William & Kate’s Kensington Palace renovations cost the taxpayers £4 million

wenn21456985

Back in 2013, the extensive and expensive renovation of Duchess Kate and Prince William’s Kensington Palace “apartment” (it’s a mansion within a palace) was finally completed. It was completed past schedule and over budget, mostly because asbestos was found and it was especially costly to remove it. All of the renovations to KP were paid for by the Queen, and by “the Queen,” I mean the taxpayers. It came from the Queen’s “household budget,” which (from what I understand) is the allowance given to the Queen for the royal upkeep and such.

What was funny about the renovations was that as soon as Will and Kate moved in, there was a design emergency! Kate had cheaped-out on some of the paint choices while pregnant, so everything was a peasant shade of purple. So, as soon as they moved in, the place had to be redecorated. Combine that with the fact that their country estate, Anmer Hall, was also undergoing extensive taxpayer-funded renovations, and it’s no wonder they kept going on vacation after vacation. They were so stressed out! Well, there’s new news on the renovations to KP – the budget exploded and oh yeah, the Queen just gave William and Kate a helicopter.

Buckingham Palace has defended spending a seven-figure sum refurbishing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Kensington Palace apartment. The taxpayer will foot the bill for extensive work on the property, including installing a new roof, overhauling the electrics and carrying out significant plumbing works.

A royal spokesman said repairs and refurbishments – reported to cost in the region of £4 million – would also see a “significant amount of internal building” to “return the residence to function as a living space”.

On Saturday Buckingham Palace also downplayed reports the Queen had taken on a new £8 million helicopter for the use of the Duke and Duchess, insisting that the lease represented good value for money. The couple’s Kensington Palace apartment was designed by Sir Christopher Wren and was the home of Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon. Princess Margaret remained there after their divorce and lived there until her death in 2002. The living space was last refurbished in 1963.

A royal spokesman said: “This is the Duke and Duchess’s one and only official residence. It is here that they plan to stay for many, many years to come. We also had to take into account the fact that Kensington Palace is a scheduled ancient monument, and all elements of the refurbishment had to be agreed with English Heritage. Often this meant ensuring a high standard of work in line with the historical significance of the Christopher Wren building.”

He said the Duke and Duchess “paid privately” for all the internal furnishings, including carpets and curtains. They were also at pains to ensure that the specification is not extravagant.

He added: “As with any other part of the estate, it was the royal household who were responsible for the refurbishment of the residence – where they could in the course of the procurement process, the royal household helped to bear down on cost. The household oversaw the planning, tendering and project management of the refurbishment and were responsible for the budget and spend.”

A spokesman for the Queen said the monarch had “secured an annual lease” for a helicopter, for a fixed number of hours. The spokesman said the helicopter would be used by members of the Royal Family – not exclusively the Duke, a qualified pilot having undertaken training with the RAF, and Duchess – and that the lease represented good value for money. He said: “It will provide an alternative to chartering a number of different helicopters.”

[From The Telegraph]

Ah, so Anmer Hall isn’t considered their “official residence.” Interesting. Only KP will be their official residence. Anyway, as I’ve said before – I understand that the renovations were needed for the most part, and it is a historical building, etc, etc. But as I also keep saying – we wouldn’t be paying this much attention to how much it costs to keep Kate and William in the lap of luxury if they actually put some effort into their royal work. If British taxpayers felt like they were getting a fair deal, that Will and Kate earned their keep, this wouldn’t be as big a story. As for the helicopter thing… I really don’t understand why Will and Kate think they need to travel by helicopter all the time, even when they’re just going 30 miles outside of London.

Oh, and as for the “privately funded” decorations – apparently, the Middleton family’s largesse was not behind it. Nor was William’s inheritance. Apparently, Prince Charles funded the decorations to the tune of £1.5 million!! The Daily Mail says Charles agreed to pay for all of it, including £170,000 for the kitchen alone, including top-of-the-line appliances and three sinks, etc. Charles pays for Kate’s clothes too, you know.

wenn21463607

wenn21462764

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

237 Responses to “William & Kate’s Kensington Palace renovations cost the taxpayers £4 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hazel says:

    As a UK taxpayer, Viva la Revolution!

    • Arch says:

      Never mind the families living in hostels because the rent in London is too high for people to afford anymore, these two freewheelers simply MUST have the right shade of beige on their walls, or else they’ll scream and scream until they’re sick.
      I wouldnt be so concerned with it all Kate, you wont get to keep it in the divorce.

      • Godwina says:

        This. THIS THIS THIS. Housing and employment are in crisis mode in “austerity” Britain, and they’re slashing universities left and right, but an $11M gift chopper is reasonable?

        Vile.

    • bettyrose says:

      Ha! I’m American but I’d totally join you. We sort of just let the largesse of the 1% get outta hand on this side of the pond. I think we could all enjoy a good ole fashion revolution these days.

      • bettyrose says:

        Oops. Stupid phone. That came wrong, but it still sort of makes sense. In the U.S. the government’s generosity with the 1% has gotten out of hand.

      • Kate says:

        Um except for Obama took care of that with “Obamacare” which was really just wealth redistribution. The Top 1% is now taxed ridiculously in the US. Sorry but you are wrong wrong wrong!

    • Lizzy says:

      It HAS been over 200 years since the French Revolution. Some “heads will have to roll” again. (Although, we can skip the actual guillotine bit and the mess).

      I have lived in London for a while and I plan to move back for another job but I DREAD the whole flat hunting business. You either have to go into flat sharing (a lot of my friends do and they are 30 somethings with grown up jobs) and be able to live somewhat close to the city or you have to move to effing Hertfordshire. (it is lovely there but what is the point of working in London and not being able to live there!)

      In short. If you are single or have the need for more bedrooms (aka kids) and do not earn something over 35k a year (Ha! Good luck on British wages!) do not even try!

      And that is the tragedy. Not Kate and her purple walls.

    • Hazel says:

      On a less serious note, I hope the taxpayer is not paying for her eyeliner. Cause it’s awful! Not in my name.

    • Denise says:

      YES!!!! Thank you.

  2. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    *eyeroll*

    Seriously, the Queen should just adopt me. I will do charity work five days a week, from 9am-5pm, in exchange for letting me go through the royal jewelry. Seriously*.

    *I once had a dream, a few years ago, that I was somehow related to Elizabeth Taylor, and I would go over her house and try on her jewelry…that was the best dream I’ve ever had.

    • bluhare says:

      What an awesome dream, Virgilia! Although I’m ahead of you in the “Adopt Me, Liz!” line, young lady.

    • Christin says:

      Here’s what I don’t understand — Is charity work truly work? I mean work in the sense that it would be sometimes mundane and draining. Seems like if you get to pick the charities you will represent, then it should be mostly enjoyable and fulfilling. It’s not like the royals are rolling up their sleeves and doing the heavy lifting, right?

      And back to VC’s dream, that does sound like a wonderful one. I imagine Liz had a wicked sense of humor and could tell some great HW stories, too!

      • genevieve says:

        I don’t know about you, but I’d find visiting various places under the glare of media light, knowing that everyone was ready to offer his/her expert and often hostile opinion on my every move both mundane and draining.

      • bluhare says:

        No, I don’t think it’s work as we think of work, Christin, although I agree with genevieve when she says being under the media glare can be draining. I do think that some people thrive in it; others don’t. William appears to hate it, I’m not sure Kate does.

      • Frida_K says:

        Look at Dame Angelina’s charity work. I think she really works. I don’t think she just swans in to an occasional function, flips her hair and flashes her bum, and then leaves.

