Of the British Royal Family? I know "back in the day" the King actually ruled the land, but, now they don't do that. So, why do they still have a "Royal Family" who receive so much in tax payer funding? I guess the more coverage I see about Kate and William, the more I think....WHY?? I mean, yes, we all love a good wedding and love story...but, this is too much. 6,000 police on the streets to guard against attacks?? It is sooooooooooooooo expensive to live in London, and there is so much poverty and struggle. It just does not make sense to me to have a Royal Family.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Aia I totally agree with I think it is a bit way over the top, enough is enough. I know they are royality and all but people get married every and each day. I will say this Prince William is handsome he looks so much like his mom, and I was truly saddened when she passed away, I really like her, to me she was not stuffy like the rest of the family was, she was to me well grounded and down to earth and was going wonderful things for the poor and people and children affected by aids. Finally the wedding between her and Charles was not a match, she was so beautiful, to me personally he has his match now with his true love Camilla, btw I read they are getting married at 6 a.m. lord this girl has to go to sleep at 2 in the afternoon and wake up at 10 p.m. to start to get dressed and make-up and all , I cannot even imagine. I got married at 4 p.m. and it still seemed it was not enough time. Peace and blessing to all... Catherine

I would be curious to know how much revenue the royals generate.

By that... I mean... we have things like professional football, the St. Louis Arch, Disneyworld, and the Grand Canyon (as well as many other places) that are tourist attractions that generate money.

The Royals are a tourist attraction in and of themselves. All the books about them, replicas of their jewelry, t-shirts, etc.... I wonder how much economic stimulation occurs for the UK because they exist, and how that compares to the amount they cost the UK in terms of security, etc.

Right now, I do think of them more as a tourist attraction than government officials.

That's what time it starts here on the US East Coast. In England, the wedding begins at 11 am.

__________________
Cecilia

"We must love them both--those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

You're right, they are a major tourist attraction and thus a major economic force. Whether their impact is consistent with the cost of maintaining them, I don't know. I suspect it is, if you take into account all the people that are employed either directly or indirectly because of them. I wonder more about other countries and why they keep their royals. There are many other countries that still have this set up and they are not a tourist attraction in the same way as the Brits.

Tradition and the unwillingness of those in power to give it up.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

$32 million just for security for the wedding alone. I find it intriguing and "neat" that they are descendents of people that really did rule the country. For that I can see keeping them, but, I would likely find it hard as a "commoner" to have to foot the bill for them.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Oops totally forgot about the time difference, because I wondering how in the world would someone like her be ready to get married at 6 a.m. Peace and blessings to all... Catherine

The money they spend is nothing compared to what they bring into England. It is said they generate many millions annually. Even with the wedding people came from all over the world and spent millions on food, lodging, souvenirs, etc.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.