Bbc headline Princess Kate passes PADI In Mustique is not news

[elizadolittlechoc]

Or is it that I am so proud of my own daughter for working lots of shifts in student bars whilst studying for end of year exams, to pay for her PADI in UK waters, as well as passing the theory, supporting small Britsh businesses, seems slightly worthier? There is bigger news in the world this weekend.

Now, now, SoupDragon.

I have also pointed that (and other possible misapprehensions) out, and the arguments that usually come back...

Just wait..

Having said that, no-one has bothered to reply directly

Another bloody holiday..this time from maternity leave. Bet the kids stayed at home with nannies .

As far as I am aware, I pay for (at least) all Royal security. Which is a not inconsiderable bill...

That may not be as true as is often said. It depends on how you see The Sovereign Grant. It consolidates the funding previously provided through the "Civil List and the Property Services, Communications and Information and Royal Travel Grants-in-aid" so the burden on us as individuals is far less than some people think. And, as that money is used to pay for official engagements, we aren't paying for their holidays.

there is no misinformation of the civil list. We throw money at them for very little benefit to us. That's it. What more is there to it? On top of that, there is the Duchy of Cornwall.

However you want to spin it, they are different from you and me and have different privileges and rights. They are different by law. They have different taxation exemptions, they have different funding systems, everything is different.

I thought that first was entirely clear... you sound jealous. No matter how much you try not to, you do!

The question is why aren't you jealous? Are you happy for the government to recognize one particular family as being intrinsically worth more than others?

I am certainly envious of their wealth. While I struggle to pay a mortgage in London, they have money thrown at them by me and other people like me. But that isn't why I dislike monarchy. Unlike bankers, whose wealth I also wouldn't mind, it's the RF privilege which really gets me crazy. Unlike a banker, they different by law. That's what gets me.

I'd be happy with the RF once their special privileges and status are revoked. Once they become one of us, the "jealousy argument" won't apply.

I was under the impression that, I n the case of William & Kate, you actually aren't paying for them.

their principle residence was renovated from moneys from the sovereign grant. You are paying for that.

Not any more, BT. Some big changes were made last year.

Now it will come from the grant, which some say is what the tax payer pays and others say is what the allocated 15% of the Crown Estate revenue pays for. It depends on how you view the Crown Estate.

1. Belongs to us, as do all of the revenue raised
2. Given to us as long as we used some of the revenue to support the royals, therefore costs us nowt.

Or some other variation.

Oh well, if you can all assure me that I do not contribute a penny to any aspect at all of the Royal Family's existence then I wilthdraw that part of my objection to them. The "opiate of the masses" objection, however, remains.

I was under the impression that, I n the case of William & Kate, you actually aren't paying for them.
Just because they don't receive a direct income off the civil list (or whatever they want to call it these days) doesn't mean we aren't paying for them. Prince Charles funds their lifestyle with money he is allowed to receive from the Duchy of Cornwall. One way or another everything they get (including their £4.5 million refurbishment for their 20 room apartment comes from us.

We throw money at them for very little benefit to us. That's it. What more is there to it? On top of that, there is the Duchy of Cornwall. You forgot Lancaster. But read my last post for my take on it. We do not know the full detail of the civil list, even one you have read the Household accounts, there are some omissions, probably for very good and obvious reasons.

However you want to spin it, they are different from you and me and have different privileges and rights. They are different by law. They have different taxation exemptions, they have different funding systems, everything is different. Yes! Some of that also comes from the agreement made re Crown Estate. Lots of that is changing, every year.

The question is why aren't you jealous? Are you happy for the government to recognize one particular family as being intrinsically worth more than others? Well, the second half of that does not necessarily follow from the first. But: I am not jealous as it does not cross my mind to waste any energy howling at the moon. No emotion I evince will change the current reality. I don't care how the government, or anyone else, values me. Again, it would be a waste of time being unhappy with it. I pick my political battles and fight them in a more meaningful manner. I find that bottom lip trembling has little effect.

I am certainly envious of their wealth. While I struggle to pay a mortgage in London, they have money thrown at them by me and other people like me. But that isn't why I dislike monarchy. Unlike bankers, whose wealth I also wouldn't mind, it's the RF privilege which really gets me crazy. Unlike a banker, they different by law. That's what gets me. Well that is your choice. I am sure your life would be happier if you could get over it, if you could better value what you do have.

I'd be happy with the RF once their special privileges and status are revoked. Once they become one of us, the "jealousy argument" won't apply. Yes, and I would be very happy if all benefits and credits were removed and everyone had to live off their own efforts.

Doesn't sound anywhere near as pleasant that way, does it?

If you want equality and revocation of any privilege it should apply equally to all. Not just at the object of your ire.

That is why I said upthread, we do, as a society, need to discuss this. But not with such splenetic emotion or with any information being supplied cryptically.

I can't BT. That is what irritates me. You can read around, look at the Household accounts, read all the information that is out there. But there are always cryptic sentences, statements seemingly at odds with others. A permanent obfuscation, it seems.

All sides of the argument do it. I would no more trust the figures given by that Republican lot than I would the apparent official guesstimates.

All I am saying is that when threads go off like this, many people make the same emotive statements, not really knowing if they are true or not.

