The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Other wealthy people are not national symbols, are they?

They should consider the people they represent, or they may not represent them much longer!
Certainly, they need to consider the people they represent and show some sensitivity to them.

However, I think heavy spending by national symbols only really matters if it is seen to be consistent and pervasive--and if the country is mostly extremely poor with a small very wealthy minority. Otherwise, it's likely to be nothing worth getting upset over. If they were jetting off every other week, THEN I could see it being a real problem. As it stands now, it's just something for the media to comment on.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 01-26-2012, 03:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,038
If we look at the hardworking Queen and her consort we can perhaps assume that a 30 year old healthy family member is not sitting around being lazy and unproductive. The heir and his wife are already at an age when many of their contemporaries retire yet they are still waiting for the "job" which at least Charles has trained for his whole life. We don't know any greater details of Camilla's health. There may be lots of planning and education going on behind the scenes for Catherine and her future role. She may be thrust into a more serious role than being the the spouse of the heir of the heir when the Queen decides to slow down, which considering her health may not be far into the future.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 01-26-2012, 04:10 PM
cinrit's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Deep South, United States
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
In-directly they do, apart from William's RAF wage. And that first class holiday to Mustique isn't been paid for on a military salary. Their security, which is on holiday with them is funded by the taxpayer, as the DM pointed out to us the other day.
The security will be paid for no matter where they are. As for the trip, Kate's parents are footing the bill. It is a combination birthday gift for both Kate and her mother.

Aside from his salary from his military job, William must be making quite a bit of interest from the money his mother left him, and I believe the Queen Mother also left him money. If he needs more for day-to-day living, Charles is responsible, through the Duchy of Cornwall, to provide for him. Any expenses that he incurs as part of Royal duties, is reimbursed. So, bottom-line, except for security ... which most of the Royals have (including the York daughters) ... William and Kate are not personally supported by the taxpayers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 01-26-2012, 05:26 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I think it's rubbish. I don't think she will have children until she is forced by either age or external pressures. It will surprise me if she has a child in the next five years.

I hope I am wrong.
Wow, KittyAtlanta. I suppose she could decide not to have children at all, too (and have a lifetime of many being disgruntled with her). I would have assumed that she and William would be planning the heir and the spare configuration, although now that you mention it, if the equal primogeniture thing goes through, whatever sex their first child is - perhaps they'll feel that's enough? Lots of young people today want just 1 child.

But surely they're aware that as 35 approaches, the chances of a series of genetic diseases go up. And they go up each year after 35 (the change between 30 and 35 is negligible). So if they don't start until she's 35, she'll be about 37 or maybe 38 when the next one (if any is born).

I value the perspectives of people on this forum, but I'm wondering what gives people the impression that Kate would be zealously avoiding pregnancy? I would have thought the opposite: that they'd wait to get married until they were ready to try for a baby, as they were enjoying a near-marriage like relationship before she walked down the aisle.

At any rate, as Zonk says, there's no point speculating - although as the issue ties into what is considered "work," it has some pertinence. In the two years before I got pregnant, I did indeed focus on my physical health, de-stressing (avoiding mutations), and making sure I scaled down commitments so that I didn't let people down once the baby came along, as I intended to be a full time mom for as long as I wanted to be a full time mom (although I did take an at home job that I did in the middle of the night or during nap time, I didn't do anything that overlapped with the baby's waking schedule). I think a lot of moms want to be a full time mom. Something about Kate makes me think she's like that.

If they wait 5 years to start trying, I predict it might not be all that easy for her to get pregnant. What a story this is! A page-turner! And we have to wait in real time for the next chapters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 01-26-2012, 05:56 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,962
I agree with your point PrincessKaimi. Women have been sold a bill of goods. Equality be damned, biology rules and the longer they take to start a family the more difficult it can be. And that without looking at the other factors that come into play.

Yes, I suspect that Catherine will want to be a full time mother. If so she will need to start sooner rather than later as the longer she waits the more pressure she will be under to be committed to other things in the charity arena and the less personal time she will have. The personal stress level will go up which will be counter-productive the objective of an heir.

I suggest that everything else is, in reality, secondary. And, should she and William not be blessed with children that, I am certain, would be a personal tragedy for them not a personal choice!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinrit View Post
So, bottom-line, except for security ... which most of the Royals have (including the York daughters) ... William and Kate are not personally supported by the taxpayers.

But indirectly, isn't every member of the RF supported by the taxpayers?
It's true the Queen is funded by the Duchy of Lancaster, but if Britain happened to be a republic, the funds would belong to the government, not the Queen.

