Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To not want to pay for another scrounger?

500 replies

weatherall · 08/09/2014 10:38

Poor Kate's with child again.

When will these scroungers stop pumping out sprogs they expect all the rest of us to pay for?

OP posts:
Bearbehind · 08/09/2014 20:46

Agreed nit it's not an exact science but it can unequivocally be proven that some UK families cost more than they contribute so why not give the Royal family the benefit of the doubt?

Dapplegrey · 08/09/2014 20:49

Nit - I think people are shocked by spiteful remarks rather than opposition to a monarchy.
I think it is vile to say that 'I don't care if they live or die, though I'd prefer if they died', don't you?
Also using the word scrounger is pretty unpleasant as is 'layabout, and 'useless'.
However, I don't hold out much hope that these sort of remarks are going to stop on mumsnet any time soon.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 20:50

Well that doesn't really work for me, to be honest! Let's give em billions and then give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of how much they do? I'm not buying that. Except of course I don't have the choice!

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 20:52

Didn't notice the live/die comment... But the scrounger thing is so very obviously a parody of the language used about poor people to whom we give some of our pennies in tax, isn't it? To make the point that this family are also given (albeit only 52 per household) pennies from the tax payer, gratis, and yet nobody seems to see the irony!

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 20:56

Dapple How was my post spiteful? Just because I don't have the same views as you doesn't make me 'spiteful'. In a democratic country it's my right to be able to voice an opinion. I accept that lots of people love the royal family but when people put up things that aren't accurate or unproven I will say my piece. That does not make me spiteful, I just happen to not want to be one of the sheep.

Bearbehind · 08/09/2014 20:57

Ok, so even if they do get £52 per household, they generate very nearly, if not more than that.

The reality is that there are many families who claim benefits but contribute absolutely nothing- why not vent some anger there?

Dapplegrey · 08/09/2014 20:59

Maisy - I think " your forelock tugging sycophantic love of the royal family is very endearing." is pretty unpleasant, but maybe you have different standards.
If you think there is nothing wrong with what you said then I dread to think what you do consider spiteful.

mateysmum · 08/09/2014 20:59

That OP has to be one of the meanest, most bitchy posts I have ever read. Kate is neither poor in the material or the emotional sense. She and Wills are clearly in love and adore their son. Regardless of who they are a wanted and loved baby is a source of joy.

Do people seriously think that if we had an elected head of state it would be cheaper than a monarchy? A large part of the civil list goes on maintaining the historic royal palaces. They wouldn't disappear with the monarch and I can't see President Milliband sitting in front of a 2 bar electric fire in a house that hasn't been rewired or had a new heating system for 50 yrs - (I refer to Buck house and the Queen)

If you hold republican views that is a perfectly valid opinion, but please don't pretend it would be a cheaper system or make vile personal comments about the royals.

Bearbehind · 08/09/2014 21:00

but when people put up things that aren't accurate or unproven I will say my piece

Ok, you prove the a royal family cost more than they contribute whilst also proving that single mother on income support is not a 'net taker' and I'll completely concede you are right.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 21:01

Of course it would be cheaper! Say President Cameron had two houses and a lot of security... Yes, expensive. But not on the scale of the royals and all their by-blows.

mateysmum · 08/09/2014 21:06

But somebody would still have to maintain Buck 'House, Windsor Castle etc. None of these are the personal property of the monarch.
Are you suggesting we just knock 'em down?
Most of the royals were removed from the civil list years ago.
Who are all these illegitimate children you think you are maintaining? (A by-blow is a term for an illegitimate child)

A presidential election alone would probably cost as much as a year's civil list.

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 21:13

bear of course they cost more than they contribute, even the tax they pay is coming from the money that is provided for them. I don't have to prove it, it's not a matter of opinion, you can quite easily google how much money comes from the crown estates. If there were no royal family the country would be £ 299.4 million better off. As I've also said before there is not a shred of proof that tourists come to the UK because of a living monarchy. Also....just forget about single mothers who seem to be getting a lot of mentions, they aren't under discussion.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 21:13

I'd turn them all into hostels! Grin

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 21:15

I can't get angry about benefits claimants. Maybe I could if I loved the royals more. I tend to think a lot of them had a pretty crap hand dealt and live in not very pleasant places and have a fairly tough time of it, to be honest. Sorry.

mateysmum · 08/09/2014 21:21

But Maisy the monarchy would have to be replaced with an elected head of state which would be far from free. I question your figures, but even if they are correct, that money would not miraculously go to the NHS/Education/tax reductions.

