Now, before you get your knickers in a bunch, allow me to explain…
As with many markets around the world, the British have been subjects of an historically feeble economy. High unemployment, a weak consumer, and rising inflation, all crave one thing: a strong investment.
(Incidentally, 47 G for a designer dress - plus a back-up replica - is a steal… maybe for the designer... but a steal nonetheless.)
After all, you have to spend money to make money, and that is what the royal wedding is predicted to do.
According to officials from Clarence House, the office of Prince Charles, the Royal Family’s input to the wedding is to be “in the six figures, not in the seven figures.” While the soon-to-be Princess’ family is expected to chip in about $150,000 to $200,000 – that alone is between five and seven times the average cost of a UK wedding.
Then there are frivolous, out-of-pocket, luxury items that the plebeians will indulge in, which in turn will contribute to the economy. This includes an estimated $45 each on food, cheap wine, and memorabilia, such as Windsor Castle tea towels and Will and Kate coffee mugs.
Tourism can also eventually boost the economy anywhere between $753 and $973 million. Heck, let’s round that up to $1 billion – not even one sixth of the price to shut England down for a day. But so what?
So what if it costs $6.4 billion for the country to take a day off for the national holiday? (And yes, I think celebrities’ weddings should be declared national holidays, as well.)
That is nothing compared to the $47 billion loss to the British economy, projected by the accounting firm of RSM Tenon.
But, that is understandable since there will only be three working days between April 22 and May 2, and many businesses could shut down for 10 days.
To that end, the $47 billion cost is bangers and mash compared to the priceless memories that will be afforded to the Royal Family and its financial backers, British commoners.
(Now that is a royal addition to any resume of one of the many unemployed in the UK: financial backer to the Queen.)
And, seriously, who hasn’t been able to pay his or her Visa bill with the memory of Princess Di and her 25-foot wedding dress train?
The price of the Wedding of the Century is actually more of a gift to the taxpayers (and the century, of course) than it is to the Royals.
Which brings me to my initial point…
Why should celebrities have to pay for their weddings or mansions, considering all the money these events and tourist attractions generate for the economy?
It’s not as if regular folk can afford to boost Beverly Hills’ economy by shopping Rodeo Drive like a celebrity, but regular folk can likely afford to prop its economy by touring the roads and drives of celebrities’ homes.
Like Jennifer Aniston, she does nothing; yet, is certainly celebrated. (Similar to her hair – also a celebrity.)
By the by, Aniston is rumoured to be house hunting. I wouldn’t go so far as to call her homeless, but she is essentially mansionless.
Perhaps this is the perfect time to start a fund, and put my idea to practice. We can call it “Help the Mansionless” or “Support the Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.”
So come Friday, April 29, when Britons get a front row sofa seat to the royal wedding, don’t pity them and their financial situation; rather, rejoice in your front row sofa seat, courtesy of them.
And remember, from Wall Street to multinational corporations, the taxpayer has a noble history of bailouts. Just don’t perceive these instances as the poor bailing out the rich, think of these as investments (not into your future per se, but investments into your reality, or reality shows, as it were).
Because that is the bottom line of our economy – a line that props up the higher ones.
Consider that your royalty cheque.