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.

Original poster

To To be appalled at all the royal palaces.

279 replies

purplehazed · 04/01/2016 22:26

I've just watched Ant and Dec with Prince Charles. The sheer opulence of those numerous palaces. Just how many do they need? So so wrong imo.
Surely in these times of massive hardship for so many it is time they were scaled right back.

OP posts:
Want2bSupermum · 06/01/2016 14:50

I live in the US and I am currently in the Turks and Caicos islands (a British territory). The Royals are very respected on this island and I've seen more pictures of the Queen here than I have in the UK!

Living just outside of NYC I have seen the effect the Duchess of Cambridge has had on the retail industry. Reiss and LK Bennett have been able to build a strong business here from the publicity generated by the Duchess.

The Royal family also set in a lot when it comes to diplomatic issues. The recent charm offensive launched on the Chinese PM when they visited is one example and the Queen hosting the Olympic committee when selecting London as the venue for the 2012 games is another.

The Royal Palaces are open to the public at various times of the year and if you want to visit buy a ticket. I've been inside a couple and I don't think they are that opulent myself when you compare them to the homes of others of similar status.

redstrawberry10 · 06/01/2016 15:04

Reiss and Bennett have been able to build strong business in NYC? Talk about value for money!

Want2bSupermum · 06/01/2016 15:54

Not just NYC but in other cities across America too. I was shocked to see the Dallas store for LK Bennett buzzing. They also do a roaring online trade. When I say 'here' I mean America not NYC.

I was here the day they married and every American in my office stopped to watch the ceremony in my office. It was a huge event, much bigger than most people on here seem to realize. I don't recall the other Royal family marriages garnering as much attention (thinking of the Danish Prince marrying the Australian Princess or the recent Monaco marriage).

Original poster
purplehazed · 06/01/2016 16:07

But Supermum it's irrelevant if loads of people in your office stopped to watch a royal wedding. Why wouldn't they anyway, it's an extraganza. The fact remains it cost the UK economy a lot of money.

OP posts:
LaurieMarlow · 06/01/2016 16:22

Supermum, if the royal family didn't exist other individuals would fill these roles - celebrities and so forth. I don't see why I should pay taxes to fund Reiss brand ambassadors or bread and circus weddings to entertain the world.

If the RF are so important to the US they should look into setting up their own free loading dynasty.

Want2bSupermum · 06/01/2016 16:34

purple They watched via television. The networks here in the US paid millions to the BBC for the rights to broadcast the Royal Wedding. To say that is cost the UK a lot of money is only half the story because it also generated huge revenues for the UK just through the sale of television rights.

Laurie Reiss and LK Bennett are just two of the many British companies the Duchess of Cambridge has supported. There are more. You thinking your taxes is paying for them to be brand ambassadors is a little bit short sighted. I am quite sure the taxes paid by Reiss and LK Bennett (corporate, employee and employer taxes as well as business rates etc) on their increased profits is far more than what taxpayers have spent on keeping the Duchess of Cambridge.

Personally my only complaint about the Royal Family is that I think the Duchess of Cambridge should have a better charity profile. I understand she is in the middle of toddler/baby hell but I think she should be doing more charity work once Princess Charlotte turns one (end of maternity leave so to speak).

longtimelurker101 · 06/01/2016 16:37

I don't think one royal being a brand ambassador for British companies is worth the money and in a country where the current government talk about having a smaller public sector it is not for the UK tax payer to pay for it.

Weak chinned? Pah, every monarchist I've met is either and utter drivelling idiot who buys into the rubbish that we have seen doled out here, or someone who has a vested interest in it themselves, or inbred (like the royals).

longtimelurker101 · 06/01/2016 16:38

"I understand she is in the middle of toddler/baby hell"

Yes it must be hell to live in a palace, with servants and two nannies to help you. Not exactly like the rest of us!

Original poster
purplehazed · 06/01/2016 16:46

If the Americans want to pay millions to watch such drivel, more fool them. They probably looked on it all as one big pantomime. It's no justification for keeping them. The money lost to the UK economy for that wedding far outweighed all that anyway.

OP posts:
Inkanta · 06/01/2016 16:49

'The sheer opulence of those numerous palaces. Just how many do they need? So so wrong imo.'