        “Charity work” seems like it could be a total farce or, if you’re serious about it, quite a bit of work.

      • vava says:

        @ Frida K……………LOL………..your comment is killing me. 🙂

      • hmmm says:

        @genevieve,

        If one is passionate about their charitable work, you’re not worrying about media glare. You want to use that glare for good. It’s simple.

      • Liberty says:

        ech, jewels. Give me one tiara I like and that’d do — I’d be quite happy enough just using all the Royal PR I could spoon up to doing good in the world, having that “in” to really muscle up some good works, as Harry and Anne and Sophie do. Imagine what you can do. It boggles the mind — to have the ability to make a difference and pitch in as much as you like, because you don’t have to work 70 hours a week to pay the rent etc — and do nothing with your royal access, just limp along….gah. How anyone can be in that role and think decorating is enough….I just can’t.

  3. kaye says:

    Man, William is looking old! What happened to his good looks, he looks like a completely different person. And Kate, well, I’m not going to be the one to start a weighty-Kate debate…

  4. Cleopatra says:

    Holy cow, these two are 30+ years in age and have probably never had to pay their own way!

    • kri says:

      Kate is so slim-why does her face look so puffy and dry? tbh, she looks like someone who drinks alot, or maybe she’s preggers again?

      • FLORC says:

        It’s just dehydration. I don’t know how you’re thinking there’s any puff to her face. It’s retaining what fluid her body has, but it’s a sure sign of dehydration.

        And every month there’s pregnancy specualting. This won’t happen until a string of vacations.

      • Tolva says:

        She has always had this puffy face issue, Kate doesn’t really have strong bone structure in her face and her face gets very roundish. Years ago the chatter on the web would refer to Kate as Potato face….that’s kind of what her face is like. IMO

      • Rosehip says:

        Kri
        What does someone who drinks a lot look like? (I’m curious, because i happen to drink a lot – way too much actually – because my brain is giving constant signals of unreal thirst and dehydration to my body, which causes me to drink up to 7 liters of water a day. I try to suppress it a little, but people always notice that i drink a lot of water, but i’ve never had someone saying to me that i LOOK like i drink a lot..)

        Tolva
        I’ve never heard or read that before, but i believe you’re right in your observation concerning Kate’s bone structure. I do remember Pippa being called to have a ‘pancake face’ though.

      • elo says:

        @Rosehip, I believe Kri means drinks a lot as in a lot of alcohol. Alcohol causes you face to bloat as it causes you to retain water. I drink a lot of water too, a gallon a day, but if you are concerned with your intake, ask you doctors to test you for diabetes. Unquenchable thirst can be a sign.

      • FLORC says:

        I’m with elo Rosehip.
        The need to drinks that much water daily without heavy physical acctivity and never finding your thirst satisfied is a sign of Diabetes and a few other conditions. You should get checked out if you haven’t already. Bring this up with your primary care physician.

      • Mayamae says:

        Rosehip,
        You are drinking way too much water. That much water intake causes electrolyte imbalance and can lead to brain swelling, seizures, and death. Please get a checkup.

      • Rosehip says:

        Thanks for your concern ladies. It’s been like this since my accident. Actually i didn’t even notice it myself, but my friends and family did. I did the thirst test in the hospital, and luckily i don’t have diabetes insipidus.
        I have very regular check-ups.

        I thought Kate didn’t drink much alcohol anymore. I don’t know why i immediately assumed that ‘drinking much’ meant ‘drinking a lot of water’ 😉

    • hmmm says:

      And imagine a man in his 30’s with a wife and child, who inherited millions, and still sponging off Daddy. What a catch!

      • FLORC says:

        Strip away titles, roles, and parents. William is not a catch and Kate would likely have not looked twice.
        Even now to state facts as plainly as you are hmmm he should be ashamed. I would be mortified if my husband and I took a penny from his parents. And I woudn’t be pleased with my husband for so quickly expecting a handout.

      • Rosehip says:

        So very true Florc, she would probably never have been on that same university to begin with..

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        You just described Scott Disick as well. (I think that’s his last name but my caring to be right is very much not here) the buck tooth white guy dating the the one Kardashian.

      • FLORC says:

        Rosehip
        As I recall Kate applied and was accepted into a better school, but opted for St. Andrews. Which isn’t a terrible school, but also not as good as the other.

        Dommy Dearest
        I like Scott Disick. I think he plays a role for the show. Realisticly if he was that terrible Kris would have a field day trashing him. If you’re not on board with the family you’re in trouble. He’s still around so I think it’s understood he’s not that guy.

    • Wren says:

      They are royalty. What do you expect? Well, she is only by marriage but her family is wealthy so it’s practically the same thing.

      • Cleopatra says:

        I know they’re royalty, but it just seems weird to me that Prince Charles is paying for Kate’s clothes and the renovation and so on. It isn’t like William can’t afford it, didn’t he inherit, like, 15 million from his mother? And doesn’t Kate have her own money?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I would guess that Charles, known for his generosity, doesn’t mind indulging his children. He probably also knows the monarchy will not last forever and has encouraged his children to invest their inheritances instead of spending them. His own personal fortune is only $200M or so away from catching up with his mother’s, so maybe Charles is happy to do it. Add to that the fact that Charles is known to love interior design, architecture, landscaping, gardening and the beaux art and it makes sense that he would pay for his family to live beautifully whether they can afford it on their own or not. And I haven’t ruled out the possibility of creative accounting on Charles’ part either.

      • FLORC says:

        William has far more than that at this point. Another can better explain it, but it goes like this.
        William, Harry got the lions share from Diana’s Will. Harry slightly more because the spare would’t be entitled to as much as the heir.
        Diana’s Will also included her godchildren among other things.

        Then some guys came in and ripped the Will apart giving nothing to the godchildren (or significantly less) and a large chunk more to William and Harry.
        In short William has more cash than a lotto winner and it’s in a high yielding interest account only growing.

        Kate does not have her own money. Not really.
        It’s specualted how much the Middletons really have. Gary’s shading drug and slave dealings are very bad. The Party Pieces ability to make a profit seems to only make sense if it’s a cover for Gary’s drug money or if they use sweatshops for their inventory. But the books will likely remain closed for forever and we will never know.
        Meanwhile those rumors the Midds borrowed or were gifted money from William or another for their mansion are still strong. Also that some royal furniture was gifted on loan to them for decorating.

        I think they live comfortably, but are not as wealthy as you would think. Even less so without the royal connection and Uncle Gary.

        IT company sales and inhereited money are as good as red herrings in searching for true wealth in that family.

      • Rosehip says:

        Wren
        You stated “They are royalty. What do you expect?”
        I, and i’m sure millions and millions of people with me, expect them to act as decent, responsable, devoted, modest adults. They have a rol to fulfil, and they forsake to do it. It is as simple as that.

        Their behaviour is revolting, because this is one-way traffic; they take from the British people – many of whom struggle and fail to make ends meet, and have seen their basic life quality diminished tremendously over the past years – without giving anything in return. In fact what they do is offending the British citizens/taxpayers, thus quite the opposite, by their pretentiousness and Kate with her repulsive flashing habits.

        What is expected from them is elementary humbleness and gratitude towards the people, and commitment and devotion to the ones that suffer the most.
        Noblesse oblige.

      • wolfpup says:

        Rosehip, that was beautiful. Noblesse oblige indeed.

