Princess of Wales ad family

[Desperate2023]

Wishing, Princess Kate a speedy and full recovery from me and my family.
Looking forward to Kate and William doing their bit for the UK soon.
A great family that is adored around the world.

Maybe he just wants to be around for her?

@Fringepolitics294 I'm sure you DH would have preferred to stay with you and your young family at home if he could have rather than pulling a 60 hour week?

If people can afford it why not? There will be no retirement at 60/70 for either of them so 🤷‍♀️.

Yes that’s a different view on it I guess, and it’s pointless speculating without being properly informed, but it seems odd to me when they have so many staff who could be with her.

The main difference being of course that my dh’s salary isn’t funded by the tax payer.

@Fringepolitics294 no offence but your situation is not remotely comparable to that of the POW family.

Staff <> Family

I can’t pay someone to love my pets no matter how well they may take care of them.

Why would you want someone with the desire and ability to be there for their wife and children during a trying time to have staff do it instead?

Yes that is precisely my point. Me and most of the population. Most people don’t have a choice whether to take time off or not.

But if you are funded by taxpayers you can apparently.

* Disclaimer: if PoW was seriously ill then of course I wouldn’t begrudge him the time off at all.

But if it was a routine op then I think he should have been able to continue working. Especially when working doesn’t involve over an hour’s commute and all of his cooking, cleaning, and washing, and transport and admin is done for him. And he has staff at home looking after his wife and dc.

Sorry if that seems unsympathetic but that’s my viewpoint.

I guess I am surprised that so few people seem to share it.

He’s back at work now so it doesn’t matter but it all seems a bit strange to me.

Well because if you are funded by the taxpayer you have a responsibility to work really hard I think.

Every humane organization allows for leave during periods of family illness. It’s encoded in law in many countries now.

Would you prefer otherwise?

@Fringepolitics294 you do know how much you pay in taxes towards the RF don't you?

I would rather that than pay for some of the other stuff that some people in this country get who do bugger all.

That is such a great idea!

Well because if you are funded by the taxpayer you have a responsibility to work really hard I think.

I hope you are regularly checking in with your local MP to make sure he is working hard and not slacking! 😊

I was funded by the taxpayer in my first career and am in this one.

I’ve never taken time off (bar leave quota) in either position in very many years. I regularly worked/work 70 odd hour weeks -sometimes (rarely) more.

The extra cover I provide on top of my own hours is usually to cover for sick leave, childcare reasons and compassionate leave.

Recent events at home mean that I just might have to do the same as PW briefly and although I’m managing at the moment, I give not one shiny one if someone says that I should be working instead of looking after either parent because taxpayers think so.

If the average is, for example, 5 days sick/off a year, then PW can have my share if we are all under the taxpayer umbrella.

@AliceOlivehas made excellent points in her posts. Read those.

I don't think William does work for the taxpayer - he's funded by the Duchy of Cornwall!

Maybe it's only public duties he hasn't been doing?

Compassionate leave (which covers this kind of situation) has been a benefit at the discretion of your line manager at every job I’ve had, both public and private sector.

I once had a team member take 2 weeks’ leave which they flexed over a month by working half- days from home. we don’t know William hasn’t been doing that, do we? He’s just not done public appearances.

I think we should all work really hard. Then we should be allowed the time we need to care for ourselves and our families. I strongly support of people in non-traditional roles having extra time off as needed. PoW is not a 9-5 job.

I’m sure if he was funded by the change I found down the back of my sofa, some would say it wasn’t good enough even then.

We don’t know what ails his wife, his dad has just been diagnosed with cancer and if no one can find a bit of compassion in their pocket for that then hell mend them.

It's the same mentality as those customers who act up in shops then say " I pay your wages!"
I accord it the same amount of respect as that sentiment gets from me .... I.e none!

So Republicans don't @ me for the following - I know that those who don't want a monarchy at all consider both Duchy money as 'taxpayer' money but in the following I'm talking specifically about current direct taxpayer contribution and the concept of the monarch and heir (and other working royals) being a 'job'.

The only direct taxpayer-paid money from Government to the Monarchy is the Sovereign Grant - which is used for the upkeep of the Crown estates which are kept in trust for the country, expenses used by royal family members when they are on official duties, and all the official receptions, investitures, garden parties etc.

