Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think if Kate & Wills want to live at Middleton Manor...

(151 Posts)
PeriodMath Thu 25-Jul-13 14:06:36

They should foot the £6000 a day bill for security and the £900 an hour helicopter circling overhead?

Shouldn't they be staying in a royal palace - isn't that the point of them? Big safe estates away from prying eyes?

fatfingers Thu 25-Jul-13 14:08:15

Wouldn't they still have to have the security wherever they were staying?

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 14:08:33

But... but... William has a job so he doesn't need taxpayers money! Right? RIGHT!?

Sentences like that have been featuring on a lot of the monarchy based threads floating around right now. YANBU.

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 14:09:39

Wouldn't they still have to have the security wherever they were staying?

Good point, they should always pay for their security, wherever they are.

Pootles2010 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:10:41

Are we definitely paying it?

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 14:14:08

Are we definitely paying it?

I don't even know if we can tell. They're exempt from the freedoms of information act, aren't they? I think they are, anyway.

ReallyTired Thu 25-Jul-13 14:14:55

I think its depressing the fact that there are people who want to kill a young mother, father and their newborn baby. I hope that any other newborn who is at risk of being murdered is protected by the tax payer as well. Sadly children like Victoria Climbe, Peter Conelley could have been saved for a fraction of the price.

I can't blame Kate for wanting a bit of "normality" and staying with her parents.

KD0706 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:17:15

I read somewhere (??) that the cost of protecting them is higher at the Middleton home because the royal palaces are geared up for security and Middleton house is t.

But I can see why Kate wants to be with her family. Difficult one

EasterHoliday Thu 25-Jul-13 14:19:23

I suspect that security is one of the main reasons the Middletons recently moved to this mega house and I'll wager that the cost of it was assisted by the royal family somehow (I still can't get my head around paper plates and streamers generating enough to buy a £4.5m house cash)

IvanaCake Thu 25-Jul-13 14:19:27

I think they should be allowed to stay wherever they want to. Nobody can blame Kate for wanting her parents support at the moment. And its not their fault there are evil people in the world who want to hurt them.

FreedomOfTheTess Thu 25-Jul-13 14:20:19

The royal palaces are ALREADY secure, but providing security at Bucklebury Palace (it's nickname in the media) is costing extra.

Given all the rooms at Kensington Palace, I'm sure Ma and Pa Middleton could go and stay there.

Surely the palace is MORE secure?!

kim147 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:20:20

Freedom of information - we don't know what security costs and who pays for it.

MPs can't discuss it because the Monarchy cannot be discussed in Parliament.

Still if you want a Monarchy, you have to pay the cost of security.

fishybits Thu 25-Jul-13 14:20:49

Their apartment in Kensington Palace isn't ready because of the asbestos, the cottage they've been living in only has two bedrooms and she wants to be with her mum so where else exactly do you want them to go?

Home to her mum is the only sensible solution and yes there's additional security as there should be when two future Kings of England are under the same roof.

FreedomOfTheTess Thu 25-Jul-13 14:22:24

Never been a royalist, but at least Diana's family had the class not to court publicity, unlike the Middleton mob.

lastnightidreamt Thu 25-Jul-13 14:25:25

I would imagine that there are savings to be made by staying at the Middleton's........no food bills due to Mum's home-cooking, no staff etc grin

Give them a break. Their lives our ours most of the time, I think she deserves a couple of weeks wherever she likes.

PasswordProtected Thu 25-Jul-13 14:27:26

I do not think where they are and what this entails for them is any of our business, even less a fitting subject for idle speculation and uninformed comment.

lastnightidreamt Thu 25-Jul-13 14:28:41

I disagree with you freedom - it's only Pippa who can't stay out of the papers - the rest are very discreet.

Imagine having to be careful of every single thing you say and do, just because of who your daughter chose to marry.

twinklestar2 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:28:49

fishybits - ooh that made me feel weird, thinking of two future kings under one roof. Imagine how her family must feel, to go from being normal to having two future kings stay with them.

EasterHoliday Thu 25-Jul-13 14:28:55

oh come on freedom are you forgetting Raine Spencer? and the brother's speech? you're also comparing apples / pears - landed gentry and a family who need to work for a living, and an era of daily newspapers vs the information superhighway and instant broadcast of every last move.

PostBellumBugsy Thu 25-Jul-13 14:33:05

You could ask the same question for all sorts of things. Who should foot the bill for policing at football matches? Who should foot the bill for police protection for Barak Obama and other high profile visitors to the UK? Who should foot the bill for police protection of high profile criminals as they journey between prison and court? Who should foot the bill for Tony Blair's ongoing police protection?

You could argue that police time gets deployed for lots of 'unworthy cases' - depending on which side of the fence you sit on!

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 14:33:08

absolutely

but let is not forget what as close to normal lives they do live hmm the royal pr machine constantly reminding us

FreedomOfTheTess Thu 25-Jul-13 14:33:44

Oh dear, how dare I speak out against Katie and her wonderful family, shame on me.

EasterHoliday Thu 25-Jul-13 14:35:30

football clubs pay the bill for policing football matches.
& freedom speak out all you like but make it accurate. Turning up at hospital to visit their daughter and first grandchild isn't exactly courting publicity.

