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?
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. 
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
