About 65 pence to be exact, at last counting., Even with this expensive wedding. So no one in the UK has any reason to whine about having to pay for the Royal Family.

MeGhana has an estimated worth in excess of 5 million dollars. She most certainly could have paid for the dress. The annual cst of the monarchy is 50 million dollars. The wedding cost 45 million. The economic return on the event will eventually top 2 billion dollars. The Windsor brand is invaluable to Visit Britain. Just don't ask The Guardian.

[quote] [estimated $1 billion] return on a $45 million expenditure seems like a good return on the investment.

The economy and taxpayers are slightly different things, R2 & R4. It's not the economy that pays for RF event security - it's the taxpayers. And it's not every taxpayer that is guaranteed that "return on investment".

That 'RF boost' money goes mostly to businesses (tourist shops, etc) in very specific areas, not the whole of the UK (e.g London, etc - not somewhere like Blackpool). Those businesses are then taxed for the gov't budget (or not, if you're big enough like Amazon). Many self-employed businesses (like cab drivers) try to avoid that extra tax.

Depending on what gov't (Tory or Labour) is in power and where it is in the election cycle, it will prioritise where to put that extra (if any) budget money. Based on their decisions, some of that money might not reach taxpayers at all (go into a Treasury reserve fund), or be allocated to e.g. foreign policy rather than social programs for taxpayers.

The problem is that footing the cost of RF weddings is not subject to a democratic vote. So it works less like a tax, and more like indentured servitude.

Her royal bio page is a work of fiction worthy of a literature prize.....they make her out to be the second coming of Mother Theresa......

and people believe this shit......lol

Regarding royal duties...Markle said she's going to hit the ground running.

In the words of Donald Trump: "We'll see what happens."

[quote] The Windsor brand is invaluable to Visit Britain.

Britain's neighbour, France, manages to attract visitors quite well, regardless of any RF status. So does NYC, etc.

People come to the UK mostly to see London (because it's a very happening, hip city in Europe). As for castles, many are state property, not the Windsors'. And quite a few are the legal property of completely different dynasties (like Highclere Castle a.k.a. Downton Abbey).

Sounds pretty cheap for the worldwide PR, which is mostly what the monarchy is about.

[quote] And it's not every taxpayer that is guaranteed that "return on investment".

Of course not. But that's not the way that taxes, revenue, and expenditures work. The wedding pumped money into the economy that would not have been there -- or would have been there to a much smaller degree . While Individuals may not directly benefit from those tourist dollars, the additional money does have a ripple effect. Some people may have benefited, others indirectly benefited, and others not at all. But that is no different from any other government expenditure.

[quote] Based on their decisions, some of that money might not reach taxpayers at all (go into a Treasury reserve fund), or be allocated to e.g. foreign policy rather than social programs for taxpayers. The problem is that footing the cost of RF weddings is not subject to a democratic vote. So it works less like a tax, and more like indentured servitude.

The problem is that the British people support the monarchy, so while they may not have taken a vote on spending money for royal weddings, their collective inaction has given the institution all the permission it needs to continue as it has for the last few centuries. Plus, how additional revenue -- as a result of activities like the royal wedding -- is spent is subject to a democratic vote, because it is decided on by people who were elected to make those decisions.

this economic event will get them 2 billion? please put down the crack pipe!

But past experience shows that grand royal events don't usually produce the big bucks businesses would like, and they barely register in terms of the performance of the wider economy.

"We would be wary of over-egging the potential impact or seeking to put a hard figure on the potential gains," said Howard Archer, chief economic adviser to the EY ITEM Club.

"It should be kept in mind that some of the retail spending may just be switched from spending on other items."

If history repeats itself, the Royal Wedding will fall flat in terms of economics.

According to the UK Office for National Statistics, the 2011 wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton did not result in a noticeable uptick for the economy.

PwC estimated William and Kate's wedding generated roughly £107 million ($145 million) in extra spending: Good for retailers, but less than 4% of the amount spent in the UK on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year.

Rachel (her birth name) has had work done. Films from teen years show black mole on left near her jaw and gap between upper front teeth.

[quote] The dress couldn't have cost 300k - it was a pattern and it was plain fabric. Lovely fabric, but that's it. No weeks and weeks of lace making and lace sewing and beading that ran up the cost of Kate's dress.