      • hmmm says:

        Dame Snark,

        I would guess that Charles, known for his generosity, doesn’t mind indulging his children.

        Especially when he can write it off, perhaps? I see you mentioned ‘creative accounting’ at the end of your comment. Yes, a tax write off can make anyone very generous. I wonder what he would do if he actually had to pay for it out of his own pocket. Don’t you wonder? I mean, Daddy is paying. What self-respecting man would allow that to happen unless there were avaricious wheels within wheels, using the system to advance the family and their fortunes?

      • Liberty says:

        @FLORC — I agree. I would love to grab flashlights and go hunting through the shady Middleshanks money pea patch with you. We’d figure it out.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Rosehip
        Noblesse oblige – perfect description!
        Hmmm
        In one sense I still believe Charles would spend lavishly on his family. It is one of his traits that is actually odd and admirable. He spent lots on Camilla way before the marriage and has since drenched her in diamonds and jewels. It could be a case of reflected glory/ego but Charles has had a sense of sartorial splendor since his teen years.
        But generosity and greed are not mutually exclusive. I doubt Chuck misses any opportunity to slide his breceipts in the accounts payable stac that the taxpayers eventually have to deal with. Entitlement pure and simple.
        For example, Charles recently had a bonfire at Highgrove to demonstrate how flamnable and inferior synthetic fiber is compared to wool. He wants to promote and renew interest in the UK wool trade which is good for the economy (and his own private farms/herds) but he lacks common sense. The piles of inexpensive clothes he torched could have been donated. And who can afford items made from virgin wool? Smh.

      • FLORC says:

        Liberty
        That would be wonderful. Just PP alone seems like it can’t produce a profit without either sweat shops prices or outside money. If it was retail stores I might believe it, but a cheap party item store that have to ship items? Against a party planning store on every corner with far cheaper prices? Yea. That doesn’t add up.

        I think we will get to find out should a divorce occur. Dirt will be released to make William look like he is ridding himself from evil.

  5. Jules says:

    Since I still love Princess Diana, I increasingly despise this family. They play dress up and live off the taxpayer. Go Morrissey.

  6. Eleonor says:

    All those money for a kitchen?
    But if the Duchess barely eats !
    I have to say it, sorry.

    BTW all the “we are different we are frugal” went south months ago, if they were “low key” they would have bought forniture to IKEA (or the english version of it) and end everything there.

    • sunsetsnow says:

      She needs the space to make the smoothies that we are told keeps her lean and trim. Lupo also has his dog bowl stored there.

      • bluhare says:

        Please, sunsetsnow! Lupo does not have his dog bowl stored in the kitchen. He has his own Canine Catering Station, complete with butler, food bowl washer, water changer and wet food fluffer! The gall of you to suggest he just stores his bowl in the kitchen. That’s for mutts at the shelter.

      • sunsetsnow says:

        You’re right! I know I saw canine handler on the list for the staff party they had. How silly of me not to realize Lupo has his own room.

      • bluhare says:

        Are you serious? They have a dog handler on staff?

    • Froop says:

      The English version of Ikea is… Ikea! Or maybe Argos, which the Cambridges have probably never heard of.

    • Pandy says:

      I’m not royalty but I wouldn’t buy IKEA either. Come on. It’s fake wood and you put it together with an allan key. Plus, it’s as expensive as “real” furniture. Let’s be realistic here.

      • Eleonor says:

        well “real fornitures” cost a LOT (at least here in France, for my wallet they are hors de question) and I was just making en example.
        You cannot base your pr image about how you are going to do all by yourself about how different you are, how “peasant friendly” you are and having your parents and your Grandma paying for you millions of re-decoration.

      • Rosehip says:

        Pandy, ,
        The thing is you are paying it from your own pockets, so if you chose not to buy Ikea furniture (i don’t either), you spend less on other things to be able to buy furniture you like. That’s how i do it too, but we are paying the bill ourselves.

    • FLORC says:

      Don’t forget Georges own kitchen. Which has turned out to be more than some said. It’s not simply a place to prepare bottles and wash his items. It’s a full kitchen.

      • Lady D says:

        A complete, totally sanitized, state of the art kitchen just for the baby? Where do I sign up? I’m assuming of course that I am not doing the sanitizing.

  7. Audrey says:

    It would be interesting to know how much was for structural stuff, asbestos etc and how much was for things they just wanted

    I definitely think anything structural and such is justified to keep the property in good shape

    • The Original Mia says:

      The asbestos removal and new roof was already revealed to be £2 million pounds. The rest has been new bedrooms, walk-in closet, nursery, kitchen remodel, new, top-of-the-line appliances, etc…

      • Madi says:

        It had to have a complete electrical rewire and plumbing overhaul as well. My husband is an electrical engineer, and used to be on the tools (my stepson is also a self employed electrician and refurbishes loads of Grade II buildings), I can tell you the cost of an electrical rewire from a 1960’s house to get it to today’s regulations would be a shed load of money, especially on a building like this. He has been a project manager on a hotel which instead of tearing down and building it up again, the 1970’s building is an electrical nightmare. Today we use a hell of a lot more electric and it all needs to be fire proofed, you cannot just run new cables in the existing walls. Both walls and floors would have been disturbed majorly. Putting in walk in wardrobes etc would take a lot less time, cheaper and easier for electricians to work

        This also was not included in the 2 million originally estimated. Also because it is a Grade I listed building, everything is mega expensive and you legally cannot put in anything you want like you can in your own home. This also pushed costs right up. A friend of mine’s home is Grade II and her new roof had to be a certain tile, made of a particular product (I can’t remember what it was exactly) which is local. The price of her roof was woah expensive (think price of apartment rather than a few thousand)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        The furnishings, appliances, finishings and decorative items were paid for privately. Any renovation estimate is just that – an educated guess. Once the work begins there are always new problems lurking beneath. My husband went to get a $40 car inspection and came home with a $790 repair bill in hand. My mother planned on a one day hardwood installation in her main bath that turned into a two week joist replacement. Yikes!

      • hmmm says:

        The electrical rewiring WAS included in the initial estimate, with an expected overall cost of 1.5 million, not 2.

      • bluhare says:

        Are you sure the appliances are being paid for privately, Snarkweek? I know Charles is paying for draperies, carpeting and “fixtures”, but I didn’t read fittings. This may be a Brit v. US word thing, but I read fixtures to be lighting and door handle type thingys. Fittings are bathroom and kitchen stuff. I read somewhere the kitchens are part of the publicly funded section. I’m not sure though. The documents will be public soon enough. I read yesterday it’s being claimed that the kitchen appliances and a kitchen aid food processor are being paid for by taxpayers. Can’t vouch for the veracity of it, though.

        The fair thing in this instance would have been to provide an allowance for permanently installed things that have huge price variables, and if they went over it, they’d have to pay.

    • fairy godmother says:

      Despicable and undeserving!

      Not to mention the claim how poor conditions were. No running water? Charities had offices there for several years up until they were kicked to the curb once Waity decided she had to have that particular “apartment”. Three kitchens? Two nurseries? How many kitchens and nurseries are at BP or Windsor?

      This is just like their new country home. A family had lived there and a lease was up in 2017. Yet, she needs all new things including fireplaces when the ones there worked perfectly fine for her. Millions wasted when their country had people starving and freezing this past winter.

      Excessive indeed! Waity is a waste.

      • Mrsjennyk says:

        You’re sure it’s because Waity wanted the apt? Perhaps it was Wills? Why are most people so quick to judge that it’s always what Kate wants? Seriously?