Same thing is true of Cornwall. It all comes down to the taxpayer in the end, doesn't it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:26 PM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 525
The Duchy of Lancaster is personal property and the Duchy of Cornwall is also private property
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:38 PM
cinrit's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Deep South, United States
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
But indirectly, isn't every member of the RF supported by the taxpayers?
It's true the Queen is funded by the Duchy of Lancaster, but if Britain happened to be a republic, the funds would belong to the government, not the Queen.

Same thing is true of Cornwall. It all comes down to the taxpayer in the end, doesn't it?
Not if you realize that the Crown Estate, where most of the money that goes to the Queen originates, once belonged to the Monarchy and was given over to Parliament by George III. From the Crown Estate comes the "Civil List", which is the monies given to the Queen and Prince Philip (the only two who received funds from the List). The Crown Estate generates more revenue annually than is given to the Queen and Prince Philip, and so basically, the former property of the Monarchy supports the Monarch.

Short explanation:
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Civil List

More detailed history:
Civil list - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The media's take on it:
How Civil List reform will affect the Royal family - Telegraph

Cindy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:47 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,962
At this point in time the only thing the "taxpayer" is paying for is security. Certainly William is paid for his job and gets an income from his mother's estate and any other inheritances.

But even if he didn't, that would not enable the tabloids to dictate his life and certainly not his wife's. If she had been racketing around on her own at the taxpayer's expense then some may look and say, hmm. But since she has merely joined her family on holiday I don't see that that gives anyone rights to tell her how she has to live her life in order to pay back to money!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 01-26-2012, 07:17 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Indirectly, every person setting foot in England is supported by the British taxpayers. Obviously, Parliament gets more per person (great building they have there, bet it costs quite a bit to maintain it, hire janitors, light it, repair it, heat it, clean the windows, etc.) Obviously, some roads are better kept up than others. Some things are more used than other things, by more people (less per capita cost). So, I suppose rural roads should be let go while the Hammersmith flyover is kept spiffy because so many more people use it. Right?

I am guessing that Britain has a public school system of some sort (that's what I read in the Telegraph). Students are subsidized heavily (was in the paper yesterday; they are cutting 15,000 slots). But not everyone gets those spaces - so the students are getting money from the "British taxpayers."

What this thread keeps revolving around is "Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth" from providing security to the Duchess of Cambridge or not. Should she left to fend for herself? If enough people feel that way, that might happen. I believe a democracy can usually solve these issues - and it sure sounds like a lot of British people think she should not have security on her vacations (let's remember that the two York princess no longer get it). Perhaps Kate will be next. I almost hope so (and I wonder if she does too) so people can finally say that she is getting nothing from the taxpayers except the use of the roads. And if the royal couple has children, I surely hope they send them to an entirely privately funded school.

In the future, I suppose the general principle of inheritance will be attacked, but when it is, I certainly hope it is equally abolished for everyone. What a different society that will be! Then, people who have 10 children will have so much less to worry about than people who have only 1 - they'll all be in the same boat.

And that's a new kind of society that, if it's going to exist, I truly hope i live to see. I wouldn't want it, myself. I think being able to work hard, save money, and leave it to the kids is a central set of human rights - and yes, I realize some people have managed to accumulate things in the past that benefit their heirs now, but I'm okay with that. My parents (who inherited nothing) are okay with that (and I've inherited nothing so far and I doubt I'll ever inherit very much). But my kids will inherit something and I'm glad of it. I hope my grandkids inherit even more! Yep, I really do think that way!

BTW, Kate's family isn't exactly poor. They've done very well with their business. So this couple has two nice income streams from two sets of family members, even without inheritance (surely it is okay to spend our disposable income on our children if we wish??)

So it's down to that security thing again. I feel for the security people whose jobs are about to disappear if the "taxpayers" are so disgruntled (they'll probably be paid half as much to be on employment, right?) But, if no tax money is going into the Civil List (and that's the way I understand it too - it's from George III who wisely and generously changed the way the Royal family handles its finances by placing parliament in control of them), what in the world is everyone on about?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:18 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
This is most interesting! If I'm correct the Duchess' most recent transgression is her attending a family holiday in Mustique in order to not become ostracized from them due to her new role. The error is amplified by her having performed miniscule duties in the role of a senior member of the royal family before this excursion. Even more she has the audacity to be escorted by tax funded royal protection officers.

