Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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:
BitchPeas · 08/09/2014 14:51

OP, If I started a thread saying....

Aibu to not want to pay for another scrounger? The lady down the road has 9 kids already from 4 different dads, she is pregnant again!! She's never worked a day in her life, neither have any of the dad's! Benefits, schooling and NHS for 10 kids!!! How disgusting, I don't want to support this with the taxes I pay. Why is it my problem??

What would you say??

polarpercy · 08/09/2014 14:52

Agree Maisy the pdf I linked in my first post shows the cost in comparison to other European nations with monarchies and those without. There is also the local cost of visits, for security, planning etc. It all adds up and yet so much to do with the royals is shrouded in secrecy and protected from proper scrutiny via the FOIA.

prh47bridge · 08/09/2014 14:55

The Irish get something from the president (i.e. someone who actually performs head of state duties)

And the Queen doesn't?

The Irish president does not have an executive or policy role. S/he decides whether or not to dissolve parliament when the Irish PM requests it, appoints the PM and, on his/her recommendation, other members of the government, judges, etc. The Irish president signs legislation into law, receives heads of state when they visit Ireland, makes state visits abroad and undertakes a wide range of engagements.

The above is drawn from the Irish president's website. It sounds remarkably similar to the role of the Queen. The only thing I can see that is different is that the Irish President can refer a bill to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality (but not money bills or bills to amend the constitution).

However, I must own up to a mistake. The figure I found that appeared to be the cost of the Irish Presidency is actually the cost of the Irish Presidency of the EU. So I withdraw that comparison. I can't find a directly comparable figure for the Irish presidency. I can see Irish president's salary but s/he doesn't have to fund all the other costs that the Queen does so that isn't comparable with the Sovereign Grant.

WildThong · 08/09/2014 14:56

bitch I said more or less the same thing upthread..

Go on I dare you to start one ....

BetteronScreen · 08/09/2014 14:56

I'm waiting for the channel 4 documentary 'buckingham Benefits' or somethingHmm nah, won't happen the royalist, neo liberal press have it all sewn up.

writtenguarantee · 08/09/2014 14:56

Aibu to not want to pay for another scrounger? The lady down the road has 9 kids already from 4 different dads, she is pregnant again!! She's never worked a day in her life, neither have any of the dad's! Benefits, schooling and NHS for 10 kids!!! How disgusting, I don't want to support this with the taxes I pay. Why is it my problem??

I'd say YANBU. And whilst I think it is an apt analogy, I am surprised from your tone that you do.

walkonthewildside · 08/09/2014 14:57

I think the OPs thread is a play on the threads that say exactly that, BitchPeas.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 14:59

Yes, I assumed this thread was just parodying the kinds of thread/people who say exactly that!

writtenguarantee · 08/09/2014 15:00

And the Queen doesn't?

The Irish president does not have an executive or policy role. S/he decides whether or not to dissolve parliament when the Irish PM requests it, appoints the PM and, on his/her recommendation, other members of the government, judges, etc. The Irish president signs legislation into law, receives heads of state when they visit Ireland, makes state visits abroad and undertakes a wide range of engagements.

you can spot the difference right? The irish president did have to earn the job of head of state. He/she has those powers because the people elected them.

the queen just has those powers. and so will charles (I shudder).

JanineStHubbins · 08/09/2014 15:01

An important difference, prh, is that Irish people vote for their president, and there is a fixed term. It's essentially democratic, in a way that a hereditary monarchy is not.

trufflehunterthebadger · 08/09/2014 15:29

They would still come with or without the royals, as they do in the most visited country on earth...France

The french presidency is the most expensive head of state in europe. Three times more expensive than the royal family in fact

Knittingbat · 08/09/2014 15:31

Thanks sliced, hope you're doing okay.

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 15:42

Maisie
Upthread you posted sarcastically that it was magnanimous of Charles to pay for his family and pay taxes. I wasn't suggesting it was. I was saying the fact that he does makes the bitching about his family being a drain on taxpayers incorrect. As I suspect you know.

The Duchy is his at present - it may have come to him through a decidedly dodgy route historically, but the same applies to much inherited wealth.

I am not a great fan of Charles, but I do like to have my facts straight!

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 15:47

truffle......that all depends on whether you want to believe the 'official' figure of the cost of the monarchy or the true figure. If you count the the cost of what they deprive the treasury of because of their income from the royal estates the figure overall in what they cost the country is £299.4 million. Whichever way you look at it the facts are.....if the UK became a republic tomorrow all the income from the vast royal estates would immediately revert back to the country, so therefore the £70 million that the French presidency costs is a hell of a lot cheaper.

MehsMum · 08/09/2014 15:58

I haven't rtwt, but OP, YABU.

Royalty is a bit like democracy: it's the least worst system we have. So the Irish and the French and so on have a president. Who do you suppose we'd get for ours? Blair? Any other suggestions which wouldn't have half the populace puking in the gutter for one reason or another?

At least with the Royals most people are happy to let them get on with it. There's a nice sense of continuity there too...

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 16:03

Are you speaking for everyone there Mehsmum?

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 16:03

You might get Blair, but you wouldn't have him until he died, and then Euan, and then Euan's oldest son, would you?

And at least with Blair, people might 'puke in the gutter' if someone reinstated him without election, but he did actually win the election with a landslide. He was democratically elected to govern.

BetteronScreen · 08/09/2014 16:05

A president would be elected. Plenty of people have disliked pm's including the current one. At least you can kick them out every 5 yrs.

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 16:08

ajand......if you like to have your facts right you should know that the duchy isn't his now, he is allowed to have a percentage of the profits. If for instance the country decided to do away with the monarchy he would never again get a single penny from the duchy? Surely if it was his this wouldn't be so?

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 16:11

No it wouldn't Maisy - some of the Estates (Balmoral and Sandringham for eg) - belong to the Queen.

With regard to the Crown Estates, they are operated and the Queen receives a grant from them, but all surplus funds go to the Treasury. So although I am sure there would be more surplus funds without the Monarchy, it really wouldn't be as simple as saying 'all the income from the vast royal estates would immediately revert back to the country'.

And God only knows what a presidency/head of state would cost - certainly no guarantee that it would be cheaper, and could be a lot more.

For the people saying that tourists just visit to see the Palaces - half of the appeal is their connection with the Royal Family.

JanineStHubbins · 08/09/2014 16:12

So keep the palaces. Get rid of the royal family.

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 16:13

It is in effect 'in trust' for the Monarch's eldest son.

BetteronScreen · 08/09/2014 16:13

Politicians would never give us the opportunity to do away with the monarchy. I doubt Charles worries about his finances.

Maisyblue · 08/09/2014 16:21

ajand..... I should have been more clear, I was only talking about the crown estates! the income of which is enormous. About the tourist thing.....more people actually visit legoland than the royal palaces. Of the ones that do visit the palaces....they're come with or without the royals(as they do in France) it's the history that counts.

Greengrow · 08/09/2014 16:29

It's wonderful news, except the poor thing has that awful sickness again. I know how bad that is as I had something similar for the first 3 months with the twins, all day and every day. Very different from normal morning sickness.