      • bluhare says:

        It was reported at the time that William suggested Diana’s old apartment — arguably his childhood home — but Kate thought it would be “creepy” to live there.

      • hmmm says:

        Not too creepy to wear Diana’s ring, though. I think they just wanted the biggest and bestest apartment available.

      • bluhare says:

        Agree, hmmm. I thought that the minute I hit “submit comment”!

      • FLORC says:

        Really. What was that charity doing with it anyways? Preparing for the long term stay and raising funds by giving tours? How common.
        That ring gives me more creepy vibes than anything else.

      • bluhare says:

        LOL, FLORC. Excellent use of the word, “common”!!!

      • wolfpup says:

        I don’t get the ring thing either – no warm fuzzies from me. I definitely would feel odd wearing it.

        I think that they’ve spent so much money on Will and Kate, to aid their “specialness”.

  8. Word Girl says:

    I wonder if they did renovations on the home “on the cheap” the first time around as to establish a more relatable appearance with the public as being “budget like the peasants” when they are clearly not. I remember when William went on about how he frequently eats budget Mac and cheese. I think some of the things they do are more of a show just to seem relatable to the public. When in fact all they really need to do is truly care about their charity work and the people that they speak to. The public knows that they don’t want to work and their society wants royalty that are hardworking and engaged to the well being of the people. Can’t blame the people for that. I suppose the Queen purchased the helicopter in hopes that it will inspire William and his wife to be more active in their royal duties. Also, maybe the Queen wants him to give up those” foolish” dreams of his of being a pilot and gave him the plain to appease him.

    • Eleonor says:

      Enjoying junk food doesn’t make you a peasant.
      BTW I think the royal family should stop to enable them.

      • Word Girl says:

        @ Eleonor,
        I don’t think eating budget mac & cheese makes them peasants, but I believe they think it makes them more relatable to the peasants. Its sort of like how each POTUS for the past three presidencies have said that they have experimented with weed. They may feel it makes them more down to earth. I don’t personally think that it is, necessarily, wrong of the Queen to try to give him a nudge on his desire to fulfill his royal duties by giving him a helicopter, I just wish that the tax payers didn’t have to foot the bill. I also wish that Will & Kate would strike up their own initiative to do the job that they are supposed to do.

      • hmmm says:

        I bet you the princeling thinks that junk food is the food of the peons…er….people.

      • bluhare says:

        I love budget mac and cheese. One of my guilty pleasures. Processed cheese and all.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        Mine too.. I can’t help it. If it’s available I go for Annie brand. Also, ramen. Ugh. So awful, but the only way to feed the cravings.

      • bluhare says:

        Kraft for me, FLORC. I don’t always eat budget M&C, but when I do, I eat Kraft. 🙂

        Although Trader Joe’s is good, but it’s not quite as budgety.

      • FLORC says:

        This reminds me of that BNL song If I had a Million Dollars.
        We wouldn’t have to eat Kraft Dinner
        Of course we would. We’d just eat more of it.
        Which is true for me.

      • wolfpup says:

        hahaha FLORC!

    • bluhare says:

      The Daily Mail’s reporting William’s going to take the East Anglia job — part time of course — at £40,000 a year, so they aren’t even going to be living at Kensington Palace. It explains why Kate’s been so stressed at redoing Anmer Hall, if they’re going to be living in it for the foreseeable future. So KP is going to be a nice pied a terre in the city for a while.

      • grace says:

        “job”?? The meaning of the word is entirely different when it’s related to him, isn’t it?

      • We Are All Made of Stars says:

        I thought he was making that salary while working full time. And how stressful could it be to renovate your mansion when you have no other job? It’s not like she has her hairpiece in a do rag while she’s at the top of a ten foot ladder scraping plaster off of the ceiling, now is it?

      • Word Girl says:

        @ grace,
        Willnot and “taking a job” is an oxymoron in this case. Haha.

      • bluhare says:

        I should have put stressed in quotes, Stars. My bad. I’d love to be so “stressed”!!

      • hmmm says:

        Holy cow! There is no end to his shenanigans. I wouldn’t want to place my life is this playboy’s hands. How can the powers that be, in all conscience, hire an irresponsible prat like him, who begs off work all the time? How low will any agency sink to accommodate this slacker? Is the apocalypse upon us? Heh.

      • bluhare says:

        You know what else? He wants to do this job so he can see George more. That’s what I’ve read. What I find difficult to understand is how he will see George more while working (even part time) than he does now?

        Does anyone know if he’s doing more things lately? He hasn’t got much coverage, but I don’t think a lot of those BP ceremonies do.

      • AM says:

        Kate herself said that she and George didn’t see much of William while he was still in the RAF. I cannot imagine that this new job would be anything different.

        Also find it pretty gross that he’ll accept a salary.

      • Liberty says:

        @hmmm, “shenanigans” is definitely the word….

      • wolfpup says:

        So what is Will really up to? Why isn’t he with his wife and child regularly?

  9. grace says:

    When is the “Duke” (title is too distinguished for someone so immature and lazy) going to take steps to “earn” his keep??? Can’t imagine going through life never having to worry about mandatory work and never having to earn money to pay bills, put food on the table, etc.

  10. Wallamalooo says:

    And?

    • Olenna says:

      “And” is right, though your And and my And might not be the same. My thoughts: No one can or will do a thing about this gross display of entitlement. News outlets (DM in particular) run these types of stories just to get the masses agitated and draw hits to their websites. By next week, most people will have forgotten how much the Tweedle Dees have cost the taxpayers. There’ll be new stories to distract them–what she wore, his job plans, how cute George is, blah, blah, blah. And, BTW, does anyone think the Telegraph would have run this article if Pippa was still employed there? Hmmmm…

      • wolfpup says:

        Olenna,

        Agitation, then distraction – so cynical, and very, very sad. I think that perhaps this is what the royals count on; they are in it for the long haul, after all.

  11. Christie says:

    Serious question: do these two pay for anything themselves? It seems as if every time I read on something they’ve “bought” it was someone else (ie Charles, the Middletons, etc.) who actually covered the bill.

  12. maria says:

    I really think this was the PR move Charles engineered for Camilla. “She will never be queen”, bla boa, time goes by, Camilla does a good job w charities, very few will care that Camilla will actually by Queen Consort.

    The same should have happened with Cannot and Willnot. First they are so frugal live in a small cottage, then well they have to live in London, and of course they have to renovate because well, they do, you know?

    The problem with this PR strategy is that Camilla is actually likable and does a lot more than Kate has ever done. And then there is Will, who’s face turns purple and snobbish every time he does an engagement. So people are not happy and don;t forget what they were told 3 years ago: Will and Kate are not going to spend a dime and not going to have staff…..because Kate actually grows potatoes in her back yard.

    Turns out that Kate needs a stove that is $20,000…..to make fries from potatoes she grew in her backyard for Will and George

    Bla….stupid!!!

    • grace says:

      Well said. Another thing I’ve noticed is that Camilla actually seems to enjoy the engagements and interacting with people – unlike Kate who seems so mechanical and forced…that maniacal grin, ugh!!!!!!

    • Word Girl says:

      @ maria,
      Hahaha, Katnot and Willnot.

    • eliza says:

      Lol@Cannot and Willnot! Wonderful!

    • Dara says:

      As a barbaric colonial, I’ll never have to curtsy to any of them (thank the Good Lord), but I find Camilla surprisingly likable. I think she navigated the post-Diana era with her dignity intact (granted, I wasn’t watching that closely) and does well in her role as Consort to-be…or whatever her actual title.

