So now William and Catherine won't be working, will they be subject to the bedroom tax?

(102 Posts)
ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 18:26:14


TickleMyTitsTillFriday Thu 12-Sep-13 18:29:49

Well no. Because the don't live in social housing and claim housing benefit.

Do you understand what it is?!

ChoudeBruxelles Thu 12-Sep-13 18:34:00

No. I bet they have a few too many pounds in savings. Plus they're not claiming benefits

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 18:34:18

so who pays their housing then?

LtEveDallas Thu 12-Sep-13 18:35:49

The Crown Estates.

TickleMyTitsTillFriday Thu 12-Sep-13 18:35:57

Dunno. But that really has fuck all to do with the bedroom tax, does it?

TheYoniWayIsUp Thu 12-Sep-13 18:39:09

What a stupid thread.

Waferthinmint Thu 12-Sep-13 18:39:42

What on earth are you on about?
They wouldn't pay it anymore than me in our home!

Is this a 'joke'? hmm

No op they won't.

AWeeBitConfused Thu 12-Sep-13 18:41:08

Are they not moving to Kensington palace?

"In the summer of 1689 William and Mary purchased Nottingham House, a Jacobean mansion built about 1605. It stood in Kensington, a village that 'esteem'd a very good Air'.
Nottingham House was owned by William's trusted Secretary of State, Daniel Finch, Earl of Nottingham, and the purchase price was £20,000."

So if it was bought by the royals and has been passed down how can it be subject to bedroom tax confused

SarahJayne321 Thu 12-Sep-13 18:42:09

Was that really a serious question? hmm

ShadowSummer Thu 12-Sep-13 18:42:50

Only if they get housing benefit. Which I bet they don't.

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 18:43:09

He has a huge personal fortune.

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 18:44:10

also,william has inherited from his mother....

CairngormsClydesdale Thu 12-Sep-13 18:45:40

I believe if you hold more than 16k in assets you're not entitled to benefits. William inherited well and Kate could sell a handbag or two.

For the record, it's not a "bedroom tax" ffs - it's been a bedroom supplement - the only people being taxed are the tax-payers!

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 18:51:27

all we hear about from this government is about "hard working families" getting on and the unemployed being vilified

just wondered in William and Catherine will now be vilified and if they'll face the same sanctions and abuse as others who don't presently work

guess not

ChoudeBruxelles Thu 12-Sep-13 18:55:02

But they will be working doing charity work, royal visits.

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 18:55:12

if he rocked up at the jobcentre then yes,he would be treated the same.....stupidand inflammatory thread..looking for an argument

AWeeBitConfused Thu 12-Sep-13 18:55:32

What about lottery winners do you feel so bitter about them not working. Or is it just the royals that you have a bee in your bonnet over.

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 18:59:16

lol at comparing lottery winners with the royal family grin

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:00:00

They will be bringing enormous sums in for charities. This is a very ignorant thread.

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:00:39

Charities want them to work for them! They know their value.

JakeBullet Thu 12-Sep-13 19:04:13 because they own the property....end of.

It isnt a tax in any case but a cut in housing benefit if you have more rooms than it is deemed you need. You are not deemed under occupying if you can pay your own rent though...which assuming Wills and Kate ever DID rent they could afford to do.

JakeBullet Thu 12-Sep-13 19:05:22

They will bring in millions for charities which is great. I like them both, very down to earth and a very rich way grin

motherinferior Thu 12-Sep-13 19:08:56

What millions for charities? How? They could give millions to charities but just making the occasional appearance as a patron doesn't generate millions, believe me. Having a royal patron is definitely useful, but you have to get out there and use the profile which I can't see either of them doing, frankly. (Camilla, to her credit, gets off her @rse and talks about osteoporosis, which is useful.)

We didn't even get millions when William's mum died while still the patron of the charity where I worked.

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:09:51

so you've met them JakeBullet?

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:11:01

Of course, charities will turn them down and tell them they are not needed!

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:11:53

posted by exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:00:00

"They will be bringing enormous sums in for charities. This is a very ignorant thread."

This is a very ignorant post.

motherinferior Thu 12-Sep-13 19:12:46

They will be valuable assets to any charity they decide to support. I simply disagree that they will 'bring in millions'. You'd have to show me some very good figures to convince me.

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:13:23

have they actually said what they will be doing? or are you assuming?

motherinferior Thu 12-Sep-13 19:13:45

It's enormously useful to have a royal patron. However, to date Catherine in particular has shown no great enthusiasm for that role.

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:13:56

Squared then - both ignorant and time to drop a silly thread. The bedroom tax is about benefits- they are not on benefits- end of.

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:14:01

well a penny or 'millions' all counts doesn't it?