The dress looked very simple, so I assumed it would cost less too. But then I read this:

[quote] "[Givenchy] teamed it with a veil embroidered with ‘distinctive flora of each of the 53 Commonwealth country united in one spectacular floral composition’. [bold]It took hundreds of hours to make, with workers having to wash their hands every 30 minutes so as not to tarnish the pristine colour.[/bold]

[quote] Pre-wedding, there was speculation that the dress would cost less than the Duchess of Cambridge’s, as Meghan wouldn’t want to overshadow her sister-in-law. At the time, Kate’s custom McQueen gown was estimated at around £250,000, and it turns out that Meghan’s probably cost less, but not by much.

[quote] Although the gown is deceptively simple, with no embellishments or lace, [bold]the totally bespoke fabric means it might have cost around £200,000. The double bonded silk cady was developed by Artistic Director Clare Waight Keller after ‘extensive research by Ms. Waight Keller in fabric mills throughout Europe,’ the Palace said.[/bold]

Supporting the royal family costs just One pound per British citizen?

That’s a bunch of hokum if I’ve ever heard it.

What are they counting as supporting the royal family? Upkeep of all the residences, security, food, cars, and travel?

R45 Everything except security is paid for by the sovereign grant.

R45, yes, it's BS. I read somewhere the actual figures are much higher...i will try to find the article again.

Who cares.

The personal psychic medium of Diana's over the years says Diana's predicts the marriage will fail. Meghan is there only to be in the spotlight.

This article from Newsweek confirms the 65 pence per British citizen claim.

honey, meghan ain't that talented as an actress. she ain't gonna let Harry get away. She's gonna make sure she is set for life before doing anything stupid. she is 36, very old in hollywood. she will tolerate his cheating and drunk ass for as long as she can. This is the gig she's been waiting for her whole life!

^ OK, do you not see the problem with 'officials in the Royal household insist that the queen “represents excellent value for money"?'

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it accepts the premise that the Crown Estate should exist in the first place. Not to mention how many royals' "private property" is simply inherited wealth that originated in feudalism.

Meghan’s salary on a two-bit show is nowhere near enough to pay for a $300k dress. What planet are you on?

R50 that article is nonsense. It picks and chooses what it includes.

And differentiates between what the royal family itself pays and what the citIzens pay. But what work has the royal family done to own billions? Oh, it’s a welfare family that got ALL its wealthy from the citizens

Unless Meghan was, as rumored, a prostitute, she is not worth millions or even hundreds or even tens of thousands. The past few months merching her ass off while engaged, probably got her more $$ than her entire acting career combined.

And NO, you cannot google and discover her Suits salary, so nice straw man. One can, though, google the scale of wages for a less than supporting role on basic cable (she wasn't even in every episode) for an actress with a thin resume, no previous contract work, and no "name". She has no money. She had the "status" of being a working actress in Toronto on a cable show - nothing in L.A., a little better than nothing in Toronto, although without her chef boyfriend she would not have made the contacts she made. She leveraged him the way everybody leverages a romantic relationship with somebody who has more status than they have.

I think meghan must have at least 1 million dollars. it's expensive to be an actress, gotta pay for your agent, lawyer, PR, hair and make up, plastic surgery...very expensive. She was able to buy a modest house in canada where she was filming, and i don't know if it's been sold but it was asking for over 1 million.

"Cost ca. $45 million?" Like hell.

R55 here we go again. She was no superstar but she certainly was more than a “less than supporting role” on Suits. There were on,y half a dozen marquee names in the opening credits and she’s one of them. She probably made 20k an episode.

R55 Meghan was paid $50k per episode on the last few seasons of Suits. Way above scale. You obviously hate her. I’m not her biggest fan but please have some basis in fact if you wish to criticize her.

R59 these anti Meghan posts reek of poo—you know of whom I speak? The DLer who is bonkers?

R59, yes, i got that figure from fortune mag as well. they say it's about 450k per year. so you gotta pay taxes, agent, PR, all kinds of other expenses. she is ok, not wealthy.

[quote]She was able to buy a modest house in canada where she was filming, and i don't know if it's been sold but it was asking for over 1 million.

She didn't own that house. The production company rented it for her.

She was making ok money for an actress on a basic cable show but judging by all of her social media posts she was probably spending everything she was making on her Goop like lifestyle. I very much doubt she has any of her own money now but that doesn't really matter anymore.