I agree OP. Very wrong. Times are changing though. Are all these palaces still used by the royal family or do they live more modestly?

Milanisabadman · 06/01/2016 16:51

YANBU at all

redstrawberry10 · 06/01/2016 16:59

I am quite sure the taxes paid by Reiss and LK Bennett (corporate, employee and employer taxes as well as business rates etc) on their increased profits is far more than what taxpayers have spent on keeping the Duchess of Cambridge.

That's pure speculation without basis. If we were free to do anything with that money, I doubt economists would recommend giving it to Kate as a brand ambassador. Putting it that way makes it sound even more absurd. All you are doing is giving everyone a silver lining to ill spent money.

LaurieMarlow · 06/01/2016 17:00

Just for context, Holyrood in Edinburgh is occupied by the RF for only 1 week a year.

Disgraceful waste.

Original poster
purplehazed · 06/01/2016 17:02

The think isInkanta no they're not used all year, that's what makes it worse. Some are only used for so many weeks of the year but cost millions to maintain and staffed. The only ones who live modestly are the staff, most of whom are on the national minimum wage.

OP posts:
Inkanta · 06/01/2016 17:03

The Duchesse of Cambridge gets a lot of stick on Mumsnet. What's that all about??

Inkanta · 06/01/2016 17:07

Purplehazed - Yes you're right.

longtimelurker101 · 06/01/2016 17:08

"I'm quite sure the taxes paid by Reiss and LK Bennett (corporate, employee and employer taxes as well as business rates etc)on their increased profits is far more than what taxpayers have spent on keeping the Duchess of Cambridge."

Riess made a pre tax profit of £2.9 million in 2013, which they credited to the "Kate Uplift". The Royal family costs us £300 Million a year, Kate herself is living in a 20 room "apartment" in a palace, with servants, round the clock police protection, and which got a £4.5 million upgrade gifted to them by the state. So yeah, I reckon they haven't paid more in tax than she costs.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 06/01/2016 17:14

well even for a republican like myself I can see that The Queen is dedicated to her role

DOC could do a lot more in her role, we were fed from the beginning how they would be different, they would not have staff (her lady in waiting was kept out of the picture), he would work (well he returned soon after the backlash of his year off but of course to something he really loves to do). she has done so little and did so little before she was married so the assumption made is that she is pampered and lazy

I haven't seen anything that she has done to make me change my mind

tomatodizzy · 06/01/2016 17:16

I don't think you're being unreasonable either. Another thing that boils my blood is groundrent. The Earl of Cadogan and the Duke of Westminster get paid for EVERY flat in Chelsea and Westminster.....doesn't bother people because it can last for a hundred years, but think about the maths behind that, it shouldn't be legal! England urgently needs some serious land reforms, it's still feudal.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 06/01/2016 17:17

waits for the cries off she has two young children

yes she does and nannies on hand 24 hours a day (please do not try to make out it is just as hard when you have a nanny) and other staff to attend to their every need

Inkanta · 06/01/2016 17:24

Well how hands on is Kate with her 2 children? Does anyone know? They are not at school so who is looking after them? I had assumed Kate is with them the majority of the the time.

OP posts:
Want2bSupermum · 06/01/2016 18:13

longtime That is one year and one company. Both Lk Bennett and Reiss have multiple stores here in the US and have built a brand that has become frequented by Americans in a way that Joseph and SpaNK were not. I'm sure if the Duchess of Cambride wore a bit of Joseph or promoted the SpaNK store the locations that were opened up in NJ would have been a lot more successful.

I do think the Duchess of Cambridge should be out working a whole lot more or there should be better communication regarding what her schedule is. I've noticed Harry is doing quite a bit but it's all kept quiet until after the event. I can't help but think it's a security issue.

BTW Harry is loved by the Americans ever since his naughty pictures in Vegas. Best thing ever for the Royal Family and it made them relevant to younger Americans.

regenerationfez · 06/01/2016 18:19

Well the nannies must do something, otherwise why have them? That's a lot of hanging around if she's doing the lions share of childcare! Housekeepers fair enough. My dream is to have a live in housekeeper Grin

Inkanta · 06/01/2016 18:29

Does she have lots of nannies? I have looked it up but can't find information on it, except that she uses a nanny when doing public engagements.