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:16:22

And since no one knows the exact figure we can't say- except it will be a lot more than OP!

LtEveDallas Thu 12-Sep-13 19:18:30

William does very well as a 'draw' for charities. When he attended the Royal County Show in Shrewsbury (whilst training at RAF Shawbury) they recorded a record attendance and record donations. He has great manners, a wicked sense of humour and is a hard working, excellent service person.

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:19:24

or you exotic, now get back to reading the DM

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:20:18

If they turn up anywhere they will attract a huge crowd.

MortifiedAdams Thu 12-Sep-13 19:21:08

The Crown Estate generates a massive sum of money in tourism which is handed to the Government. The Government pay the Royal family one sixth roughly, of that, to live.

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:21:20

If you had read any of my other threads you would know full well that I am well documented for never reading the DM.

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:23:29

really mortified? didn't know that...only one sisth? so what happens to the rest of it?

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:23:45


ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:24:59

sorry exotic, haven't managed to follow you on here....

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:28:23

In that case you seem to have taken a huge dislike to the fact that I am pointing out that as they are not on benefits they will not be subject to bedroom tax. We seem to have strayed onto charities- to answer OP - no they will not be subject to bedroom tax.

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:30:48

and here's me thinking the royal family are the biggest benefit claimants in the country...

Lizzylou Thu 12-Sep-13 19:32:08

To be fair, they are no worse than any other landed gentry type couple.
At least they are bringing in money for the country and helping charities.
We can't help who we are born to! It's what we do as we grow up that counts.

I am not a royalist by any means, but I think you are forgetting we have an elected Parliament who make the laws, not the monarchy.

exoticfruits Thu 12-Sep-13 19:32:23

I think we are going around in circles- he has an enormous personal fortune.

Lizzylou Thu 12-Sep-13 19:32:57

No, they are not benefit claimants, of course they are not!

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:33:12

which benefits do they claim then?

MortifiedAdams Thu 12-Sep-13 19:35:42

The rest is given to the Government - counted in the GDP, doled put as benefits, to pay the wages of the Government, who.knows.

I know they bring into the country much much than they cost - even adding in security costs!

CuteDesigns Thu 12-Sep-13 19:36:19

I thought Kensington Palace, along with places like Osborne House were not owned by the Royals, they didn't want to pay for the upkeep so gifted them to the nation, so the nation can pay for the upkeep?

HeySoulSister Thu 12-Sep-13 19:46:30

I didn't know that. assumed they brought in some money,but not that high percentage. so they pay their own way and plenty more on top!

ssd Thu 12-Sep-13 19:48:14

sure they do hmm

telsa Thu 12-Sep-13 20:04:39

Pay their own way, my foot! Tney live off public subsidies. Off with their heads!

Lizzylou Thu 12-Sep-13 20:08:14

SSD, your problem is with the Government. The democratically elected Government.
You stick your fingers in your ears and cry lalala all you want but you are raging at the wrong people.

Trigglesx Thu 12-Sep-13 20:43:56

Oh FFS, if you want to have an intelligent discussion OP, then start it off with an intelligent question.


TheYoniWayIsUp Thu 12-Sep-13 20:59:34

No offence OP, but you're coming across as really stupid.

queenofdrama Thu 12-Sep-13 21:06:06

But the tax payer funds all the royal family's living expenses, do we not? So therefore we are also paying toward the upkeep of their estate? confused

meditrina Thu 12-Sep-13 21:11:49

A proportion of ier income comes from the public purse (variable, depending on his much they do).

Same as teachers, doctors, firefighters etc. is Gould imagine any of those who inherited the house they live in, and so do not claim HB, are similary not facing this benefit cap.

comingalongnicely Fri 13-Sep-13 12:06:47

TheYoniWayIsUp - "No offence OP, but you're coming across as really stupid."

This, except remove the "no offence" and add "Ignorant"....

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 13:10:14

I loved the comment and was going to use it next time someone wants typical MN comments- it rivals 'I don't mean to be rude BUT..........'

BrokenSunglasses Fri 13-Sep-13 13:10:33

What a ridiculous thread.

There isn't a problem with people being unemployed. The problem is with people claiming benefits.

culturemulcher Fri 13-Sep-13 13:20:20

I think the OP is trying to draw the parallel between one newly unemployed couple who are about to benefit from a £1M tax-payer-funded refit of their home, while other unemployed couples are being asked to downsize.

hate to link to the Evening LowStandard but there you go

Vickibee Fri 13-Sep-13 13:25:51

Let's become arepublic like France... unfortunately the Royals are very popular at the mo.
In no other walk of life do you get a job just because of who your parents are, not very modern is it. Get rid of the lot of them (Treason)

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 13:32:53

If OP wanted a serious debate she shouldn't have started it about a tax that isn't remotely relevant.
They are not going to fill in benefit forms, and if they did someone who got 6.5 million from their mother, and some more from their great grandmother, not to mention other income, is not going to be granted any benefit. Even if they were they could afford to find the rent for some extra rooms!!