      And the Cannot and Willnot labels… bloody fantastic!

  13. Kristen says:

    And people wonder why Kate was willing to wait 7+ years for a ring.

  14. Christin says:

    It is hard to believe they are in their early 30s. They both look older and haggard. Apparently doing little is as aging (in some cases) as working oneself ragged. Who knew?

    • Jaded says:

      In Kannot’s case it’s relentless smoking, sunning and starving. In Willnot’s case it’s because he’s grown up to be a miserable grumpy bugger who doesn’t give a toss about royal duties.

      • Eleonor says:

        does she smoke?
        Even her sister skin looks awful because of sunbathing.

      • PennyLane says:

        Apparently she smokes to help her stay thin. Smoking cigarettes really does keep the weight off – it’s just that it ages you like crazy.

      • FLORC says:

        Kate has been caught with cigarettes in her purses on a few occasions. And the France Chateau photos had her mid drag off a cigarette in her hand.
        We’ve seen her topless, but those photos were imo the reason why they attacked to get them removed.
        They were up long enough for a few of us here to see them.

      • Liberty says:

        @Jaded —- HAHHAHAHHAHA

    • hmmm says:

      I think it’s the relentless hedonism. They are soulless freaks.

  15. Madi says:

    Whether or not Britain is a republic it would have still cost the tax payer 4 million. It is a Grade I listed state owned building therefore if the royalty move to a council house, the building would still have the same refurbishment costs as it is owned by the State. Just think, would Obama put his hands in his pocket if the President’s residence in the White House needed a new roof?

    The “apartment” has not been touched since 1960’s, it needed to be done. As for the redecoration costs, the Daily Mail aren’t exactly the most reliable source. In fact the same day the Daily Mail (by another “journalist”) said William and Kate paid for the redecoration themselves, so which is it? This paper is as reliable as In Touch Magazine

    • The Original Mia says:

      You keep saying that but amazingly the charity that occupied that space was able to work there without croaking from all the asbestos. They worked with the electrical output without burning down the place. They also managed to use the plumbing without having a port-a-potty out back. They also funded their own renovations of 1A without it soaring into nearly £4 million in repairs. Kate could have taken Diana’s apartment but Diana’s ghost spooked her. Or was it the lack of a private garden for Kate’s tanning? Kate’s purple haze had to be redone but that’s okay because Charles footed that bill. And since this is a private residence and not open to the public, why isn’t it on W&K to fund their own renovations? Heck, Buckingham Palace could have used those funds to fix its leaking roof.

      These two do the least and get the most and now we hear they are moving to Amner so William can shove his way into a job that was neither open nor needed. So what exactly was the point of the extensive renovations if the Lamebridges won’t be there full-time?

    • Sixer says:

      Agree, Mia.

      If the UK were a republic, KP would be a heritage site open to the public and generating revenue for its upkeep. Or it would be sold off and renovations would be the responsibility of the Russian gazillionaires who’d likely be the ones in the apartments.

      Priority for renovation funds should be for those properties that are open to the public or are used for official state functions. If the Cambridges want more, it should ALL come from private funds.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with every word, Sixer. Is Mr. Sixer Sr. doing OK? Are you?

      • Sixer says:

        I’m good, thanks, bluhare. So busy with work at the minute I don’t have time to dwell. Small mercies! Mr Sixer Sr is um… sad but coping, I think.

        Thanks for asking. Really.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      If you had visited KP in the ots you would have been surprised at how sad, damp and creaky it was beneath the strained opulence. The repairs were expensive. Sh*t happens. No need to redirect anger at the Cambridge’s laziness at absolutely everything concerning them. Yes Will and Kate suck, but so does finding fault with every. Little. Thing.
      Sixer
      If the royals have to be maintained then that’s all there is to it. Your idea of funding renovations based on tourism and availability to the public is brilliant, however. But the idea is too logical and therefore, would never be entertained.

      • LAK says:

        Dame true, but that’s ignoring the £12M KP revamp undertake 2010-2012.

        Further, for WK’s specific apartment, you are also ignoring the charity revamp which might not have been as extensive, but certainly didn’t leave the apartment dark, damp and dreary since the charity was planning to open the space to the public.

        You can see the charity revamp on the cote de Texas interior design blog.

        Sixer: far too sensible.

      • bluhare says:

        I think there’s a lot of pent up fault finding, just like at the beginning of their tour there was a lot of pent up fandom.

      • Madi says:

        Dame you’re right. They are getting the anger directed at them because people don’t like them. Never mind that Prince Charles had Clarence House renovated by the tax payers doing exactly what was done at Kensington Palace but in 2003 it cost the taxpayer 4.5 million – No complaints from people here about that. Then in 2009 renovations at St James’ Palace for Princess Beatrice to spend her University time there for 250,000 for only a new kitchen, new wooden floors and a bathroom. Still no uproar over this money spent.

        Not to mention all the minor royals, like cousins etc who all live there and have their apartments done up if and when needed

        @ LAK – I think the 12m revamp was for the tourist part of Kensington Palace, not the residences.

      • hmmm says:

        @Madi,

        Who are these “people” who didn’t get angry about what happened years ago? Was there a large and thriving internet, for example? Or social media? How is this a solid argument? We’re talking about here and now. No, the Dolittles aren’t likeable because they are lazy liars. But they are pure gold when it comes to exposing the mendacity and corruption beneath. So, kudos to them for being exactly what they are, unworthy of public favour or trust, or the crown.

        Meanwhile, the palace PR and they show utter contempt for the taxpayers. So the public should not be outraged? This goes way beyond a dislike of the feckless duo. It’s rather disingenuous to blame it all on dislike. A misdirection, actually.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LAK
        I’m not ignoring anything, just speaking from my limited knowledge. If there are aspects of my argument that can be challenged with new information I am happy to learn. But I wasn’t specifically calling the renovated apartments terrible, specifically, because tourists never got to see it, so I wouldn’t know. But KP, in general, seemed a depressing, unkempt and sour (literally sour smelling) place. It surprised me and my friends.i am glad such a beautiful and historic place will be made sound, modern and appealing – not to mention safe. Maybe Harry and his family will enjoy it once Will becomes PoW.
        Mattie
        People see what they want to see and ignore everything else. The laziness of the Cambridges just gives people permission to be ridiculously critical.

      • bluhare says:

        I for one wasn’t posting here back then. Some of us didn’t pay a ton of attention to the royals until Kate and William got married, like me. So this is new.

        And, for what it’s worth at least Charles works what passes for a fulltime schedule in royalville. So does Camilla. William and Kate not only don’t even qualify as part time these days, they appear to be actively avoiding anything, yet seem willing to let everyone except themselves to pay for it.

        The minor royals now have to pay rent for their apartments. Princess Michael explained the reasoning as they are too far down the line of royals to get enough engagements that would “pay” their rent, so they have to pay actual money. I imagine, as they don’t own the buildings, they get repairs gratis, but I’d be willing to bet they don’t get full on rehabs done like this.

      • Tolva says:

        Live by the press sword and …well you know….by the press sword.
        These two have gotten away with loads, they deserve everything the press will now and eventually throw at them. I am glad the Daily Mail called this to the publics attention.
        How many houses do William and Kate need and now William informed the Palace he doesn’t want to be a full time Royal. What the…..?

      • bluhare says:

        I get your argument, Snarkweek, but none of this is going to the public spaces. It’s all for William and Kate’s “apartment”.

