Meghan Markle Prince Harry Wedding Shouldn’t Be Publicly Funded



Absolutely no one, outside family and friends of the couple, SHOULD CARE about Saturday’s royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but unfortunately that train has long left the station. The Royal Wedding as a “news story” is the biggest nothing burger of all nothing burgers, but what can you do? This endeavor, for some reason, is considered worth paying attention to by millions of people all around the world, who have never met Harry or Meghan.
Meghan Markle, today, is now one of the world’s most famous people. The Northwestern grad who played annoying characters and really bad television shows has truly come a very long way. In 2013, when College Gameday came to NU and Markle was referenced in signs, as Rachel Markle, we were all like “who?”

The Royal Wedding is something that numerous media professionals, including myself, have very grudgingly covered. Many of us (like I am doing here) approach this non sense with a very regretful, condescending tone. After all, even most bookie management software programs are more interesting than this.
Well, such is life. There is an element of relevance to this monstrous exercise in triviality (trivial to everyone who doesn’t know the couple) though-
it definitely SHOULD NOT be publicly funded. No matter your interest in the Meghan Markle Prince Harry wedding- if you’re glued to the TV coverage, you Dooooooooooooooooooon’t Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaare, and everywhere else in between, you got to agree that ordinary citizens shouldn’t foot the bill for this.
“I wish Harry and Meghan every happiness but this is a private wedding and the public should not be picking up any of the bill. They are making it a public event and should therefore fund it out of their own pockets, like any other couple getting married,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
“London LGBT Pride has to pay for road closures, policing and suspension of parking bays. So should Harry and Meghan.”
“Meghan and Harry live an exceptionally privileged lifestyle, with wealth and opportunities that are denied to most young people. They have their own luxurious home and access to six royal palaces. Many people their age have no prospect of ever owning any own home,”
“The royal wedding is escapist nonsense; a real-life soap opera for people who fantasise about fame, riches, status and fairy-tale romance. Good luck to Meghan and Harry but don’t expect me to fawn over them,” the anti-monarchist continued.
“Royalty is an outdated, feudal, aristocratic and anti-democratic institution that should be consigned to history. It is time we had an elected head of state, not an inherited dynastic one. Monarchism is incompatible with democracy and equal human rights,” he said.
I am totally with Tatchell on this, up until that last point. The British monarchy have been a powerless figurehead for a very long time already. They don’t really exist to do anything except provide photo-opps. They’re not the government, and thus not really deserving of such ire.
Outdated, anachronistic, pointless and stupid?
An important target for outrage?
Save that energy for the truly malfeasant powers that be, as there are plenty of greater injustices to be more outraged about right now.

Paul M. Banks runs The Sports and TheBank.News, which is partnered with News Now. Banks, a former writer for the Washington Times, NBC and Chicago, currently contributes regularly to WGN CLTV and the Tribune company’s blogging community Chicago Now.

Follow him on TwitterInstagramSound Cloud, LinkedIn and YouTube.

Powered by

Speak Your Mind