What pompousness...every second she is on those islands with her family and her royal protection officers she should be performing a serious royal duty here as the Duchess of Cambridge (Hey, do I sound angry yet...OK, I'll try harder) and not just some evening event recognizing the armed services or the performing arts. She should be giving speeches to different organizations at different events for different occasions...she isn't a mute. Taking salute as a royal colonel, visiting a special charity to pet dogs that help people and then visit another event, give a speech and get photographed hugging some people who can be hugged. Now, that's called novice royal duties! (I don't know if there's a first year requirement or not, nobody's announced anything.)

But nooooo...she's on some beach getting a tan with mummy and daddy, lil sis, lil bro and her hubby. What type of example does she portray by doing that? (Have I got it yet?...You know the angry part). Oh, they haven't even been married for a year? Well, this is the royal family...THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN PREPARED! (Nice touch, uh...all caps). The charities should've been selected, honorary military appointments, residences, ladies in waiting, household staff...then this perception of laziness could all have been avoided. Such a tragedy (So far, so good) Only with my expert guidance can this tangled web of misunderstanding of roles and duties be straightened out. (My own touch of arrogance there)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:20 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Indirectly, every person setting foot in England is supported by the British taxpayers. Obviously, Parliament gets more per person (great building they have there, bet it costs quite a bit to maintain it, hire janitors, light it, repair it, heat it, clean the windows, etc.) Obviously, some roads are better kept up than others. Some things are more used than other things, by more people (less per capita cost). So, I suppose rural roads should be let go while the Hammersmith flyover is kept spiffy because so many more people use it. Right?

I am guessing that Britain has a public school system of some sort (that's what I read in the Telegraph). Students are subsidized heavily (was in the paper yesterday; they are cutting 15,000 slots). But not everyone gets those spaces - so the students are getting money from the "British taxpayers."

What this thread keeps revolving around is "Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth" from providing security to the Duchess of Cambridge or not. Should she left to fend for herself? If enough people feel that way, that might happen. I believe a democracy can usually solve these issues - and it sure sounds like a lot of British people think she should not have security on her vacations (let's remember that the two York princess no longer get it). Perhaps Kate will be next. I almost hope so (and I wonder if she does too) so people can finally say that she is getting nothing from the taxpayers except the use of the roads. And if the royal couple has children, I surely hope they send them to an entirely privately funded school.

In the future, I suppose the general principle of inheritance will be attacked, but when it is, I certainly hope it is equally abolished for everyone. What a different society that will be! Then, people who have 10 children will have so much less to worry about than people who have only 1 - they'll all be in the same boat.

And that's a new kind of society that, if it's going to exist, I truly hope i live to see. I wouldn't want it, myself. I think being able to work hard, save money, and leave it to the kids is a central set of human rights - and yes, I realize some people have managed to accumulate things in the past that benefit their heirs now, but I'm okay with that. My parents (who inherited nothing) are okay with that (and I've inherited nothing so far and I doubt I'll ever inherit very much). But my kids will inherit something and I'm glad of it. I hope my grandkids inherit even more! Yep, I really do think that way!

BTW, Kate's family isn't exactly poor. They've done very well with their business. So this couple has two nice income streams from two sets of family members, even without inheritance (surely it is okay to spend our disposable income on our children if we wish??)

So it's down to that security thing again. I feel for the security people whose jobs are about to disappear if the "taxpayers" are so disgruntled (they'll probably be paid half as much to be on employment, right?) But, if no tax money is going into the Civil List (and that's the way I understand it too - it's from George III who wisely and generously changed the way the Royal family handles its finances by placing parliament in control of them), what in the world is everyone on about?
Bravo Kaimi! Very well said. I don't get it either. The Duchess of Cambridge will have 24/7 security the rest of her life as the wife of the second in line to the throne and future mother of the next heir. She is no longer a private citizen and has no choce in the matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 01-26-2012, 11:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I don't. I suspect they are following a plan the Queen agrees is in the long-term best interest of William and Kate, as well as, the monarchy. I certainly don't think they've been making unilateral decisions about what they will and won't do.

Based on what I read William say in a book on his grandmother, I think he is acutely aware that he is fortunate that he was not put in the positions of his grandmother and father.

I completely agree. The most senior royals in the BRF (HM, DoE and PoW) were there during the Diana and Sarah years. To have a repeat of that tumultuous time in BRF history would be disastrous. IMHO the BRF will do everything it can to ensure that the D&DoC have the best possible start to their lives as a newly married couple.