      • Madi says:

        @ hmmm – Yes there was a thriving internet in 2009 and also in 2003 (although message boards were fairly new and not all sites had them in 2003). I live in Britain, so I know what the outcry there was. It was nothing like it is with Wills and Kate (and the Daily Mail absolutely hate them so they always run stories like this). As for the taxes on this it is payable by the public; however the Queen has a budget of 31 million pounds a year to spend on renovations for these type of properties as they are crumbling away. She allocated the budget, so how about putting the blame on her?

        @ bluhare – Prince and Princess Michael of Kent’s pay £69 per week (the Queen picks up the rest – she is the one I have utmost respect for). The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were promised free accommodation (as they went broke) and the Queen has upheld that as long as they do engagements. I don’t know how much The Duke and Duchess of Kent pays but unless they are the most hated (which I doubt) I am sure they don’t pay full price either. And no, I bet unless their roof collapses, there will not be any refurbs for them, but Prince William is 2nd in line, he really should be residing at Buckingham Palace but chose to live at Kensington because he had happy memories there and wants George to grow up there.

        @ Dame – Agree

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Blu
        This is why people find the situation so galling. I agree in a way because W+K do so little. But even the private apartments at KP should be well maintained, imo. And given how little time will be spent there, the renovations should remain pristine for decades, lol.

      • Sixer says:

        @ Madi

        But we are talking about THIS money, THIS renovation. I am quite happy to out myself as an equal opportunities critic. Give me a post about any other waste of money on private foibles by any member of the RF and I’ll say exactly the same thing. On the other hand, if you ask me whether it was ok to find money to repair Windsor Castle after the fire, I will say yes, it was important to do that.

        @ all

        We are a scarce few years since the last Parliamentary sub-committee laid into the disrepair of the Crown Estate and the poor allocation of funds. English Heritage are still classifying some properties as “at risk”. There were existing apartments at KP that could have been used by the Cambridges and they should have been obliged to take them or foot the full bill for insisting on a renovation that wasn’t the highest priority in terms of disrepair.

        When you factor in that the UK has been under austerity measures for the last five years, there just is no excuse for not allocating monies where they are most needed. And the Cambridge apartment does not meet that in any way at all.

      • AM says:

        Dame,
        This has been my question all along with William moving into KP and the renovation – presumably Clarence House will be vacant in several years, and who will live there? And if Harry moves into this KP apartment, wouldn’t his wife want it decorated to her tastes?

      • bluhare says:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3146789/Prince-and-Princess-Michael-of-Kent-to-pay-120000-rent-for-Kensington-Palace-flat.html

        Unless something’s changed since this quite old article, they used to pay nominal rent. They are now paying £10,000 per month. A person could extrapolate, based on the number of rooms, how much more the Cambridge’s could be paying. Princess Michael has said they’re paying this now because there aren’t enough engagements to go around.

        I don’t know anything about anyone else’s rent, and am not commenting on that.

        Yes, William wanted to live at KP because of the happy memories he has. He wanted to live in Diana’s old apartment, which would not have cost nearly as much, but Kate didn’t want it. So I don’t think that William should take the heat for the apartment they chose. It was widely reported to be Kate’s choice.

        Snarkweek, well maintained is one thing. Opulent redos is another . . . on the public purse. I’m all for opulence. I just think there’s a happy medium between a nice redo and a full kitchen for your baby when you aren’t doing anything to actually pay for it.

      • LAK says:

        AM: i’d prefer Harry to inherit CH since he loves gardens and he would look after it beautifully.

      • hmmm says:

        @Madi,

        2003 has *nothing* on the internet today. And there was practically no social media, certainly no twitter and facebook and instagram and tumblr. People still subscribed to lists. Blogs were just coming into their own. Newsprint still ruled. Again, disingenuous. But I won’t go on about it. And I will state once again, then is not now and what matters is now. The comparison is specious.

      • hmmm says:

        @bluhare,

        Like you, I didn’t keep track of the BRF until the day I watched Will and Waity’s wedding (I do love pomp and circumstance and weddings). I do remember the Diana years, but once she died, so did my interest.

        My interest was piqued by the smug look on Waity’s face at the altar which she tried hard not to express. I was intrigued. I knew nothing about her at all till this point! And now I know way too much!

      • LAK says:

        Madi: the current WK apartment wasn’t a private residence. It was part of the public part of the palace. After M died, it was closed up for a few years, but when TPTB decided to revamp KP, it was handed over to them. The charity that took it over revamped it during the same time frame as the other public spaces were being revamped.

        WK insisted on seeing it regardless and decided they wanted it so it had to be converted back to a private residence. The charity had to be reimbursed for their lease and their revamp – seeing that it was to be a public space, i’m sure the charity’s revamp had taken care of health and safety requirements.

        It’s therefore a PR lie on the part of the palace that this particular apartment had not been revamped/refurbished since the 1960s.

  16. Dany says:

    apart from the post here i have to say William is very lucky that he is Diana´s golden son… without all the goodwill thanks to Diana most people and even the hardest royalists would have given him hellfire the last years. Imagine he would be the son of Charles and another woman who wasn´t so charming and loved around the world?
    But he is Diana´s son and she died when he was young so hardcore fans will always find an excuse for his spoiled lazy lifesytle. I predict people will still feel pity for him and allow him everything in 10 years when he is over 40 years old and bald as a pavian butt… that will be when he absolves his 30th gap year to figure out what he will do with his life.

    • Tolva says:

      He’s got the goodwill From Diana, but I honestly don’t think it will last until he’s 40 if he keeps this up. I also think PW may have a mid life crisis around 40 which will threaten his marriage and public image. I believe that William does NOT want the Throne, I have never be
      I even he does, I think he’ll find a way not to take it too.
      I’m not convinced as others that the title means anything to him, I think he only goes through the motions anyway. I’ve had a bet for years that it’s not, Charles who will step aside, it’s William who will. I think he’s a wildcard. I think the Palace courtiers hide a lot about his personality.

    • AC says:

      :0 … That would be me. I keep hoping they will do something that will be reminiscent of his mother… But hope is fading… I agree with Dame, upkeep is necessary and costly on buildings like that, and there would be infinite more goodwill if they were out being useful. Weird. They must not read. How could you be oblivious to the criticism and not react? Wouldn’t it just be easier to get out and work a bit, if only to shut up the critics?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Because they live in a bubble – and I don’t think that it would be beneficial, on a personal basis, to be aware of all criticism because, let’s face, some of the online criticism is downright vicious (not on CB but on other boards).

        Dame Angie, for example, doesn’t bother with all the criticism that is levelled at her, both on the internet and in the tabloids. She just goes on doing what she likes to do and what she feels is important – and luckily, she has a big heart.

      • AC says:

        Rationally, yes it makes sense to think it would be advisable to avoid checking up on the news and tabloid gossip about yourself but I find it hard to believe anyone could resist, even Dame Angie. It’s too readily accessible 24/7. Perhaps a season pro like Angelina would be able to pump the brakes over time, but she’s also a PR expert, so on some level she knows.
        If Kate is as vain and self indulgent as everyone speculates she must grab her iPad in the evenings and have a little peek! But maybe you are right, because she certainly doesn’t appear to react to the criticism in any productive way.