FreedomOfTheTess Thu 25-Jul-13 14:37:32

Football clubs pay towards the cost of policing.

If I go to a football match, money from my ticket goes to the club, and so in some way covers the cost of policing.

I get something for my money there, I get to watch 90 minutes of sport.

What do any of us get for the money being paid towards this security?

Answer: diddly fucking squat!

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 14:38:03

EasterHoliday that's interesting about the parents' new house. I bet you're right that they've received 'assistance' in ensuring the new family pile is fit for two kings.

What fucked me off was seeing the Skycopter circling over the fucking maternity hospital. William must have been desperate to get into a fighter plane and shoot the fucker down.

I pity Catherine quite profoundly. If the post-partum choice is to stay with your party-planning parents or with Prince fucking Charles, I'd have to plump for the former. She must be desperate to be alone, poor woman.

tuckingfits Thu 25-Jul-13 14:38:53

Perhaps if the media left them the hell alone & didn't stalk them/report on their movements 24/7 at this very private & new time in their lives,there would be less need for the massive security detail?

Why shouldn't she stay with her mum after the birth of her baby. Lots of new mums do. Why does the world NEED to know where they are? Ridiculous. Leave them alone,give them some privacy - afterall they came out,introduced their son to the world as required,how about paying back that gesture by leaving them be for a few weeks?

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 14:42:36

tucking but why would the media stop flogging a cash cow? There's too much demand for information from weirdos people for them to want to leave royalty alone.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 14:42:46

Not true about the football.

'In a statement, the Premier League said: "The law is quite clear - clubs pay for any policing inside the ground and on immediately adjacent property under their control... Costs incurred away from the ground that are deemed necessary are covered by the state - it's what people pay their taxes for."

If you've ever gone to a match at eg White Hart Lane you'll see police, including mounted police, from the stations to the ground. I've seen police regularly at specific pubs where fans are known to gather pre match, more than a mile from the ground. Where there is a history of trouble the policing starts inside the train stations and they effectively act as an escort for away fans.

twinklestar2 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:43:41

I agree tuckingfits. I doubt anyone cares as much as the media shove them down our throats.

I felt sad for them when I saw the media had moved from St Marys Hosp to Kensington Palace. Just leave them alone fgs!

twinklestar2 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:44:34

And I'm not a royalist - I only like looking at them to see what they're wearing <shallow>.

twinklestar2 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:45:24

Also to add -the Daily Mail are now talking about the Prince George effect. Lord have mercy!

diddl Thu 25-Jul-13 14:49:31

'Tis a shame that out of all palaces, none could have fitted in William, Kate, George, Michael & Carole!!

That said, if she/they want to visit/stay with her parents, they should be able to-

The Middletons always visiting them is probably the sort of "stuffiness" they want to avoid.

Prince George Effect

A Phenomenon whereby, no matter how joyous the initial event, the British public get heartily sick of it when it is rammed down your throat 24/7 by the media.

Suzieismyname Thu 25-Jul-13 14:53:58

Seriously, parliament can't discuss the Monarchy?
So how are they changing the rules of succession?

Viviennemary Thu 25-Jul-13 14:54:19

I object far more to the £1m of public money being used to re-furbish their apartment at Kensington Palace.

FairPhyllis Thu 25-Jul-13 14:55:30

I'd just like to say that you never see Americans begrudging the families of their head of state, or potential heads of state, the protection that they need as a result of being potential assassination/kidnapping targets. And I imagine their security costs a very great deal more than that of the Royal Family. I would hope that we think that that kind of protection is something that we should extend as a matter of course to all people whose public role puts them at that kind of risk, like politicians, heads of public agencies etc.

I think the media have very cynically pursued the Middletons in a way they didn't do with the Spencers - they know they can't harass Kate in the way they did Diana, so they have transferred the status of 'media plaything' to her mother and sister in particular.

The Middletons shouldn't have to hide away in order to avoid being accused of courting publicity. They should be free to go about their lives as they like. And to suggest that William, Kate and the baby should never set foot outside a royal palace is absolutely ridiculous - it would be a huge imposition on their basic personal liberty.

You don't see Americans saying, 'Hey Sasha and Malia, we'll pay for you as long you never set foot outside the White House. But as soon as you go out for a milkshake or to see a relative, you're on your own!'

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 14:57:49

Yes but the difference is that Sasha and Malia's father plays a somewhat useful role in their country, what with him being President.

The 1m of public money would have had to be spent to upkeep what I presume is a listed building, regardless of who lived there. It was reported that they were paying for the decor themselves.

* Sasha and Malia's father plays a somewhat useful role in their country*

Ha! Thanks, that did make me laugh aloud.

EasterHoliday Thu 25-Jul-13 15:00:08

Phyllis - don't you remember when Michelle's Africa trip cost the US taxpayer $100m? I'm sure tehre was a serious amount of begrudging going on in downtown Detroit over that. All of her holidays / trips get slated for that, including the security expense.

ANormalOne Thu 25-Jul-13 15:02:09

Fair The difference, of course, is that their head of states are elected, whereas ours aren't. So why should we be forking out this money for people that aren't elected to represent us.

FrillyMilly Thu 25-Jul-13 15:03:50

The difference with America is they are paying for one small family, one member of which they elected as president. We have our prime minister and all the royals. I'm not against having a monarchy but they should steer clear of politics, be much more clear with finances and be much more streamlined.