If money isn't spent during the year it goes into a reserve fund which is monitored and controlled by the Royal Trustees which is the PM, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

So PoW or the heir to the throne if not the PoW is less a job and more of a position. The only actual requirement is to stay informed and ready to become head of state, and while waiting support the current head of state with any duties the monarch needs you to perform.

So if William takes a month off, he's not receiving a taxpayer salary for not doing public engagements, in fact he's spending less of the sovereign grant in doing so.

The SG's business accounts are monitored and audited by the National Audit Office and laid before Parliament.

I haven't looked into how detailed those accounts are or whether they are available in detail to the public but that's what I would like to see as a process of more accountability. To see exactly how much money is spent on preserving the Crown assets vs investitures, vs official receptions vs working royals travel and expenses etc.

So if William takes a month off, he's not receiving a taxpayer salary for not doing public engagements, in fact he's spending less of the sovereign grant in doing so

What a shame the SG can't go down then. It can't. If we don't see any of them for the rest of the year, they still get the same.

*Sorry if that seems unsympathetic but that’s my viewpoint.

I guess I am surprised that so few people seem to share it*

I certainly share this viewpoint. William has a long standing reputation for doing as little as possible. It's not simply every last household task which is covered at the click of a finger but any household emergencies will be dealt with by someone else too and what does the full time nanny do? Or is she supremely idle too? Seems like he leapt at the chance to bunk off and thought the brilliant pr line of juggling childcare etc would work some magic and that everyone would forget how lazy he is. I think they might gain a few popularity points if they gave up this lame spin that they are relatable, because they just aren't.

Well, the reserve can't get too big apparently so I'm not sure what happens if the money isn't consistently spent.

Although the government website suggests that if the reserve is 'full' which indicates that money is not being spent then the SG can be reduced.

From the government website:

If the whole of the Sovereign Grant is not spent in a given year, the surplus is paid into a Reserve Fund, controlled by the Royal Trustees. The amount that may accumulate in the Reserve Fund is limited in line with the provisions set out in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. This gives the Royal Trustees the power to set a lower level of Sovereign Grant than the formula would otherwise generate.

Interestingly if the Heir is not the PoW - I guess when it's a female heir who doesn't inherit the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Cornwall money goes to the Monarch but then the SG is adjusted to take that into account

From the government website:

• if the heir is not the Duke of Cornwall and is over 18, the heir is to receive a grant based on Duchy revenues; the Monarch (who in these circumstances becomes the Duke) receives the Duchy revenues, and the Sovereign Grant is reduced by an equal amount (so in effect, the heir would receive the Duchy income)
• if the Duke of Cornwall is a minor, 90% of the revenues of the Duchy go to the Monarch and the Sovereign Grant is reduced accordingly

So in theory is it possible to 'refund' that money to the government, and reduce the SG total?

Thank you for another interesting post wordler

So in theory is it possible to 'refund' that money to the government, and reduce the SG total?

I thought a law was passed that it would never go down? Back in John Major's day.
But what do I know!

@goodbyestranger I agree.

I don't blame him for taking the time off, I think most of us would do the same. But I wish they would quit the "we're so relatable" crap. The palace blatantly briefed out the poor chap juggling childcare stuff which is just silly. Just say he is taking time off because he wants to be there for his wife and children, stop pretending he is some ordinary Joe trying to get the pasta on while his children bug him to go on their tablets and play Roblox

But then it works on some people - I see posters all the time saying things like "oh they only have a four bedroom house so they do everything for themselves" when it's blindingly obvious that very close to their four bedroom house are a load of staff cottages..

I think what this is based on is that the SG is calculated based on the Crown Estate profits - a percentage calculation formula - but that means that if the profits suffer badly for an unexpected reason like Covid etc, the calculation might create a figure which would then not meet the actual expenses needed.

So in the event that profits are lower, the same figure from the previous year is used rather than a reduced amount.

That's separate from if the money is not used and left in a reserve on a regular basis, then the SG can be recalculated because it's been set to high.

So I assume they would take the formula calculation and then deduct an amount based on how high the reserve had become.

But it would be nice to see these figures all produced clearly on a public website on a yearly basis so we all know what is going on.

Excellent post @wordler ! Very informative and factual! Thanks