  17. Skins says:

    The peasants must pay! The Royals must live the opulent lifestyle that they are entitled to. Let them eat cake

  18. kibbles says:

    I can understand the high cost of renovating old buildings. What I cannot justify is wasting millions of dollars due to pregnancy hormones. Kate painted her apartment purple then decided to change it again after her pregnancy. That is absurd. This is not a regular paint job that can be redone for less than $10k. Her mistake has probably cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I were living in a house paid for by taxpayers, I would not want to appear extravagant and wasteful. It’s unbelievable that some people go through life entirely dependent on handouts either from parents, in-laws, or taxpayers.

    • bluhare says:

      Gah, I hate it when I have charitable moments, especially now, but I’m having one. It wasn’t purple. She picked a beige with a blue undertone, apparently did not use the paint boards painters will paint for you so you can see what it is going to look like on the walls, and the color has more of a purply/blue tone than she thought. Or the furniture she chose brings that out. But it wasn’t actually purple.

      Although the cost of repainting it (as that isn’t in the part Charles is paying for) is a good question. Kate can’t deflect any of this stuff either because it was widely reported she wasn’t using an interior designer who could possibly have helped her avoid that. Also, she could have thrown the designer under the bus by claiming she had no idea it was all so expensive. But she can’t do that, as it’s out there she didn’t use anyone.

      • PennyLane says:

        Okay I will join you in charitableness: looking at a paint color in photographs and on paint chips is quite different from painting an entire room the same color.

        Also, ‘beige with a blue undertone’ can be really unflattering to someone with sallow-toned skin. Kate probably always looked exhausted in those rooms, no matter what!

        I had a friend in graduate school who wanted a bright cheerful room so she painted it yellow….a very harsh, flat shade. Her room looked like a giant glass of lemonade. Not cheerful, just blindingly yellow.

        Sometimes mistakes happen and you just need to repaint.

      • hmmm says:

        My question is: didn’t she get a clue after one room was painted? It took the ENTIRE repaint for her to go, nah, I made a mistake?

      • AC says:

        How could an interior decorator let that happen? I refuse to believe they weren’t using one?!

      • Chameleon says:

        How many rooms did she paint BEFORE she realised her mistake?

        I doubt painting ONE room in the wrong colour would be very expensive to correct. Remember the cost for the paint is near irrelevant in comparison to the cost of paying the painters. But of course if one only realises one’s mistake once ALL rooms have the wrong colour…

        This more looks like Kate wasn’t there and wasn’t hands-on and wasn’t interested and wasn’t wasn’t isn’t isn’t can’t can’t.

      • bluhare says:

        It was widely reported that Kate did not use an interior designer as she wanted to do it all herself. If there was one, don’t you think that poor slob would be taking the heat for this? “Interior designer padding fees took advantage of Poor Pregnant Kate!” I can see them now.

    • hmmm says:

      Pregnancy hormones? LOL. It’s such a misogynistic excuse but so typical of their bumbling PR. They really think the public is stupid.

    • hmmm says:

      I think the purple paint was a smoke screen, misdirection. It’s their way of saying it’s going to cost more. And look! To the tune of 4 million more!

      I bet the initial estimate was also a smoke screen. If you place a frog in tepid water and slowly turn up the heat, he won’t know what’s happening. The palace slowly turns up the heat to make the outrageous palatable. My favourite excuse is that taxpayers are getting “great value”. ROFL. That doesn’t even make sense.

      • bluhare says:

        I laughed at the “great value” statement, too, hmmmm. If it’s such a great value, then let’s see it! When pigs fly, right?

  19. sunsetsnow says:

    I do not have a problem with the renovations. I have a problem with them not living up to their positions and only reaping the benefits. It’s the modern world. People expect to see their tax money being put to good use not being used by two lazy royals who don’t make any real effort, unless they are told to, and are trying to live the lifestyle of the aristocracy of the past. William is a petulant child who is very aware of what people think of him. He does not care.

  20. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    I think they would be worth more if they were more entertaining – scandals, affairs, intrigue,porn – at least with the eighties Royals we had this. The 4 mil is really for the upkeep on Kates teefs.

    • bluhare says:

      LOL!!! I miss those great scandals. Now we’ve just got cluelessness and tone deaf.

  21. Maple Goodness says:

    Forget about the renovations, the monarchy was one of the biggest participants in colonialism, slavery and massive exploitation of cultures and peoples around the world. They have also stolen many artifacts from various cultures and countries, yet after all this, they are treated reverently, as if they are somehow superior to others! The current monarchy symbolizes and perpetuates an ideal that they have the right to do what they have done and are still superior. Unapologetic of their ridiculous status, they continue to live off of the taxpayers expense. Sorry, visiting charities does not make it all alright. The monarchy is BS. I can only hoped I am alive to witness the dissolution of the monarchy. Monarchism in and of itself is an antiquated and offensive ideal.

  22. hmmm says:

    I doubt that it was merely “refurbishment” or “renovation”. I think they went for full out remodelling which could mean knocking out walls and/or putting up new walls among other things. It sounds as if they may have gutted certain sections of the apartment. After all, the rooms all existed to begin with. For example, the Dolittles have a “new bedroom”, new nursery- what does that even mean at such execrable prices?

    As for paying for furniture, carpets, and curtains- that’s a mere drop in the bucket. How much of the furniture and carpet is new and how much is family antiques? Which means the bulk of the money was spent extravagantly, IMO to satisfy the Dolittles’ whims. I would love to see the true breakdown of costs.

    Is that 1.5 millions from Daddy included in the 4 million price tag or is that above and beyond what was originally reported? There is so much that is suspect coming out of the palace right now. @bluehare was prescient- it wasn’t Bumgate they were trying to distract from with this sudden flush of appearances- it’s the massive, obscene spending. I wonder how much Anmer Hall is costing and who is paying for that?

    • The Original Mia says:

      Yep! These are the costs of a total remodel, not upkeep. I can’t wait for the Amner Hall costs to be revealed since that was a major overhaul as well. I wonder why William didn’t use his own money from his inheritance to pay for the furnishings. It’s the least he could do. Why did Charles have to bail them out? Has William depleted a good chunk of it on the Midds’ Bucklebury estate as suspected?

    • bluhare says:

      Prescient? I like that.

      Madame bluhare sees all! 😀

      PS The £1.5 million from the Bank of Dad is in addition to the £4 million. So it’s £6.5 million total. (I think I just heard your head explode from here!)

    • LAK says:

      £1.5M is in addition to the £4M.

      Can’t wait for next year’s additional bill which will include Amner Hall too.

      Several questions regarding Charles’s bill.

      1. Report has caveat that Charles ‘had to step in’. Sounds like budget was blown and WK had to call in extra help rather than cut back. Couldn’t very well sock the taxpayer credit card with soft furnishings worth £1.5M. Thoughts?

      2. Why did Charles have to step in? William has money. From his mother, from QM and from various royal family trusts. His mother’s legacy alone could have footed that £1.5M bill without a problem.

      3. Since Charles receives a tax write off for official business, and WK’s KP apartment has been designated their ‘official’ residence, will Charles get a tax write off for the £1.5M?

      • bluhare says:

        You mean it’s going to get worse? I wish we had facepalm emoticons!

        I have wondered if he gets a tax write off too. The DM referred to them as “state apartments”. Is that a general term for any apartment at KP or is this specific one designated that way? I don’t know British tax code, but if he’s furnishing state apartments, he might be able to get a write off for it? Which means that the poor taxpayers of Britain are underwriting or subsidizing the whole bloody job?

      • LAK says:

        Aha! Bluhare. Aha!!