Viviennemary Thu 25-Jul-13 15:03:59

Other people live in listed buildings. And the state doesn't pick up the bill for the refurbishment.

FairPhyllis Thu 25-Jul-13 15:09:02

Then really this is an argument about whether we have a monarchy or not, not about the principle of whether people connected to the head of state deserve public protection, yes?

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to whine about the money if what is actually getting up your nose is the hereditary principle. If you want to change that, fine. Campaign all you want. But with the status quo as it is, William, Kate, the baby and all the rest of them are genuinely at risk because of who they are related to. I think the least we can do is make sure they don't get blown up by any passing terrorist.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 15:09:24

Yep, Diana's old head of security was all over the Evening Standard a few weeks ago criticising the decision to let them do this - the cost, the distribution to the village, the risk.

He thought the cost of this when Carole could come to her instead (there must be somewhere in the palaces Wthey could stay) wouldn't play well in Austerity Britain and might damage some of the goodwill towards them. However, going by this thread he was wrong!

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 15:18:00

This would be the head of security who was gotten rid of by her and who published a lurid 'tell all' book about her within a month of retiring from the Met? Which led Prince Chares to exert every influence he had to get him fired from his new jobs?

Why would he have an axe to grind...

FairPhyllis Thu 25-Jul-13 15:20:39

I did forget about Michelle's Africa trip - but that is part of a racist narrative against her in the media ('black welfare queen' etc). I can't think of any other examples with other FLOTUSes atm.

Frilly - all former presidents and spouses have protection for their lifetime, their children for 10 years after the presidency. Vice presidents and families are protected. And presidential nominees or presidents elect and vice presidents elect plus families are protected. The Obamas were given protection before he was the nominee because he was deemed to be at such high risk. It's really not just one family.

McNewPants2013 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:30:31

The only real cost is the fuel on the helicopter.

The security personal will be on a salary and would get paid regardless of where they are stationed.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 15:34:42

Sorry, not a royal watcher, knew nothing about the back story there. Does that mean it cost no extra, disrupts no one and he's making it all up?

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 15:36:10

Are all the security staff in Bucklebury simply ones that would have been on duty at the palace?

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 15:39:35

Fuck me, if Prince Charles did that re: security guy then no wonder we're not being allowed to see his letters to the PM. If that's true then that is horrifying, a complete abuse of his position, never mind Mr Security

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 15:43:10

What, saying he'd withdraw the royal warrant? For employing a former royal protection officer who wrote a book detailing loads of personal stuff about the person he protected? After that person was dead?

It's the only thing I know about him that I respect.

McNewPants2013 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:45:09

I'd hate to be a royal. Unless the difference in cost is a trillion pounds I'm meh really. Let her stay with her mum & have her little boy surrounded by normal (well relatively) family life.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 15:50:36

Have no idea how valid the story is. The fact that it was in the Evening Standard made me check it grin. The rest came from googling in about 3 minutes.

I would imagine it is easier to keep all the royals in two places (for security) to give maximum protection for minimum costs and spread the risk. I would also assume that the house of her parents has had to be upgraded anyway, because since before the marriage, William has stayed there, she has stayed there (as a fiancée and then wife of the next in line), she's stayed there pregnant etc. Her family alone probably needed increased home security because their daughter's marriage would be enough of a reason for them to be targeted.

handcream Thu 25-Jul-13 15:52:05

They will never be able to walk in a park without people (and I mean Mumnset people as well!) taking photos of them, trying to engage them in conversation, asking for autographs and god knows what else.

Dont lets start on the nutters that are around who wish them harm.

Its us who have forced the security onto them.

I am sure they would rather just pop out to the shops then have it organised well in advance.

FGS - Diane was killed being pursued by the media.

Quangle Thu 25-Jul-13 15:52:52

Fairphyllis I have seen Americans using protection of the Obama family as a political tool - mainly in the gun argument. The gun nutters argue that since the Obama children are protected by gun-wielding security guys, they should be allowed to carry guns too. I think it's silly, obviously (as is everything the gun lobby says) but it's the same sort of "one law for the rich, one law for the poor" type of reasoning taken to extremes.

But I agree with the general point that we have a monarchy and there are security implications to that and that the poor girl should be allowed to go where she wants to recuperate with new baby. I felt sorry for her outside the hospital, smiling sweetly in a posh frock while her insides were falling out.

Am like twinklestar2 on this - not a Royalist but like a new baby and some clothes as much as the next shallow bint.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 15:54:51

Ok, again didn't realise having the royal warrant was relevant to the new jobs - was just going by your comment about using influence to get him fired which in the way it was presented in your statement would have been terrible. Taking away something to which he was no longer deemed to be entitled which was necessary for new posts is completely different. Like I said, not a royal watcher. I generally like old Charlie though, don't want to be his subject but I have like the fact he seems to be his own man (belatedly).

ajandjjmum Thu 25-Jul-13 15:57:23

The Royals are the cheapest form of marketing and promotion that UK plc will ever get - even taking into account huge security bills.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:00:05

The warrant is the crest/stamp thing that is on some products and basically means Royals Shop Here. He threatened to remove them from the companies that hired the man (effectively, to stop shopping there and therefore stop them using the fact as advertising.)

