£180.00???????????????

[Undercoverbanana]

I am neither pro or anti royals.

But £180.00 for a buzz cut (William). My DP buzzes his own head every fortnight in the garden for free.

As I understand it (prepared to be told that I'm wrong about this) but don't they get some kind of state handouts? Is this a reasonable use of our money?

I know they have to live in horrible old houses that probably cost a fortune to heat and maintain and I shudder to think about the council tax, but £180.00 for a buzz????

NHS? Schools? Social care? Roads? Potholes? Police? National security? Investment in environmental products - replacing plastics etc? Charities? Legal aid for those disenfranchised? Social justice campaigns ........ Sorry ....... You get the idea.

AIBU????

Shortish back and sides and a polish please my good man!

I think the problem is not so much whether the money is his or the taxpayers, more it's incredibly insensitive to be spending that on a haircut that could be done for free at home when there are "subjects" living on the breadline.

OMG. He's just spent that money on a business, putting money in the ecomony.

And how is it 'insensitive'? Did he take out an ad in The Tmes boasting he could afford that for a haircut? No. It was leasked somehow.

People on MN spend more than that at the hairdresser! What would you like them to do??

I hope you make regular donations to homeless charities etc if you're so concerned about other people.

Of for gods sake, the ignorance is astounding. It's money from the duchy estates that supports them and just like the crown estate money, it's not 'theirs' it belongs to 'the crown'. If we abolished the monarchy tomorrow, they wouldn't take that money with them, so in effect yes, the nation bankrolls them.

It is an outrageous use of money, but the nation as a whole seems happy enough with it. I think that's appalling, but I'm not the majority.

And I think I read somewhere that Charles duchy originals business has never turned a profit. He's not a natural business man.

If someone posted 'AIBU to get a £180 haircut when I can easily afford it from my own money that I inherited from my mum' they'd be told to crack on and enjoy their new do. No different.

@MrsMcW

No, the royals DON'T get state handouts, anymore than they get lots of freebie clothes or jewellery which is the other common misconception. They get a salary paid from their relevant Duchy and have to buy their own things like anyone else! Really winds me up when people whinge about royals sponging off the taxpayer... angry taxpayer money only goes towards expenses that are necessary for their 'jobs' (so state banquets, upkeep of residences or security) - any personal expenses come out of their own pocket. If William wants to blow £180 on a haircut, it's no-one's business but his own.

This 100 X over.

I get sick of the whingeing and moaning about the Royals being 'funded by the taxpayer,' from people usually ranting lefties who don't know what they're talking about.

I also find - quite often - when I hear people moaning about 'taxpayers money' being spent on the Royals, that the people saying this don't even pay any tax, or very little anyway. Generally, people who are high tax earners, are hardworking, high-earning career people who have better things to do than moan about the Royals spending THEIR money!

What's more, I don't actually feel that £180 is a MASSIVE amount to spend on a haircut. Yeah, I wouldn't spend it and would probably spend no more than £17 on a cut, and up to £55-60 on highlights, (and put an amount like £180 towards a holiday.) But I do know some people who spend £90-£110 quite regularly on a visit to the hairdresser, (maybe 4-5 times a year.) So I don't feel £180 is THAT much for a Royal.

But yeah the Royal bashing (as well as rich-celebrity bashing,) is boring and pathetic, and often comes from people doing fuck-all with their life, and is often borne out of jealousy and bitterness.

I also find people who slate the Royals, (and rich and famous people,) do the same to anyone who has anything they don't have.

The Royals cost us bugger all- something like 50p each a year. This is for the maintenance of the palaces etc. They bring in millions through tourists which goes to pay for the NHS and all the other stuff people want funded.

You only have to look at the lifestyle of someone like the Blairs to be see what would happen if we had a Republic.

The Queen is one of the most frugal people on the planet and her own clothes and houses are part of her job which she is still doing at almost 92.

In addition, as several posters have said, that £180 was paid to someone for doing his hair; so someone benefited from that money, so quit ya belly-aching!

*Rejoice that someone has just received £180.

Change the way you view how life works.*

There's a perfect example of the trickle down myth. If Someone is charging £180 I suspect it's not the only exorbitant haircut they will be doing, and they will hardly be struggling.

And as @PollyPerky said, the Royals cost only about 50p per person per year anyway, and they bring in WAY more revenue than they cost.

