To not want to pay for another scrounger?

[weatherall]

Poor Kate's with child again.

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

As I say, I'm sure they're perfectly nice people. I just wish that we could do something a bit more widely beneficial and egalitarian with the impressive amounts we can raise in this country just by asking each household for a few pennies a year.

Oh hang on. misread, the donation will be from his five month training stint, not when he's actually employed.

You don't really believe they're members, do you?

I think, if I had to guess (I don't know 'Kate' and 'Wills' after all) I'd say they'd be more unsettled and uncomfortable with the forelock tuggers and sycophants who talk as if they know them.

I don't think that there has been any sycophancy on this thread. Just a lot of people expressing uncomfortableness/irritation at a baby being called a scrounger before it's even born.

Great post original.... I've always said the same about the ridiculous way the 'good value for money' and they 'only cost us x pence a year is spun out to keep everyone happy. Apparently this very 'small' amount of money they cost us would pay for 9.560 thousand extra nurses. The Royals cost over twice as much as the Irish presidency, they get by fine as a republic. They cost us far far more than anyone knows because the royal finances are shrouded in secrecy. They are indeed independently wealthy, but not through their own efforts. Everything they have is ultimately off the taxpayer.

Then people who don't give a shit can hide the whole topic said walk

I suspect anyone reading the title of this thread will have taken an EDUCATED guess as to what it is about. Just don't read the topic if you don't like it. No reason for the rest of us to be banished because you, and a few miserable others, don't like it. There's going to be lots of topics about the new baby from now on - get over it or get off the thread!

I didn't say it was confined this thread. Generally, and on Mumsnet today is what I meant. And for the next few months I should think...

I objected to the scrounger comment (upthread) also.

SteamingNit
Inheritance - different argument.

Strongly implicated in this one, though, I feel.

William, Harry, Kate and George are supported by Charles who makes a good return from the Duchy of Cornwall estates- on which he pays tax.... Wow how magnanimous of him to support his family and pay tax. The Duchy of Cornwall no more belongs to the royals than it does to you and me. It belongs to the people of the United Kingdom, and if the monarchy were to cease tomorrow it would rightfully revert back to them. The profits from the duchy are immense and the royals take a massive chunk out of it.....think about that next time you need a policeman or to get an appointment at hospital. I also don't believe for a minute that they bring wealth into the country through tourists. They would still come with or without the royals, as they do in the most visited country on earth...France.

I read this thread because it wasn't started to congratulate the royals,

So Arabella, if you don't like this thread then get off it. I haven't commented on the threads congratulating the Royals.

Apparently this very 'small' amount of money they cost us would pay for 9.560 thousand extra nurses

Only if they are very poorly paid nurses. If you attempted to pay 9,560 nurses using the Sovereign Grant they would each earn about £4,000 per year. And if we take off one third of the money because it goes on tackling the backlog in maintenance at the royal palaces (which belong to us and would still need to be maintained even if there were no royal family) it comes down even further. If we had no royal family and didn't bother maintaining the royal palaces the money could fund around 1,200 nurses.

The Royals cost over twice as much as the Irish presidency

No they don't. The Irish presidency cost £48.1M in 2013. In 2013/14 the Sovereign Grant was £36.1M. If you want to include the private income of the Queen (Duchy of Lancaster) and the Prince of Wales (Duchy of Cornwall) that adds another £31.5M taking the total to £67.6M - still well short of double the cost of the Irish presidency.

They cost us far far more than anyone knows because the royal finances are shrouded in secrecy

Have you tried looking at the annual report for the Sovereign Grant which sets out in detail how much income the royal family receives from the government and how it is spent? The accounts for the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are both published online as well.

And on the subject of the thread, William and Kate are funded from William's earnings and the Prince of Wales' income from the Duchy of Cornwall (which comes from the land owned by the Duchy, not the government). The amount of taxpayers money going to the royal family will not change by a single penny no matter how many children William and Kate have.

writtenguarantee are you also miffed that Kate is suffering from severe morning sickness and is receiving medical treatment? Are you annoyed that her medical bill might be footed from the public purse? Do you think she should hot foot it down to the local NHS hospital for treatment instead of receiving costly private medical treatment (even though the security bill would be huge)?

If she is sick and needs treatment she should get it. When did I say otherwise?