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:01:02

I don't like him. I think he's had far too much influence over planning issues.

doingthesplitz Thu 25-Jul-13 16:01:10

Baby George's arrival has probably boosted the economy no end - all those tourists delighted to be here during a historical moment snapping up momentos great coverage of London in beautiful sunny weather, etc. Not to mention the shops, magazines and so on that make a fortune during occasions like this. Kate has paid the price for this by having to share her new baby with the public, having to pose outside the hospital for photographs that will see newspapers snapped off the shelves, having her every move and decision disected and discussed.

At least she has a close and stable family and her son has normal and loving grandparents. It's more than Diana ever had.

McNewPants2013 Thu 25-Jul-13 16:01:35
Hassled Thu 25-Jul-13 16:02:18

I had this debate with DS2 earlier today - and while you can raise your eyebrows as much as you like at the cost of protection etc, the fact remains the royal family are value for money.

2010 figures - cost to taxpayer was £35.1M.
Government income from Crown Estate revenues : £226.5M

That Crown Estate figure obviously doesn't include the boost to tourism revenue that having a royal family gives us.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:04:13

From a personal viewpoint, having to stay inside and avoid opening curtains unless you want pictures all over the news would be my idea of hell. Add 'and you have to stay with your ILs' to that and I'd be going batshit crazy.

sue52 Thu 25-Jul-13 16:06:56

I'm hoping Margaret Hodge and the public accounts committee manage to extract the Duchy of Cornwall from it's current position of legal tax avoidance so Prince Charles can help fund the extra security at Middleton Manor, just like every other tax payer.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 16:07:16

Actually, the removal from royal warrants in the context you mention is just crap. I do think that's terrible. I would prefer to UK not to have a monarchy but it does and that's that but I was ambivalent about Charles being king, quite liked the guy. The actions you've detailed are in my view completely inappropriate especially for our next head of state

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:07:37

'having to stay inside and avoid opening curtains unless you want pictures all over the news would be my idea of hell. '

This might be the case if Mr and Mrs Middleton lived in a three bed semi. Not quite the reality though.

MissMarplesBloomers Thu 25-Jul-13 16:09:12

William has 2 weeks paternity leave as any other father, he then has to bugger off back to Wales to resume duties.

Why shouldn't he leave his LO's safe with the extended family they both trust & want to spend time with?

I begrudge them the security costs a whole lot less than many of our bloody politicians and lesser royals.

I think they do a damn good job at promoting brand GB and are worth every penny.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:12:22

You object to a threat to stop shopping somewhere???

The only reason the man had 'facts' to publish was because he was a close protection person. It would be like a nanny using her access to publish a tell all then getting a job in child care based on her credentials as having been nanny to the people she sold the privacy off!

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:13:27

They published pictures of her breasts when she was a mile(?) from the nearest road.

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:14:57

She won't be going topless again any time soon. Seriously, there are worse places to spend a few weeks with your newborn than Middelton Manor.

I'd cope.

PeriodMath Thu 25-Jul-13 16:15:33

My point wasn't that we shouldn't foot the security bills generally, on royal tours and at the palaces and so on - just that staying at a private house for weeks on end when there are perfectly good palaces already secured for them seems a bit much.

Yes, of course no-one could blame Kate wanting to be at home with her folks but how many of us are afforded that luxury after we give birth? I was a couple of hundred miles away after my first and will be a lot further after my second. It's the life I agreed to and it has its perks (as does Kate's) but a bit of fending for yourself goes with it.

HollyBerryBush Thu 25-Jul-13 16:18:05

I dont care how much they cost, they are worth a lot more than some that my taxes go towards keeping.

Anyway, its nannies money, she can spend it how she likes grin

ajandjjmum Thu 25-Jul-13 16:21:11

Sad you couldn't be where you wanted to be PeriodMath when you'd given birth. Kate can - with the compromise that her DH will be elsewhere. You make the choice and take the compromise that goes with it.

The need for security is not her (nor her parents) fault.

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:21:22

They'd have protection anywhere they went and I'd imagine the house is already wired to the rafters because they have stayed there before and will again. Yes, I suppose it will cost extra in security, but so does David Cameron going on holiday outside the UK as opposed to eg Cornwall. If we are really worried about costs we should have all the royals living in one place.

MissMarplesBloomers Thu 25-Jul-13 16:28:01

OP they HAVEN'T got a "palace secured fo them" their apartment is full of bloody asbestos!

Given that the new Middleton pile is pretty shielded from the road on the village I can't see why it would be any more of a nightmare than when they go & stay anywhere.

McNewPants2013 Thu 25-Jul-13 16:29:21

I think it is wonderful she has gone to her parents for help and support.

She could have went to the royal residence, but perhaps she wanted to be at home without worrying about how she looks, what she says.

It may only be me but the first few weeks was the most worrying and nervous time.

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:31:19

Their apartment has 21 rooms, I pictured somewhere a bit smaller and cosier. Silly me.

diddl Thu 25-Jul-13 16:31:38

Even if their place was ready-can you comfortably slob around & bf with staff about?

grovel Thu 25-Jul-13 16:37:49

It appears that 80% of us want a monarchy. If so, we've got to pay for it. And not make it too awful for the poor buggers who do the job.