Sinister, so you want hairdressers to struggle? Or should we not be pleased that some hairdresser has found a niche market and is doing badly/well/extremly well (we really don't know which).

It's not like Wills rocked up at Ron's barber's though in his trackies via the number 31 bus is it? The said hairdresser will have had extra time and expenses related to getting to Wills to do his hair, getting through security and all that palava.

Seems an appropriate cost all things considered.

I can’t get worked up about what the Royals spend - in this case the hairdresser must be laughing all the way to the bank. What did made me cross yesterday though was the photo I saw on Instagram taken whilst Megan and Harry were in Wales of a lady in red ( no idea who she was) curtsying whilst shaking Megan’s hand. I’ve no problem with the handshake but the curtesy was a step too far for me.

Just of course I don't want hairdresser to struggle, or anyone else for that matter. But plenty do. I don't care what rich people are prepared to pay for niche services but I hate the fact that it is used to perpetuate the myth of the "trickle down" economy. The money generally goes into one pocket. It doesn't help the people that are really struggling but is often used as an excuse to abandon the welfare state.

Plus he doesn't have much hair left to cut anyway! Did they change by the strand?

I would not be surprised if someone started a thread worrying about Harry and Meghan not being ok with William's hair TBH IMight.

There is actually a Royal Family topic, but I imagine that's for Royalists not people moaning in general.

If you are going to start a Royal thread it has to be in AIBU really doesn't it? For maximum frothing.

Some naive stuff on here.

The particular branch of the royal family to which William belongs managed to accrue a massive wedge by:

1. Not paying tax until very recently, and then only making a voluntary contribution of 25% when they feel like it.
2. Appropriating various income streams, for example snaffling all the money from the estates of people in Cornwall who died intestate with no obvious heir (normally this goes to the Treasury but in the case of the Prince of Wales, aka Duke of Cornwall, it goes to benefit him personally, or he makes charitable donation to things like Gordonstoun School, what that has to do with Cornwall is hard to tell, I am surprised they haven't declared themselves an independent republic given how feudal this all is).
3. Being given masses of land for free that they can leverage and derive an income from; sometimes Crown Estate with money going back to the Treasury but they have cunning ways of directly benefiting personally as well, for example via free grace and favour homes, and
4. More recently, apparently legally nicking the mineral rights beneath many of our freehold homes in case they fancy starting up a bit of fracking in their spare time.

So it's only because we keep giving them new and exciting ways of generating an income from things like land, and then not taxing them properly on it, and sometimes even giving them EU £££ per acre as well, which puts them in a position where they can afford £180 buzz cuts on a whim.

Their incredibly slick PR machine, revamped in the 1990s, distracts you from such feudal things by making sure you see them ribbon snipping and adopting 'causes' such as mental health, elephants, youth issues and architecture. Not to mention all the cute pictures of offspring, where they notionally sell the rights for charidee, but which are also all about promoting the brand of 'The Firm' (and why do you think they call it 'The Firm')?

It's a mafia without machine guns (not in the palace anyway).

By the way, today's interesting fact. Did you know their real surname is the German name 'Wettin'? The Windsor thing is a very recent invention. For obviously reasons (it went through a great many other incarnations as well).

(I personally think we should all drop the curtseys now - I have had to do it myself on various occasions, and I can do a lovely curtsey, including one time when I ripped my skirt in front of HM doing a particularly expressive one, but nevertheless it has had its day, quite frankly. If I were queen and head of the C of E in these post Magna Carta days, I would ban them as they are far too close to genuflection for my liking, and the divine right of monarchs is long gone).

He’s got no hair lol

Well said Unicorn
At least he hasn't done a Berlusconi

peanuts, Francois Hollande, the ex balding French president, spent almost 10,000€ per month & the tax payers funded it.
& he says he's a socialist

on hair cuts btw

Really, Boffin? Do you have sources for any of your claims?

Absolutely spot on Boffin.

Where do people think the Crown amassed its huge property and land portfolio from exactly? Most of it was stolen from poor people centuries ago, or bought with taxes that were paid by poor people.

Instead of paying £39m directly from the treasury each year to support the Royal Family, divert it into the NHS and let them use their own money, I suspect the huge number of Royal Engagements might dry up once they weren’t being paid for by the government. Hard working my arse.

And everyone knows that Prince Albert was German and the family name he used was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - the Royal Family decided to change it in 1917 due to anti-German feeling.

That's not new...