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 13:35:25

And it isn't about unemployed couples - it is about those on benefits.
It is possible to be wealthy and unemployed.

Vickibee Fri 13-Sep-13 13:35:37

It depends if you class all the state support the Royals get as benefits? They get millions every year, equates to 50p per Uk person or something. The Queen does a great job representing the UK but the job should not exist - maybe it won't be quite so popular when Charles is King

Vickibee Fri 13-Sep-13 13:36:37

They are also building a granny flat for Kate's parents, who is paying for this?

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 13:43:50

When these figures are trotted out about how much money they bring in, has anybody researched whether it is the royals themselves that are the draw? I mean, presumably tourists would like looking round the castles etc whether or not we had a royal family. I therefore think it's a bit of a red herring to talk like that.

Anyway, they don't work, they live off the taxpayer and so they should be subject to sanctions.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 13:50:20

If someone opened bookings for dinner with William and Kate in a fairly ugly, nothing remarkable building and at a ridiculous price I bet they would be gone within minutes!

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 13:51:19

That meant ridiculously high price.

elQuintoConyo Fri 13-Sep-13 13:53:00


You see, we can all talk shite, OP grin

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:07:08

Not sure of your point, exoticfruits. Do you mean that tourists don't go to visit the castles but to meet the royals? Despite the fact that they don't actually meet the royals when they go there?

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:11:17

You asked what the draw was. My suggestion would prove that they were a draw.

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:12:48

Despite the fact that the tourists don't get to meet them? You might as well say that I am a tourist draw because lots of people come to the city I live in and don't get to meet me.

[registers self with the National Trust]

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:15:27

Personally I don't go to see royalty. I saw the Queen once in 1970s and Prince if Wales a few years later- once to do with my father and once to do with school. However they always get crowds. I remember on here before the wedding, you would think from MN that no one would have bothered but crowds turned out with the usual camping out etc.
These threads are never representative.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:17:25

So you really think that you could offer tickets for dinner with Kate and William and they would be ignored? confused

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:19:02

Surely those events where people do get to meet them are the ones that actually cost money, rather than bring money in? Jubilees and the like, I mean.

Still, you're probably right about the castles and no-one would visit them if they didn't have a chance of catching sight of William's skiddies on the floor. After all, Versailles isn't a tourist draw at all; the French missed a trick there.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:19:06

Given the choice of meeting you or Kate I think that most, if not all, tourists would opt for Kate! Certainly the Americans would.

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:19:35

Who is offering tickets for dinner with them? What does that have to do with what actually happens?

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:20:15

And I'll have you know that I am very well thought of in America.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:20:52

I really can't be bothered. You asked the question and then you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the answer.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:21:33

All America?!

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:23:13

I'm not misunderstanding the answer. You cannot prove that people go to palaces and castles just because the royal family exists when tourists do not, in fact, meet any royals while they are looking around said castles and palaces.

Wallison Fri 13-Sep-13 14:23:59

And yes, all America. I have personally made love to every man, woman and person of transgender in that country.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 14:25:48

Sometimes I wonder at my sanity getting involved in remarkably stupid arguments! Time to get back to work I think.

ssd Fri 13-Sep-13 15:54:04

this thread has turned out quite funny grin

Trigglesx Fri 13-Sep-13 17:06:12

Well thank God I obviously moved here to the UK before you mad your rounds, Wallison. I'll consider that a narrow escape.grin Although I'm reasonably certain you've missed a few, none of my friends and family in the states have heard of you, much less slept with you. hmm grin

Trigglesx Fri 13-Sep-13 17:06:32

made* your rounds even

Trigglesx Fri 13-Sep-13 17:08:34

To be fair, many people I know in the states are fascinated or at least interested in the royals and do think a castle/palace is more interesting because it's currently inhabited by royalty.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 17:11:37

David Bowie for King. King of the Solar system. I'd worship him.

Not him w/ the layabout wife.

JohnnyUtah Fri 13-Sep-13 17:14:30

Can't be bothered to read the thread.

Of course they won't, because it isn't a tax, it's a reduction in Housing Benefit.

Labour did no one any favours by dubbing it by this stupid name, I spend far too much time at work explaining it to people who wouldn't have been confused in the first place if it just been called what it is.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 17:15:30

Bowie can tax me in the bedroom any old time he likes.