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:43:34

Maybe people who enjoy the monarchy should have special royal taxes deducted from their salaries which will pay for things like this.

The other 20% won't have to pay, one the one hand they'll be denied the odd bank holiday and pleasures such as Nicholas Witchell.

HollyBerryBush Thu 25-Jul-13 16:46:09

Maybe people who enjoy the monarchy should have special royal taxes deducted from their salaries which will pay for things like this.

and perhaps those that dont want to live with the Queen as Head of State could kindly fuck off somewhere else and bleat on about it?

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:47:27

Oh so it isn't a democracy where people can express a dissenting opinion.

Why do you act in a constantly cuntish manner HollyBerryBush?

Twirlyhot Thu 25-Jul-13 16:51:36

I'd rather opt out of my taxes going to fund Trident/it's replacement if you're offering.

FairPhyllis Thu 25-Jul-13 16:55:33

You can express a dissenting opinion of course, but the rest of us reserve the right to be bored rigid by it.

squoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 16:56:31

Like wise Phyllis, likewise, bored r.i.g.i.d.

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 17:00:31

Hassled we don't know how much the monarchy costs us because their finances are exempt from the freedoms of information act. Some estimate £35mil, some £175mil, some more.

Why are lots of pretending Kate has it really rough? That she won't be able to breastfeed her child in peace because she has staff? Kensington isn't like prison y'know...

HopALongOn Thu 25-Jul-13 17:07:25

Bloody hell. Threads bashing their names choice, complaints that they waited fourt hours before the announcement, and now this. Every single thing this woman does is reported on and judged by people the world over. And we are seriously about to begrudge her a few weeks with her own family while she gets to grips with being a mum? Is there some sort of filter on some keyboards that removes all a person's compassion and empathy?

The royal family cost money. But they also bring in money and generate their own income through businesses, property and land.

littlemisswise Thu 25-Jul-13 17:10:09

What a shame they don't offer to pay for all the other wives of the Armed Forces Personell to go back and stay with their mum's when they give birth, when their DH's paternity leave is over!

If she lived in married quarters she wouldn't need extra security, providing they were 'behind the wire'. We have guards on the gate!

frogsareace Thu 25-Jul-13 17:16:09

the duchey estate pays for all william, harry and charles security - ie. not the tax payer but the commercial earnings.

flippinada Thu 25-Jul-13 17:17:13

That's the second time a irate royalist has suggested people who don't like the royal family should live elsewhere.

Can I make a polite suggestion of my own? Perhaps people who love royalty but really hate the fact people are allowed to have different opinions could go and live in Saudi Arabia?

Win win all round, I feel.

flippinada Thu 25-Jul-13 17:18:45

An irate royalist.

deepfriedsage Thu 25-Jul-13 17:29:20

Good for them going to Middleton Manor. I have no problem as long as they foot the extra bill themselves.

Middleton Minor was paid for via Diana's bequest to William, he inherited last year.

DontmindifIdo Thu 25-Jul-13 17:29:45

OP - Can I ask if you think this should only apply to Royals, or to all British citizens who need police protection? Should the level of the security you have and the freedom you have once you have been identified as a terrorist target be limited by your income? What about someone like Salman Rushdie, should he be expected to fund his own security costs? He could have been offered housing in a property of the police's chosing, then after that- if he ever wanted toleave the house or go home, or anything else like that, he'd have to pay for it himself. what about senior politicians? (at least being a politician is their personal choice)

deepfriedsage Thu 25-Jul-13 17:33:06

I am happy for KP to be kept for future generations. The Cambridges are paying for non building work.

Viviennemary Thu 25-Jul-13 17:33:32

That Duchy estate whose'owner' pays less tax than his employees. Hmmm.

deepfriedsage Thu 25-Jul-13 17:34:58

Rushtie knew what he was getting into, and earned a lotout of his life choice.

sue52 Thu 25-Jul-13 17:51:25

Quite so Viviennemary*. I'm boycotting Starbucks and I'd like to do the same with the Royals except I appear to have no choice.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 18:05:32

Yep, I most certainly do.

noddyholder Thu 25-Jul-13 18:07:15

Don't worry about them they don't about you.

liquidstate Thu 25-Jul-13 18:11:18

Actually have met the Middletons and they are all very nice not up themselves at all. Party pieces has rapidly expanded and is very busy so I imagine there is an increase in income to cover the cost of the new house, the old house was worth loads as well. The extra police at Bucklebury is not a problem at all and not that much over what usually is here when they visit, the only difference is I guess there has to be enough to cover shifts and breaks etc so it looks like there is more on duty. I expect the helicopter and extra police will stand down as the press interest does. Note the emergency parking restrictions on the road outside their house are only for three weeks.

I occasionally work at the palaces and I know that security do move around (eg when the queen goes to Balmoral) so it is likely these are mainly palace policemen.

The works at Kensington mean its not a really good place at the moment. Noise and dust everywhere and it is peak tourist season so I fully understand why they have moved to Bucklebury. Their house near Sandringham is also a building site I understand.

ps - I am in no way posh/rich or a Royalist, I just wanted to clarify a few things!

deepfriedsage Thu 25-Jul-13 18:14:59

Are you Kate's PR?

grovel Thu 25-Jul-13 18:25:06

I would be interested to know who the Republicans would like to see stand to be our Head of State. Genuine question because I think our arrangements are dotty but can never get excited by the alternative. We have a monarch with an 80% approval rating. I simply can't imagine that kind of concensus behind any elected individual.

liquidstate Thu 25-Jul-13 18:28:00

deepfriedsage - hardly!