My other thought is that the senior royals are keeping HM's grandchildren out of the "spotlight" for now. I believe that HM, DoE and PoW have come to an agreement to keep the other BRF family members as full time royals until the Queen's reign comes to an end. There has been discussion in the past that Charles would like to see a "streamlined" monarchy for the future. Most likely it would be similar to what we see in the Netherlands now. Monarch, heir, spouse of heir and children. The monarch's other children and siblings have a reduced role. The focus during Charles' reign will be upon himself, his wife, sons and their spouse(s). His siblings and his mother's cousins will be moved into the background or "retired."

I believe this to be true though I know that it does come at a cost to the British taxpayer who is paying for the security costs for a fairly large group of people. I do not foresee any of HM's children losing security during her lifetime even if other BRF working royals have their security reduced to part time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:50 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,962
I think a few people here could do with a reality check. Now let me see, the Princess Royal is . . . . how far down the succession?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...489.stmhttp://

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_P...s_Royalhttp://

Unfortunately the Royal Family will always be at the mercy of "nutters". God forbid that someone with a cause goes after them.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:06 AM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
Catherine's Slow Start as a Royal

To those who question whether Catherine's "slow" start as a royal is sanctioned by the Queen and her advisor's, among other press reports, I found this from Richard Palmer's blog:

"She (Kate) and William have taken advice from the Queen and Prince Philip, who were stationed in Malta from 1949 to 1951 and concentrated on enjoying life as a Royal Navy couple, forgoing the burdens of public duty until later in their lives."

It is extremely unkind and premature to call Kate "lazy." As soon as William leaves the military or becomes "the" heir, whichever comes first, this "trash talk" about Kate's not doing her part talk will melt away as they undertake a more active role. Any kind, thinking person should be able to understand that this is the only time this couple will ever have of relative privacy and time to focus on their marriage and that very soon, when they take up a greater role in the BRF, their every move will receive even more intense public scrutiny, which will put considerable pressure on them. In the meantime, a number of press articles report that Kate is receiving mentoring/training from David Manning at the Queen's request as well as tutelege arranged by Jamie Pinkerton-Lowther, and that every effort is being expended to prepare her properly to ensure that what happened to Diana does not happen to Kate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
IMO it makes sense for them to be low profile now. William is not the Prince of Wales and until he is it makes sense that the couple are quietly living the lives of 'normal' - albeit wealthy - young marrieds. (I personally think Kate's freedom is enviable - if she can, why not?)

I am also of the opinion that Kate has some stress issues - far better to be safe than sorry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:34 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,821
I don't care if they have bodyguards provided by the state. What I mind is the terrible inconvenience they cause to others. A few posts back it was revealed that the other guests (who paid just as much for their vacations) were restricted from using amenities that come with the vacation (i.e., golfcarts, beach, spa, etc.).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I don't care if they have bodyguards provided by the state. What I mind is the terrible inconvenience they cause to others. A few posts back it was revealed that the other guests (who paid just as much for their vacations) were restricted from using amenities that come with the vacation (i.e., golfcarts, beach, spa, etc.).
Not their fault. Security makes those decisions. Happens with any VIP (real VIP) any where. Facts of life these days - so should they curtail their travels because there are crazies out there?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:42 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I don't care if they have bodyguards provided by the state. What I mind is the terrible inconvenience they cause to others. A few posts back it was revealed that the other guests (who paid just as much for their vacations) were restricted from using amenities that come with the vacation (i.e., golfcarts, beach, spa, etc.).
Personally I don't believe this "news" at all. First of all, it comes from the Daily Mail which actually isn't known for its accuracy (in checking it sources, getting the right names, dates and facts right etc.). Second, since no pictures (to my knowledge) have come out I would guess that the Middleton family is at a private home/resort, so I would think they are not prohibiting people from using amenities that come with their vacation.

Just more of the DM trying to start something without the appropriate facts to back it up.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:13 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I don't care if they have bodyguards provided by the state. What I mind is the terrible inconvenience they cause to others. A few posts back it was revealed that the other guests (who paid just as much for their vacations) were restricted from using amenities that come with the vacation (i.e., golfcarts, beach, spa, etc.).
I don't know if you ever happened to be in the same hotel as a visiting US president. I was once in Berlin and that really was bad - nobody was allowed to inform the guests, we were just ordered around and the American security at one point even entered our room when we were away - I had come back to get a coat I had forgotten and there they were checking my room - even though this is forbidden by German law. and in addition they were very unpolite! So the blocking of of some amenities is standard procedure when there are high-profile guests anywhere.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
charities, charity, duchess of cambridge, duties, kate, kate middleton, roles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie HighGoalHighDreams The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 1606 06-24-2014 12:59 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]