You only have to look at the news today to see how much publicity the royals generate and that they are one of the unique things about the UK.

How you can say there is no proof tourists come to the UK because there is a living monarchy beggars belief. The monarchy and its aura are one of the key attractions for many foreign tourists.

Patrickstarisabadbellend · 08/09/2014 21:22

I agree OP.

Every child should be born equal!

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 21:26

dapplegrey you really think my 'forelock tugging' remark was unpleasant! well possibly but not half as bad as the 'benefit bashing' remarks which were coming from the person I made them to. Those remarks were far worse than 'unpleasant'. I find them not only unpleasant but deeply insulting to people who have paid into the system all their lives and perhaps now, when they need support more than any other time are called scroungers. That to me is offensive.

fairylightsintheloft · 08/09/2014 21:30

ok Patrick so whatever advantages and nice things and treats you may purchase for your kid, or the attention and love and nurture you give them, lets stop that because not all kids have them. Then they'll all be equal. Even in countries where communism has been tried (and failed) it was never the case that there was a level playing field. Not unless you also lobotomise anyone who is so outrageously inconsiderate and arrogant as to be born with a high IQ, or a work ethic, or a talent that they can use for a successful life. There is no such thing as equal.

Missunreasonable · 08/09/2014 21:32

Ok, so even if they do get £52 per household, they generate very nearly, if not more than that.

It's actually 52p per tax payer (or per person depending on which source you read) so you would need a very large household for it to be £52.

I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but a lot of taxes get wasted on a lot of things that I don't agree with and I don't go around calling unborn babies scroungers or wishing people were dead to save me a few pence.

Missunreasonable · 08/09/2014 21:37

I can't get angry about benefits claimants.

Sadly I can, but only the ones who I personally know and have never worked and don't want to work and are raising their children to think that a life on benefits is an aspiration and working is silly and unworthy.
I can't get angry about benefit claimants who are in benefits through no fault of their own, in fact I think benefit payments are too low for some groups.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 21:38

fairy what a ridiculous post. Do you truly think that any republican, or person who would like to see more moves towards equality, wants to outlaw cuddling?

How silly.

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 21:40

mateysmum...... Like I said there is no proof that tourists come because of the royals. Just think France......but even if they did, just as you say the money saved by not having a monarchy would not go miraculously to the NHS/Education/tax reductions, what does the money raised through tourism go on? billions of pounds in foreign aid to India? ( who actually said they don't want it) and lots of other "worthy" causes.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 00:03

Because it's a great figurehead - it makes lots of us proud to be British - in the case of the Queen, there's a hell of a lots of experience and wisdom to be tapped by any sharp PM. Clearly does nothing for you - fair enough - but lots of us are supporters of the Monarchy, as can be seen at any event involving the Royals. It's part of our history and culture.

That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on feeling proud to be british.

she's just a person. This country is full of people experience, intelligent people who have to earn their position. I am not saying she's not, but others are clearly better.

But that only applies to the Queen. When Charles takes the throne, you can't make the same case for him, but we are stuck with him nonetheless. that's what happens with inherited right to rule.

It's not the individuals I object. I think the queen isn't bad. It's the institution. I don't understand how people can support such a classist idea. it's classism taken to the limit.

And tourists from all countries love them, thus bringing in the precious foreign spend.

I've not taken a poll, but I would bet some serious money that money people come here for a reason other then them.

As Head of Government, the Monarch would have to be political, as Head of State, they are not - surely? In addition, the continuity gives us an element of stability.

she can be apolitical because she's a figurehead. if she actually had to do something she couldn't.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 00:09

William didn't choose this life- it was the hand he was dealt- yes there are massive privileges but they are grossly outweighed by the downsides.

my heart bleeds.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 00:15

But Maisy the monarchy would have to be replaced with an elected head of state which would be far from free. I question your figures, but even if they are correct, that money would not miraculously go to the NHS/Education/tax reductions.

a president wouldn't be free, but it wouldn't cost as much as the royals.

but cost isn't the only issue. what justifies their privilege? why are we sending people who literally have more money than the know what to do with MORE MONEY?

Swipe left for the next trending thread