I just moved to that part of Berkshire when I married 3 years ago and my husbands family know a lot of local people. I just get so annoyed when people start on at them for trying to be royal. The Daily Fail is particularly good at this. If people feel that way, fine - it is a free country after all. But lets have some proof before we start censuring people...

MortifiedAdams Thu 25-Jul-13 18:31:56

The fact of the matter is that if my newborn was at serious, world-scale, risk as a target for extremists / nutters / chancers, I would want him.protected by the law. I also wouldnt expect to be holed up in a prison (no matter how many tiaras and thrones it contained), for the next 18 years.

The child did not ask to be born. It is a target, like it or not. And therefore it deserves protection.

McNewPants2013 Thu 25-Jul-13 18:35:48

Liquidgate are you ok to discuss this.

liquidstate Thu 25-Jul-13 18:51:23

mc Newpants - Thanks. I think so - I'm not involved in security or anything!

And Mortified has raised a very good point. You have to also consider the repercussions of if anything did happen to William, Kate and the baby. Would be a bit weird if Harry became King after showing off his nob last year! grin

DontmindifIdo Thu 25-Jul-13 19:39:54

Deepfriedsage - yes, Rushdie did know what he was doing, and Tony Blair probably could assume that the Iraq war would mean he would need personal security for the rest of his life, and there's lots of people who've taken the decision to do things that put them in the line of sight of terrorists and criminals - but decisions about the level of security they get shouldn't be down to what they can afford to pay.

Plus, what annoys me by some of the less rational republicians on here don't seem to get is that William really doesn't have a choice to do anything differently to stop him being a target of extremists - even if he gave up the HRH and his claim to the throne (and money from his Dad), does anyone really think William, Kate and their new baby would stop being terrorist targets? Zara Philips has never had a title, is far away from the throne, hasn't had any direct state funding for her lifestyle (although her mother does, so you could argue Zara had tax funding her lifestyle throughout her childhood), yet she has had bodyguards and security costs throughout her life, and will continue to do so. Her child will also 'cost' the state with security needs.

DontmindifIdo Thu 25-Jul-13 19:44:24

Liquid - I can't help thinking it would be fabulous to have Harry as King. Very entertaining.

FrillyMilly Thu 25-Jul-13 19:46:47

Zara Phillips does not have protection officers.

DontmindifIdo Thu 25-Jul-13 19:52:16

Frilly - she might not now, but she has in the past, I guess it depends on the threat at the time.

motherinferior Thu 25-Jul-13 19:56:19

Oh for heavens' sake, they are not helpless pawns of the arch-manipulating media; if they really wanted a go at renouncing wealth and privilege they could. They don't. They appear to be really quite happy being rich and privileged. So please stop making them out to be victims.

olidusUrsus Thu 25-Jul-13 20:01:46

Yy motherinferior

Twirlyhot Fri 26-Jul-13 01:30:37

grin So, if they gave away their money and titles the press would suddenly leave them alone?

crypes Fri 26-Jul-13 01:42:09

I feel abit sorry for Kate , she seems abit adrift at the moment, honestly what thirty year old married woman with a baby would go immediately and stay with mum and dad? William seemed abit bossy and savvy outside the hospital, I cringed when he took the baby straight off her for the reporters to see. Pippa looks more and more like Mrs Simpson every time I see her in the paper. She's getting abit too polished looking and media savvy too.

Bue Fri 26-Jul-13 03:37:45

crypes I think you're reading quite a lot into their appearance outside the hospital! William clearly still takes the lead in terms of media, he has infinitely more experience than she does - in fact I think it shows that she is still somewhat nervous with reporters. Quite frankly I expect she was grateful and relieved that she could take a back seat!

I also think it's lovely that Kate is close enough to her parents that she wants to go and stay with them. I mean it's not like they don't have the space. Possibly not everyone's choice, but Kate and William don't exactly have a normal living situation and this is probably the best option for them.

Morloth Fri 26-Jul-13 03:44:33

Security guards get paid, pilots get paid, choppers get maintained etc.

As long as they are using British labour etc then it is actually a good thing they are spending money.

Keeps it moving around...

Karmakoala Fri 26-Jul-13 03:52:54

Seriously I don't understand this way of thinking in the slightest, I'm NOT a royalist but this really annoys me.

He is a tiny newborn baby, he had no choice in the fact that he was born into the monarchy. There are people out there who would do him serious harm if they got the chance.

He has no choice in the fact that he is future king, he could abdicate when he is older if he doesn't want the responsibility, but right now he is future king.

Kate, like many new mothers wants her own mum around her following the birth, just because she has given birth to the future monarch, does that strip her of her right to privacy and choice. Or should she just suck it up and do what everyone else wants her to.

Even if the UK became a republic state overnight, the monarchy would still need protection, possibly even more so. I can't get my head around the attitudes of people who think this way.

Moln Fri 26-Jul-13 04:00:42

the middleton's gaff is nice isn't it?! Managed to get those mower line things on their lawns too

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Fri 26-Jul-13 07:38:42

God.

Whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge.

It's like it's a national sport. Nothing like a happy event to bring the whingers and criticisers out in their droves to throw massive old wet blankets over everything.

Can't imagine too many other countries react in such a default way as this to an allegedly happy national event.

wine

marriedinwhiteagain Fri 26-Jul-13 08:20:55

So, what have we had:
Marriage between two lovely young people
Baby born on Monday and shared with us on Monday pm and all day Tuesday.
Kate's mum and dad went in first (that was fantastic the mums parents got the first look)
Williams dad and sm went in next
They went home for the night and then to the mum's family which is stable, kind, loving and dignified.

What exactly is there to complain about? This young couple have behaved with absolute dignity in spite of having every second debated and discussed and pulled apart. They are a lovely couple in the bosom of a lovely home - just let them be that and perhaps cast a thought that had Diana had such a lovely supportive home then history might have turned a little differently.

They bring in far more income than they draw and at a very very special time are not even needing or asking to be cut a little slack - simply to live a public life in a private way for a few weeks.

It's just nasty to object to a first time mum wanting to spend time with her mum. I'm sure they would all be more relaxed without a ton of security in the shrubbery but tbh I don't think anybody will have asked them. The state chooses which assets to protect.

Zara may not have security atm but I suspect after she gives birth the police will be keeping an eye on her for a bit - a baby is such a target for nutters. Though doubtless Mike Tindall could 'tackle' them grin

jamdonut Fri 26-Jul-13 08:55:53

If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow,and we had an elected president,who presumably would have family, would we still be griping about security????
I think a president costs more in the long run,because they actually make decisions which may or may not be to everyone's liking. And each time a presidency changes, presumably much money is spent on making sure the new president's family is protected, and that must involve costs each time.
The royal "family" are just figureheads for Britain. They may try to use some influence, but at the end of the day they don't make decisions that affect us directly.
I much prefer the history and continuity of our monarchy than the circus that becomes presidential elections (particularly thinking America and France here) and their subsequent tenures.

The "family" has become much narrower in recent years,as the older generations of it die off,anyway,the line is much more restricted.

kim147 Fri 26-Jul-13 09:03:00

But those Presidents are political.

Many Republics have apolitical figureheads who are just that.

But we have a choice -as has been said on countless other thread.

William held the baby because he second in line to the throne, the baby is his, and the photographers would have wanted a shot of that. Not to mention the fact that his wife had just given birth, was probably sore, and would have found holding the baby difficult, I certainly did after mine.

He was taking over because Catherine was presumably very tired, emotional and stressed with all the people there. He has had a lifetime of this. She hasn't.

Can't believe its even questioned to be honest.

TiggyD Fri 26-Jul-13 09:08:11

If any person in the country is at risk of attack I would want the police to protect them.
The royals should be treated like any other people, not singled out for special treatment because of an 'accident of birth'. ie The police should protect them too.

Chatteringarses Fri 26-Jul-13 09:08:11

No actually Football clubs only cover the costs for security inside their ground! We taxpayers pay for ALL of the heavy policing required in the surrounding streets, on public transport, at all major railway stations etc which is a much, much larger undertaking than staffing inside the stadium. In bigger club matches that involves police helicopters for EVERY game.

Given the unbelievable wealth of many football clubs (which puts the Middleton millions completely in the shade) I think it's revolting that all taxpayers have to pay to be protected from football violence when clubs are so rich. Why don't clubs have to cover the actual costs?

Sure it is costing us for Kate to visit her mum after having a baby- but as said upthread- it costs to have a Royal family. It's not free for us even if they stayed at home. And It's completely mean to say she shouldn't be able to stay at home with her mum when she's just had a baby FGS! I can't imagine it's anything over than incredibly stressful and boring being attached to the Royals so lets give the girl a break. Plus I bet the Royals generate far more in visiting tourist pounds for the UK economy than say, first division football clubs do. Royals in this day and age can't get away with behaving like overpaid angry toddlers any more so Kate and Wills are going to be much better role models than some footballers we could name!

jamdonut Fri 26-Jul-13 09:18:11

"countless other threads"...oh sorry..I didn't go looking.hmm

kim147 Fri 26-Jul-13 09:31:37

There's plenty of threads discussing the monarchy and opposing views at the moment.

You'd almost think a baby had been born grin

SusanneLinder Fri 26-Jul-13 09:48:55

I am not a royalist, however I found this interesting fact:
Source Britroyals.com FAQ's

*The Crown Estate, which manages on behalf of the monarch property and land owned by the Crown including Regent Street in London and Britain's coastline, is worth around £8.6 billion and generates £252 million (2011/12) in income a year. This income is handed back to the Government as payment in return for the £36 million per year (in 2012 down 12% from £41 million in 2008) cost of running the monarchy.

This arrangement dates from 1760 when George III gave up the right to the income from the Crown's estates in return for a Civil List paid to members of the Royal Family. In 2013 this changed to a Sovereign Support Grant based on 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. This means that for the year from April 2014 the grant will be £37.9 miilion towards the cost of the Royal household, their travel, attending formal functions and repairs to buildings including Kensington Palace which will be the new home of William and Catherine. *

I would say that the government more than gets enough money from the Royal Family than they actually give back

Damnautocorrect Fri 26-Jul-13 10:03:42

I don't begrudge them a penny for security, or for removal of asbestos from kp.
You can't help who you fall in love with, and you can't help who your daughter marries!

thegreylady Fri 26-Jul-13 10:20:47

Leave them alone. It is what it is. I thought Diana was a simpering twit but most people think she was on the verge of sainthood. I think the Middletons are behaving as well as they can given the situation. K and W seem like a pleasant and privileged young couple. It is not their fault they need security it is the fault of the times we live in.

