Advanced search

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?

themaltesefalcon Thu 25-Jul-13 14:38:12

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.

themaltesefalcon Thu 25-Jul-13 14:58:45

* 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?

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