You forgot Lancaster. But read my last post for my take on it. We do not know the full detail of the civil list, even one you have read the Household accounts, there are some omissions, probably for very good and obvious reasons.

Not knowing the full details is an argument for shutting it down, not continually fund it.

If you want equality and revocation of any privilege it should apply equally to all. Not just at the object of your ire.

you seem to be making the argument that either we should all be on our own, or we should keep the current system, warts and all. That's a false dichotomy. There is no connection between the welfare system and the monarchy. Indeed, I am not suggesting that they be thrown in a pit and buried. They too should have access to whatever welfare provisions are generally provided should they need it. That's entirely consistent with no one gets special privileges.

No emotion I evince will change the current reality.

sure it can. If you are unhappy with it, you can change it. become a member of the growing ranks of republicans. change can happen.

Not knowing the full details is an argument for shutting it down, not continually fund it. I am sure there is much in the field of science that would disagree.

you seem to be making the argument that either we should all be on our own Nope, just pointing out that your argument is weak. It must be for you to make such assumptions about my thoughts. My comments re welfare was intended to show you that your opinion, like everyone's, is prone to having blindspots. Changing Royalty for Welfare Recipients is an example.

If you are unhappy with it, you can change it. become a member of the growing ranks of republicans. change can happen Nicely cropped, I said I pick my political battles and fight them in a more meaningful manner. I find that bottom lip trembling has little effect. And why would I join another movement that lies in order to effect change? There are other ways. The best, in my opinion, begins with transparency of the real financial set up.

Am I right that you think I support the royal family and think they are great? You would be wrong, as I am sure my posts, taken as a whole, show.

I have huge respect for the monarchy as I don't want an elected head of state (President Cameron anyone?).
However a woman who has had the privilege of the best education money can buy, who has never worked full time is about as bigger waste of space as you can get.

Who is this "Princess Kate"? Never heard of her.

I am sure there is much in the field of science that would disagree.

I am sure you are wrong.

This isn't science. We are talking about funding. With any other body, we decide whether our money is being well spent.

Nope, just pointing out that your argument is weak. It must be for you to make such assumptions about my thoughts. My comments re welfare was intended to show you that your opinion, like everyone's, is prone to having blindspots. Changing Royalty for Welfare Recipients is an example.

Apparently, my assumptions on your thoughts were bang on. As clarified by you, you were conflating welfare and support for the RF, which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, not morally, economically or politically. There is no blind spot. If you can't see the difference between welfare and supporting the RF, then you really need a reality check.

I have huge respect for the monarchy as I don't want an elected head of state (President Cameron anyone?).

don't like President Cameron? Good, do your best to keep him out. If enough people don't like him, he won't become the president.

Don't like King Charles? Well, too bad, suck it up.

Afternoon! Glad to see Telegraph has sent reporters to gather facts from Beverly Hill's Jewellers on holiday in Mustique. Nothing in Guardian. Interesting how the story dropped off completely from BBC website home page today and updated page refers to Telegraph reports-not how it was reported yesterday!

I have huge respect for the monarchy as I don't want an elected head of state (President Cameron anyone?). You say you don't want an elected head of state, but you're happy with an unelected one? Why would it be Cameron anyway.

a) why do we need a head of state?
b) if we do need one what's wrong with an elected one?

Who is this "Princess Kate"? Never heard of her.
Well it's less of a mouthful than The Duchess of Cambridge isn't it. It's only the royals who bestow these ridiculous titles on themselves. What the hell Kate has to do with Cambridge is anyone's guess. Why we should we play along with their inflated egos.

b) if we do need one what's wrong with an elected one?

there are negatives. It will go from a lame, inconsequential, expensive office, to a somewhat powerful, politicized one. If we need it, it sounds like a good trade to me.

Nice to see you are now replying to more than 1 poster as though they are the same person, keepitsimple.

And I am happy to confirm that you have misunderstood me, again.

BT, a) is a bit odd. Someone's got to be in charge. How would we know who to blame if there wasn't a figurehead?
b) Nothing, as long as we also get to define their remit and to absolutely refuse to allow a French, Italian, Russian, Korean [add your own favourites here] model.

But before we make any changes I'd like to ensure we don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

Countries without monarchies seem to be just as corrupt and wasteful, tbh. Has anyone got in mind what the alternative should look like? And what should be done with the palaces, land, people and houses?

Countries without monarchies seem to be just as corrupt and wasteful, tbh. Has anyone got in mind what the alternative should look like? And what should be done with the palaces, land, people and houses?

That's a pretty broad statement. But corruption isn't the issue. As far as the monarchies go, ours isn't overly corrupt. By that I mean that their funding is relatively transparent, though could be more transparent.

But they don't really need to be corrupt. Most of us happily give them money. We ask to.

But just because societies are corrupt, doesn't mean that we shouldn't battle corruption where we see it. in any case, they are two different questions.

And I am happy to confirm that you have misunderstood me, again.

how so?

Someone's got to be in charge. How would we know who to blame if there wasn't a figurehead?

Many countries with a head of state don't have it as a figurehead position. The US rolls head of government and head of state into one office, and the french president has real powers.