PeriodMath Fri 26-Jul-13 11:49:31

How many on here went to stay with their parents after the birth of their first child?

Just interested to know if this is the norm.

PostBellumBugsy Fri 26-Jul-13 12:01:58

periodmath - not a chance!!!!!! Would rather have performed my own C-section - but then I was returning to my own private home without the world watching every twitch of the curtains or visitor through my front door. Plus parents lived far away and all post-natal care was based around where I lived.
Could be wrong, but I think nowadays it is more usual for Mums to go and stay with daughters than the other way around.

olidusUrsus Fri 26-Jul-13 12:04:25

I wanted to, but me and my mother don't get on and she wouldn't allow it. OH were going through a rough patch, my dad let me home for a few weeks but after that mum starting demanding that I "Get. Out."

MrRected Fri 26-Jul-13 12:09:59

The cost could be somewhat offset against the cost of a massively reduced household staff at KP. They aren't having a nanny. She wears high street labels. He drives himself.

Imagine if they weren't protected and something went wrong. There would be an outcry.

MortifiedAdams Fri 26-Jul-13 12:34:57

Period the alternative is, essentially, to live with the In Laws. The Palace is Wills' family home (or one of).

squoosh Fri 26-Jul-13 12:46:53

It's not as though they'll be on top of one another, quite easy to kick about your own wing without too much disturbance.

Olidus your Mum sounds horrible, poor you sad

mrsden Fri 26-Jul-13 12:47:38

It's not that usual for people to go and stay with their parents after giving birth. If you're lucky then your mum might come and stay with you for a few days. Couldn't her mum have gone to Anglesey? The address of their house there has never been published and is on a private estate so would be easier to secure.

I don't understand why people say they feel sorry for her. Their privacy is not breached very often and when it is a huge fuss is rightly made, for example the topless shots. Kate did 19 engagements while pregnant, that is not a heavy workload. No worries about money, multiple homes etc, its a nice life but they want us to think its awful and they're doing us the favour.

outtolunchagain Fri 26-Jul-13 12:53:34

The house is big enough for them to have their own wing and plenty of space and privacy , more importantly the Middleton family and Bucklebury residents have shown themselves over the last 10 years to be uber discrete and trustworthy and I suspect as far as William is concerned this is priceless .

.Rumour has it that he partly paid for the house anyway precisely to enable them to spend time out of London and for Kate to have an escape from the Royal life . Camilla still has her house in Wiltshire and spends a lot of time there for the same reason , Diana never had that option and he is aware that the goldfish bowl of KP didn't help matters .

olidusUrsus Fri 26-Jul-13 13:15:18

squoosh she's a bitch. I'm not the daughter from hell, I swear, I'm just not good enough for her psychological ishoos.

As someone else said on another thread, it's hardly as if their in a 3 bed semi squashed up against the pavement, twitching the curtains for fear of photographers pressing lenses against the letter box..

I feel really soory for them being belittled and blasted for what is essentially a first time mum wanting to spend some time at her mum and dads after the birth of her baby, most of us know how daunting and tiring that time is. regardless of who she married, she is entitled to do this.

I am getting really fed up of seeing people on here bitching about them and their baby. usually the majority on here come across as lovely people who give fantastic advice, some of which Kate would probably find very helpful with being a first time mum, so I am very shock at some of the horrible comments I've read about them.

I am more than happy for my taxes paying to keep 2 of our future kings safe no matter the cost!!

olidusUrsus Fri 26-Jul-13 13:16:24

Oh GOD, they're. Oh God oh God. Is that a cardinal MN sin!? Hides

olidus
Its ok you got your correction in quickly enough.

The Pedants revolt is standing down.

<<whispers>> I wrote advise instead of advice earlier but got away with it because I blamed my iPhone.

kim147 Fri 26-Jul-13 13:51:34

The Crown Estate -well, that's a whole new thread.

How did the Crown get all that land? Is it right that they "own" it - even though they kindly give some of the money back to the country.

Being King must have been great in the old days - saying I'm in charge so I'll own this and that and steal it if I want.

AmandaCooper Fri 26-Jul-13 14:49:26

kim you can have a philosophical argument about how anyone can legitimately claim to own anything. Suffice to say they lawfully own it surely?

sue52 Fri 26-Jul-13 14:49:49

So if we get rid of the Royals can the country have the crown estate back? That will help make up for any income they generate.

fishybits Fri 26-Jul-13 14:56:25

The Crown Estate is not owned by the Royal family. The profits go to the Government.

DontmindifIdo Fri 26-Jul-13 20:06:08

fishybits - each new monarch has to sign it over to the government - the deal was the civil lisr in exchange for thye proffits from the crown estates, at the beginning, the monarch was the one 'making' on the deal, now the government is. Charles could decide not to sign it over when he becomes King, that would be interesting....

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now