For fucks sake! The woman had a job and took the time to educate herself; she's better than a lot of actresses in that regard alone. She married who she could get, just like everybody else; he just happened to be a prince. Move the fuck on already.

OP = same tedious anti Meghan troll that’s been having a mental breakdown for the last 2 weeks. Most likely from a Russian troll farm in order to avenge the fact that Turnip and MeLabia weren’t invited.

Newsflash- US presidents never go to British royal weddings

You seriously believe reports that a no-name actress on a cable series with steadily declining ratings who wasn't even featured in every episode was making $50k per episode?

James Roday, actual star of Psych, USA network show which lasted 8 seasons and had more than double the ratings of Suits, reportedly made $60k per episode. Tony Shalhoub, actual star of Monk, also higher rated than Suits, reportedly made in the $40-50k per episode range.

The reason cable networks can run little shows like Suits for so long despite such low ratings is because they are cheap. If Meghan was getting $50k per episode, what were the actual stars of the show getting? And how could the producers afford them with ad revenue for an average of 2 million viewers per episode?

Please have some basis in knowledge about how entertainment salaries are determined before you come at us with this nonsense.

R64, are you ok? Smoke a joint and relax.

[quote] The wedding pumped money into the economy that would not have been there -- or would have been there to a much smaller degree.

That's an over-generalisation, R41. Not all RF weddings generate the same socio-economic reaction. E.g. would Charles' wedding to Camilla pump money into the economy? Questionable. And what if there'll be a wedding of an even more unpopular Royal? The taxpayers would still have to foot the bill, regardless of the world's apathy to the event and lack of any 'return'.

[quote] Some people may have benefited, others indirectly benefited, and others not at all. But that is no different from any other government expenditure.

Oh, it's very different. All other big expenditure has to be argued & justified in Parliament, and can be questioned by the Parliamentary opposition as a matter of state / party policy (on behalf of those taxpayer-voters who don't benefit). This can't be - b/c it's not really a question of party policy, but an underlying constitutional framework question.

[quote] Plus, how additional revenue -- as a result of activities like the royal wedding -- is spent is subject to a democratic vote, because it is decided on by people who were elected to make those decisions.

But the cost of a RF wedding is not subject to a democratic vote. Neither is the timing of when this cost will suddenly fall on taxpayers' shoulders.

The gov't is forced to factor into the state budget the cost of a "tax-paid" event that might or might not take place, based solely on the whim & sex decisions of 1 young person (the Royal getting married). The amount and timing of the 'return' (if any) is hard to predict - especially for a wedding that doesn't involve the 'Crown heir', but a more minor (less popular) royal.

R65 or should I say poo—where is YOUR data for what these actors make? Oh, right because you’re in the “industry”. Ex-Vegas 60 year old showgirl ain’t the “industry” sweetie.

Your reading up on DL trolls to try and fit in isn't working. We can still see you.

How’s the view look from the Vegas lounge R69? Hope the lights are dim—we don’t like looking at all those wrinkles.

Pathetic that people think an actress in a supporting role in a cable series is making a huge salary.

Is it pathetic? Is it really pathetic?

There are lot of people on here who are letting their unhinged hated of Meghan make them crazy.

[quote]Meghan’s salary on a two-bit show is nowhere near enough to pay for a $300k dress. What planet are you on?

There is a difference between what the dress cost and what Meghan may have paid. Celebrities and especially celebrities who are marrying royalty pay a fraction of the rank and file pay.

I have a friend who was the 4th lead in a cancelled basic cable show that no one saw and the goodies still come to his house every day by the truckload. Clothing, food, electronics, samples. Most of it shows unsolicited and he will sometimes tweet or insta about it and that just makes more stuff come.

The dress may have been worth 300K, but I bet she paid, if she paid anything at all, 3 percent of that at most because Givenchy will make that $300K plus millions more from the publicity alone.

Royals aren't allowed to accept freebies.

People are saying she made one million dollars per episode for Suits.

[quote]Royals aren't allowed to accept freebies.

Meghan wasn't a royal until yesterday. And even if she paid a percentage, she still paid something.

Really R75? "People are saying" she made the same salary as the main cast of the #1 show on network TV?

Who are these incredibly stupid people?

I think she was able to "afford" clothes, cosmetics and hair and who knows what else because she was willing to "merch" it all in exchange for no fee. She seems like a real go-getter in that regard.