I am happy for her to be treated like every other resident of the UK. That means she can use the NHS (or private care if she can afford it), state education (or private) etc as long as she pays her share of taxes.

By the way, why should we be paying for the security bill?

I object to royal grant, which is what they used to renovate their residence.

Well said, Sliced.

No they don't. The Irish presidency cost £48.1M in 2013. In 2013/14 the Sovereign Grant was £36.1M. If you want to include the private income of the Queen (Duchy of Lancaster) and the Prince of Wales (Duchy of Cornwall) that adds another £31.5M taking the total to £67.6M - still well short of double the cost of the Irish presidency.

are you happy with that? The Irish get something from the president (i.e. someone who actually performs head of state duties). There is no rule saying we have to have a separate office (the americans combine the head of govt and state).

written unless you are a very high rate taxpayer who doesn't access public services your tax contributions won't even come close to paying for what you use, so other taxpayers are already 'sending' you money.

without going into detail, my family are net contributors.

But it doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is not that they are in deficit/surplus to the state, it's that they are in every way special residents in the UK. They have access to money from the taxpayer that none of us do. That's what I don't like. They are special, and treated as such by the law.

Oh, just a puny 1,200 nurses? Well yeah, you might as well not bother with that. Whenever I go to hospitals, I'm always astounded by the surplus nurses anyway

I am probably worth (I mean, in terms of good done) about .05 of a good nurse, I reckon. Those royals would have to really be doing some active positive good to be worth over a thousand of them.

prh47 where did you get the figure of £48m for the Irish presidency from? It seems rather high...

It (the Duchy of Cornwall) belongs to the people of the United Kingdom

Historically it has belonged to the crown since the time of Edward III, which is technically not the same as belonging to the people.

In 2013/14 the Duchy of Cornwall had total revenue of £19.7M which goes to the Prince of Wales and covers his private and official expenditure, and that of Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. Yes, that is a lot more than I earn but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the funding of the NHS in England & Wales (£95.6B) - about 0.2%. Similarly police funding in England & Wales is £12.9B so the Duchy of Cornwall would amount to 1.5%.

You are, of course, entitled to your view that we shouldn't have a royal family. But let's not pretend that abolishing the royal family will make any significant difference to the time it takes to get a hospital appointment or for the police to respond.

Ah, it seems that £48.1m is the cost of the Rep of Ireland hosting the EU presidency in 2013. Not the office of Uachtaran na hEireann (President of Ireland). Michael D Higgins receives a salary of €250k.

Ignoring the debate about using the term scrounger perhaps people quoting sovereign grant as if it were the only source of income should have a quick look at Republic's breakdown of costs

There is also no evidence from Visit Britain that the monarchy brings in tourists explicitly. People would still visit these buildings, but would have free movement through more of them than they do now. Also worth noting that Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are more successful tourist destinations...

Regarding the Duchy of Cornwall, highlighting that it was created by Edward III out of an earldom does not remove the Republican argument, just because something was acquired by the royal family/line some time ago does not remove the fact that it is wrong, and at the very least should pay corporation tax.

Hmm, maybe all those billions wouldn't make any difference at all to those of us who scrape them together with those few pennies from all the households. I mean, it seems intuitively unlikely that the money couldn't be put to any other use, but ok, let's imagine that's so.

I would still say it's wrong that there are people in the country with so very little, and so very little financial support - every penny of which is begrudged and cavilled and resented by the right wing press and its readers - in the same country as this family with such ridiculous amounts of wealth, that we justify on no other grounds than that we suspect not so many tourists might come here if Buckingham Palace was a stately home they could tour but not one in which an old lady was also sometimes in residence.

One Prince Charles for the cost of even the 0.2 of the cost of an entire NHS your post suggests, prh, still sits ill with me.

They actually cost us 9 times more than they make out if you take into account the tens of millions of pounds they deprive the treasury of with their income from the duchy of Cornwall etc. So in actual fact they cost £299.4 million a year. A hell of a lot more than the Irish presidency( who incidentally was elected) then.

TheOriginal a perfectly fair point, the way that certain papers portray people who rely on, not substantial by any stretch of the imagination, benefits for whatever reason and then fawn (and I'm sorry but that is the only word that can describe the sycophantic coverage in some papers) over the royals is bizarre.

It's funny how the word entitled is thrown around mn forums but never in relation to the royal family.

The royal family elitist, born to rule, undemocratic, outdated values. What's not to like?