BMW6 Sun 15-Sep-13 19:13:25

Well, OP, I don't work anymore and I have a spare bedroom but certainly won't be paying bedroom "tax"!!

strokethecat Mon 16-Sep-13 08:53:40

For the record, it's not a "bedroom tax" ffs - it's been a bedroom supplement - the only people being taxed are the tax-payers!

It is attitudes like this which makes life intolerable for the majority of people in social housing.
You'll find that the majority of people residing in social housing work and pay their rent fairly and squarely.
Not everybody in this God forsaken country can get or afford to get a mortgage. Social housing was introduced to house those who wanted security and a fair rent. It was a means of income to councils and when the conservatives decided to raise more cash with their right to buy back in the early 80 they screwed over the general public. It is the same Party today that has introduced the 'bedroom tax' - they sold off the housing and what is left today? They charge a rent on plus tax for a spare bedroom. A working person in social housing gets to pay their taxes - I know, shocking news, eh? Plus their rent plus, lets call it a 'supplement' if it makes you feel superior, on any extra room they may have in that house. Plus their council tax...
This Government have also manipulated people into thinking that those in social housing are feckless non tax payers who are out for an easy ride at the cost of other 'hard working people'

strokethecat Mon 16-Sep-13 08:55:42

It is not only those on benefits that have to pay this extra charge if they rent a home off the council. We pay full rent and we have to pay for the spare room we have which is frankly, the size of a fecking cupboard.

racmun Mon 16-Sep-13 09:01:51

Anyone, C & W included, can do nothing if they want to as long as they don't expect the tax payer to pay for them.

I hardly think they'll be claiming benefits so up to them what they do. There's loads of 'trustafarians' who can chose what to do - lucky them!

Wallison Mon 16-Sep-13 09:14:58

You're right of course. The Civil List payments run to millions every year; benefits would only pay out £71 for them.

VestaCurry Mon 16-Sep-13 09:32:10

Well said strokethecat. The 'spare room subsidy' is one of the most insidious, ill thought out pieces of legislation. Whether I agree or disagree with it, anyone with even basic project planning and management experience would know that more social housing stock needed to be created before contemplating a policy like this. I'm being kind by saying it's incompetent.

As for W & K, I'm just not that interested in drawing comparisons. They're not on my ' this is pissing me off' radar currently.

Might get 'hard working person' tattooed on my forehead though hmm.

BrokenSunglasses Mon 16-Sep-13 11:40:19

It's not an extra charge. If you don't claim benefits but you do rent a council home, then you are just paying the rent that has been decided as accurate for the property you live in.

There won't be any extra charge for people who already pay their own rent.

People will just be given less money in housing benefit, if they claim it.

People will no longer be able to claim enough money to cover the rent in a three bedroom house if they only need a two bedroom house.

Housing benefit will still pay for what people actually need in the vast majority of cases.

So actually Strokethecat, it is only people who claim benefits that will be affected by this.

Those who rent will pay for the size of the property they rent, just the same as people who buy will pay for the size of property they buy, even if the smallest bedroom is tiny.

Trigglesx Mon 16-Sep-13 12:55:39

Regardless, they've made it horribly difficult for those who are affected though. They have the option of:

- paying more rent, as they get less housing benefits, which they often can't afford as their money is stretched as it is

- moving to private rental, which most cannot afford to do or cannot find one that allows them to continue in their (low paying) job or keep their children at the same school - or they simply don't have the money to pay for a move (expenses, deposit, etc)

- downgrade to a smaller council property - but oh wait, in most areas, there aren't any. And then there's the consideration that many have spent what little money they have on upkeep on the property they are in - they can ill afford to move into another smaller property and then put carpets and such in there as well!!! The days that a council property is newly painted and all fixed up for a new tenant are well gone!

So basically, they'll be stuck paying more rent. The elderly council tenants in bigger properties (because their children have left home) are exempt. So precisely where do they think the movement to open up properties will come from??

It's done nothing but make things worse for those who are the most vulnerable and at their lowest.

cory Mon 16-Sep-13 22:57:54

How do France and Italy manage their tourist industry? I'm not a republican btw, but it just struck me that when I visited the Loire valley people seemed pretty keen to see those chateaux. Has anyone calculated how many more visitors you would get at Versailles if there was a real royal family around somewhere? Isn't the French revolution a bit of a draw too? (not making any suggestions here, no really not)

ttosca Tue 17-Sep-13 00:00:19

Indeed. The 'Royal' Family are not needed for tourism. It is a myth that they are.

I am a republican, of course. You make the very good point that France is the most popular tourist destination in europe, and it has no 'Royal' family.

In fact, the Republic website states this:

"Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue. "

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