And, of course she wasn't making $50k an episode for her small role on that show. That's the most uninformed guess I've heard in a long time.

[quote] MeGhana has an estimated worth in excess of 5 million dollars

LOL! Did you get that from that ridiculous celebrity section of Forbes? Wehn will you learn they don't have knowledge of what people are worth or make - if they get any info it's from the celebs themselves and their agents who want to make them seem successful. Stop being so gullible.

And if she has that kind of money why are her parents living so rough? As for her education her father paid for everything for her - hundreds of thousands of dollars - and pampered her - he even fed-exed her chicken soup when she was sick.

All you need to know about Meghan's alleged wealth is she came into this marriage with zero real estate.

will this Megan talk ever end ?

I preferred Megan's dress when Tom Ford did it originally in '96.

(Shame they didn't retain the easy-access hip cutout.)

At least she went to Northwestern which is more than most actresses do - they're lucky if they have their GED.

Whoever above mentioned the freebies is totally right...if you're able to land even one decent credit - enough so you can call yourself an "actress" - they will seriously come rolling in and if you want to make a career as that type of "socialite/actress" there is seriously no end to the perks, freebies, events, trips .

R81, Clare Waight Keller (who designed Meghan's dress) copied the idea from the wedding of Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (the REAL first black European royalty and an actual "PRINCESS").

Down to the shortened 4/5 sleeve, the boatneck neckline, etc. Princess Angela designed that dress herself because she has her own design company.

[quote] The Monarchy costs each UK taxpayer less than 1 lb. per year. About 65 pence to be exact, at last counting. Even with this expensive wedding. So no one in the UK has any reason to whine about having to pay for the Royal Family.

That's not quite correct. Ca. £1 per taxpayer is the claimed average figure for the annual maintenance of the RF. Tax-subsidised RF weddings are not an annual event (because they're sporadic / unpredictable timing), so they're not included in that average annual calculation and cost the taxpayer extra.

That becomes obvious even looking at the numbers for this wedding. The wedding itself cost ca. $3 million + $43 million for security cost (latter cost paid by taxpayers). There are only about [bold]30 million taxpayers[/bold] in the UK (smaller working population than in the US obviously). So the per capita taxpayer burden for just the security of one wedding is already more than £1. Then add on top of that the additional annual maintenance of the rest of the RF.

While the cost per taxpayer might not look like much, it's the total cost for the collective taxpayer base that matters. It's a controversial policy to essentially have a universal tax to fund celebrity weddings (which might or might not lead to any returns - it's a volatile, high-risk investment), at a time when the Treasury is failing to cope with the NHS deficit and instituting cuts to liberal social programs.

[quote]R119 you forgot to add that Diana's wedding cost 110 million and that was in 1981. Don't know what that would be in today's money

110 million what?

The British Pound Sterling was at $1.34 in 1981

Diana's dress cost 151,000 pounds in 1981 = $202,340

Inflate 1981 to 2018 = $555,497

R119....so sorry....I thought your post said wedding DRESS (!!!)

I was like "??????????????????????????"

EEEEEEK! SORRY!

Harry's wedding security cost (ca. $43 million) was far more than William's (ca. $32 million).

Strange that they'd throw more money at protecting the 'Spare', than protecting the 'future King'.

Something's afoot....!

It might be because doofus Harry put his big foot in his mouth as usual some years ago, and cluelessly taunted the Taliban. Now the public has to spend a small fortune protecting him.

[quote] "The Telegraph reported that Prince Harry compared piloting an Apache in Afghanistan to playing a video game. "It's a joy for me because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox," Prince Harry stated."

[quote] "The Taliban weren't amused by the comparison judging by their response: "This statement is not even worth condemning. It is worse than that. To describe the war in Afghanistan as a game demeans anyone—especially a prince, who is supposed to be made of better things. It's not a game. It's very, very real".

Christ, some of you queens really put the 'pointless bitchery' in pointless bitchery.

*side-eyes OP*

r85 $110 million dollars for the whole wedding

And yet here you are, R90. Pointlessly bitching about others you think are pointlessly bitching. How very meta of you.

^ my bitching isn't pointless, but thanks for playing

Of course it is, R93. You're on an online forum, chatting with anons. It's the very definition of pointless. Do go on though, it's entertaining.

“At least she went to Northwestern which is more than most actresses do - they're lucky if they have their GED.”

Yeah, and I went into debt to send her there!

I'm sick of seeing that damn Meghan Markle's chimpanzee Olsen twins face everywhere. She is just a basic bitch. She is a useless spoiled parasite just like Harry.

Those annoying Olsen twins had plastic surgery to get rid of their chimp faces. Whenever I used to see those damn Olsen twins on TV I always used to want to punch them in the face. Now I have to see Sparkle's chimp face everywhere.

I want to punch Sparkle's annoying fake phony teenybopper chimp face.

$1b to the economy?

There will be little new money going into the UK economy, from outside the UK.

There will be no 'up tick' in arrival numbers and or tourism spend a year after, or even months after this event.

The money spent during this event will be UK locals spending on things associated with the event, in lieu of spending the same money on other things in the economy.

Here's what Sparkle looked like in highschool. Looks like Daddy bought Sparkle a nose job. She's not naturally pretty, she has had a shitload of work done on her.

That's pretty cheap if you ask me.

Stupid British. They're actually broken up and just went through with it. You people are daft.

I heard they're going to stay at a Four Seasons Hotel on the honeymoon

My Sheraton would be appalled

How can a post-Brexit UK be able to afford such extravagances?

The elevated cost compared to William's wedding was because of the carriage ride through Windsor, not because Harry needs "more" protection. The security including sharpshooters and armed guards all along the route.

The route from Westminster to Buckingham (which is the route William and Kate took) is better set up for these kind of events. Security is easier to set up and is an institution at this point. Windsor is a small cottage-type town that doesn't have streets and buildings designed for that kind of fanfare. Coordination is much more complicated.

It's like the difference between the First Family living in NYC vs DC. When FLOTUS was holed up in Trump Tower for the first year of Trump's presidency, the cost was astronomical, because cramped 5th Avenue in NYC is not set up for that style of security on a day to day basis. NYPD and DOT had to make a lot of adjustments. The White House is surrounded by a huge lawn and security is routine after decades of experience. Secret Service and DC police are fully coordinated. And so on.

They can’t, R104. The gov’t is just digging itself into a bigger financial hole.

The NHS needs money. This is ridiculous. They have cut money to disabled people as well.

R105, they needed ca. $11 more million for a slightly longer carriage ride? What did they do - pay $100k to each sharp-shooter? Those security firms must be rolling in the dough.

If anything, Windsor is easier to patrol & regulate than London. London is more densely packed with taller buildings (i.e. more dangerous vantage-point shooting locations like JFK’s assassination), more people, more crime & criminals, more knives, acid attacks & even guns. A lot of the Windsor carriage procession was just open green field - easier to scan & monitor.

The comparison should really be reversed: London is NYC, and Windsor is a much smaller townish version of DC.

The comparison is not Windsor vs. London. The comparison is the carriage ride route. Westminster to Buckingham is mostly a very wide road designed for parades. The crowd couldn't get anywhere near the carriage. And it's wide open space--nowhere for people to really hide, security can see everything happening. Looks at the roads in Windsor--standard road and at several points the crowd was practically close enough to reach out and grab the carriage. And lots of small buildings and homes obstructing views, so security has to be more strategic.

Imagine the Presidential Inauguration being moved from the wide open National Mall area to some small town in VA. Logistical nightmare.

Harry and Meghan going through the small town of Windsor:

Kate and William in London. The crowd is nowhere near them. Again, this is a parade route, often taken by the Queen herself. They have security down to a science.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I—I mean, Jessica!—stoke the show at the wedding, just like Pippa!

And the Mulroney twins stole the show too! No wonder they have their own YouTube channel! Truly star quality!

Yes, it generated close to a billion. Not just from tourism, and TV, but also other the commercial aspects. The hotels, restaurants and pubs, etc. Money was spent. Have you any idea at all how many people had to be involved to make this happen? Flawlessly executed? If you are hateful than nothing was done to your satisfaction, and if you are not hateful you will appreciate it for what it was.

Get over it. Recognize this for what it is. This is an entertainment. A Pageant. There was definitely a certain standard that had to be met. A certain level of expectations to recognize. As a matter of fact, it was not nearly as elaborate as many others have been. For example, how about estimating the costs of Charles & Diana's wedding in today's dollars. And I don't begrudge them a dime they spent on security. It's really a slap in the face to Americans who can't even send their kids to school, that the RF has been able to have these elaborate pubic occasions riding around in an open carriage while more than 100000 people stood outside waving and watching them? And there were no incidents. None. None for William either. Andsinc 2001, that's damned remarkable.

Sorry, heh, heh! I meant PUBLIC not PUBIC......

So tell me again? How much did Donald Trump's inauguration cost?

[quote]I want to punch Sparkle's annoying fake phony teenybopper chimp face.

I smile like her thinking of how miserable your life must be.

So from that $1 billion in economic boost, can they take out $45 million and repay the taxpayers?

A "return on investment" means the investor gets their money back plus profit.

In this case the investor is the taxpayer.

[quote] Westminster to Buckingham is mostly a very wide road … And it's wide open space--nowhere for people to really hide, security can see everything happening.

What do you mean “wide open space”, R109? The Mall (London road in front of BP) is flanked directly by a row of tall 5-story buildings (on its northern side). I know it well, it was my jogging route. Plus, William & Kate didn’t just ride down the Mall – they were departing from Westminster Abbey, so they had to go down other London roads first – with high buildings, pubs & restaurants on each side, and with the crowds much closer (see below).

Moreover, the turnout of gawkers for Henry’s wedding in Windsor was ca. 100k. Compared to over 1 MILLION people for William’s London wedding (mostly local Londoners, as it’s a city of ca. 9 million residents). The bigger the crowd, the harder it is to monitor everyone. And when you’re dealing with such a gigantic urban crowd, in a more densely built up area like central London, any sound that resembled a shot or explosion could cause a cramped panic stampede that would be more dangerous.

[quote]So tell me again? How much did Donald Trump's inauguration cost?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[quote] “At several points the crowd was practically close enough to reach out and grab [Harry’s] carriage”

Not sure about that. At most points I saw, especially on the longer parkland stretch, people weren’t “practically close enough” to grab them. There was always a distance between them and the crowd. Plus, it’s not the “grabbing” that modern security is worried about. JFK was killed without the assassin even being close to him. And London has far more tall buildings than Windsor.

If things are as dire with the NHS as it has been reported, the Royal Family should cover the cost of the security too.

They can afford it.

Since the newlyweds wanted the open carriage ride, their family should pay for all costs associated.

Perhaps they need to set up basic terms for what is covered by public funds with these kinds of events. Anything over and above the RF pays for.

R119/R121, there's a big difference between securing a parade route that is already subject to high security on an ordinary basis and securing a small town ordinarily without that kind of security detail. Security planning for Windsor likely started months ago with surveying buildings, interviewing locals and practicing all kinds of contingency plans, while a route that went from the Palace to the Abbey requires only tweaking the same security planning they do for the Queen on a regular basis.

A lot of people rented out their apts/homes and they interviewed every person that was renting a place.

Her brother Thomas Markle Jr. warned Harry not to marry his parasite sister. He said paying for Sparkle's shit drove his father to bankruptcy. Her broke reclusive father lives in a flea bag motel in a shanty town in Mexico. Markle is the type of basic bitch that marries poor dumb bastard men then rapes them of all their money.

She rides around in a horse drawn carriage while her deathly ill father who paid hundreds of thousands for her education and plastic surgeries lives in poverty.

This royal wedding didn't feel as big a deal as william's wedding.

R126 Well, we should just do it AGAIN next weekend.

This was all but a dress rehearsal...!

It would help if you racists who deny that your hated of Meghan isn’t racist don’t compare her to a chimp.

R128, I think she looks like a possum. A pretty possum. Is that racist?

[quote] a route that went from the Palace to the Abbey requires only tweaking the same security planning they do for the Queen on a regular basis.

R123, did you see photos of the crazy-ass big masses at William's wedding? The insane scale was nothing similar to any events for the Queen. Overhauled security plans for accommodating and monitoring close to 1 million gawkers at the 2011 wedding cannot be called "only tweaking".

Moreover, William's wedding was attended by many foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, commonwealth representatives, religious leaders and international royals - who all needed more security protection. Whereas Harry's guest-list was a small family & friends affair compared to that - and yet he still managed to run up higher costs than William.

But if, in Harry's case and based on your claim, a London wedding would have been cheaper (using the tried-and-tested security plan from William's recent wedding), then he and the RF are even more loathsome for ignoring that by organizing the wedding in Windsor and racking up even more public costs than William.