      • MinnFinn says:

        Re: #2 – Perhaps Charles’ contribution was basically a bribe to keep William in the fold. I could imagine William refusing to spend his own cash because he doesn’t want to live at KP.

      • hmmm says:

        I forgot about the tax write off. And I never imagined he could write the whole thing off as state apartments, and I bet he does. No wonder Charles is paying for it rather than William. I’m just speechless at the manouevering…..cheap, greedy bastards.

        In a sense, I hope this gets lots of press and begins to wake people up on what parasites they are. The republic can’t come soon enough.

      • LAK says:

        Aha! Minnfinn, Aha!!!!

        And then HM gifted a helicopter (leased, I know) for similar reasons???!!! 😉

        Mind you, i’m less charitable about the helicopter since she’s using the sovereign grant to pay for it, but we’ll see how often it’s used for ‘work’ as opposed to ‘play’

        Simultaneously I think the helicopter is like a poisoned apple. It’s flight path can be tracked and HM has to explain/justify it’s usage to the public records committee.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LAK
        HM and Charles seem to be scrambling to give Will anything that will prevent a tantrum. Sad, really.

      • LAK says:

        Aha! Dame. Aha!!!

        can you imagine the daily plotting of cunning plans for what to do about William?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LAK
        Lol, methinks that is why someone pulled Richard Kay’s number out of their iphone and pinned it to the bullletin board in the courtier break room.

      • hmmm says:

        LAK,

        “Cunning plans”? Bwah! Is this tongue in cheek? Because it sounds like desperate concessions and downright bribery to me. Just goes to show, no one in that family has a backbone.

        What’s interesting to me is this desperation to keep him in the fold which you suggest. This means to me, that the RF will do anything to survive, and damn the taxpayers, their subjects, the little people, the poor and downtrodden. They circle the wagons and sic their PR goons on the world.

        I think the RF sees their position in life as “us v them’. Instead of making this big baby shape up, they enable his weaknesses and worst qualities. I wonder what he tells them to inspire such toadying in them.

        It also seems to me that that he manipulates them for his own ends. What better time, when your grandparents are getting older and weaker and look to their legacy? There is no better time to take advantage. And I believe he is doing exactly that. In any other ‘common’ mortal this would be considered egregious. Some power play, but I think that is what it is and he’s got them running scared and eating out of his hand. Diana would be so proud.

      • Original N says:

        @LAK…
        “Simultaneously I think the helicopter is like a poisoned apple. It’s flight path can be tracked and HM has to explain/justify it’s usage to the public records committee.”

        Could this be why it was ‘gifted?’ I mean…if I did not condone private use of a public-funded helicopter by W & K, this is exactly how I would tackle the issue if I were the Queen…

    • MinnFinn says:

      I’m always amused that they always bring up asbestos removal when they discuss costs. It’s a good PR strategy because asbestos scare people as we all know they cause cancer.

      But there’s hidden information in their statement about asbestos removal as removal indicates they completely replaced something (likely flooring or ceiling) plus removal is the most expensive treatment. A cheaper treatment is sealing the asbestos-containing thing in situ.

      • LAK says:

        yep!!!

      • littlestar says:

        That’s true but the thing with asbestos is that when it gets wet, it can be dangerous and sealing it off isn’t an option (my family owns a remediation company and we regularly deal with asbestos). I’m guessing KP doesn’t have water problems though and asbestos removal was part of the “coverup”.

        Will they publicly release a breakdown of the costs of renovation?

  23. joy says:

    And can we just clarify that for them, work is wandering around and smiling for the cameras? Work for the rest of us is something else entirely.

  24. Cricket says:

    I wonder if Wolf gifted a kitchen suite to Pippa who in turn, gave it to them as a house warming gift? Mentioning Wolf is great product placement too. Oh, and coincidentally their dog’s name is Lupo, Italian for wolf…..

    Sounds suspect that the newly re-painted walls haven’t a chance to dry and now we hear they are off to Amner Hall to live for William’s new ‘job’ aNd the newly leased helicopter to take them to, from Amner hall to KP to Bucklebury… Sounds like it will be a busy air taxi, will the Middletons be given rides as well?

    This all seems to be so out of hand, especially when we are told how the Queen is so frugal.

    • LAK says:

      To be fair, HM always goes all out when she’s gifting homes to various family members, BUT! She seems to be extravagantly gifting William over and above everybody else which begs the question why?

      He’s the least value for money member of the family and i’m including all who undertake duties, but receiving the most at this point.

      If she was equally generous to her other grandkids, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid, but she’s not.

      EDIT: one more thing, as Charles footed the £1.5M soft furnishings bill, i’m not surprised it was so high. The man has extravagant, expensive taste.

      • hmmm says:

        Any thoughts why her maj is favouring William so much, LAK? This all just boggles my mind. Surely it’s not just to keep him in the fold.

      • bluhare says:

        He’s the heir and he could “a” word. A word that strikes fear into her heart. I bet that’s it. And he’s playing her like a bloody violin. Disgusting.

        And then leaks to the DM that he’ll be taking on a part time job so he can spend time with his family. I’m so tired of saying “gah”, because I would right here.

    • LAK says:

      Hmmm: that seems to be the general consensus. There is no other reasonable explanation considering William is going to inherit the lot one day.

      • hmmm says:

        Darn, LAK, I was hoping for something more complex. LOL! He’s got them by the short and curlies, it sounds like.

      • wolfpup says:

        Why is it so important to have a royal? Is it so the rich can keep their lesser titles?

  25. eliza says:

    My only wish is for Queen Elizabeth to continue on the throne for a good long while and then Charles lives a ripe, long life of the king, hopefully by the time William and Kate are ready to take over, there will be no monarchy.

    I am among the few that cannot stand either one of them. I find William to be a preachy, entitled do-nothing who thinks most people buy his simple folks, nice guy act. He is smug and he and his wife, in my opinion, are the laziest of the royals. It is a shame Harry was not the older of the two. Unlike his brother, he seems to genuinely do good work much in the same way his mother did.

    • bluhare says:

      I think there’s more than a few people here who are in complete agreement with you.

    • wolfpup says:

      I don’t think that they care what anyone thinks! There is an entitlement issue that is difficult for me to understand. Who/what allows them this kind of freedom, to do pretty much *whatever* they want?

      • hmmm says:

        That’s my take on it, too, wolfpup. We are nowhere close to their sacred sphere and in their minds they don’t answer to the people/taxpayers- that is beneath them. I don’t think much has changed since her maj was forced to make concessions after Diana died while she didn’t see the necessity; they’re just more PR savvy.

        I think in the BRF, entitlement= Divine Right. ArtHistorian laid it out so clearly, in that the Spanish Felipe was proclaimed king but not crowned king, while in the UK, Charles will be anointed/crowned king as a divine right, just like her maj. This is so wrong on so many levels in this day and age, yet the mentality is there. To me, it makes the case of this entitled princeling, William, that much more execrable. Happily, their PR is lousy and the internet might just bring them down.

      • hmmm says:

        LAK,

        I agree it is totally about self-preservation for the BRF (I said something similar upthread). They certainly are not above not only milking the PR but bilking taxpayers out of millions every year. They sold everyone a bill of goods and everyone fell for it and we’re still falling for it.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      I think it is a shame that the entire rf is spoiled and coddled. They do charitable work because their cache raises money and awareness for worthy causes. But that cache is based on their “superiority” which people willingly endorse by spoiling and coddling them. Let them fund their own lifestyles for a change. Let them support charities because it is the right thing to do. Let the tax money used to support the rf be diverted to the charities that need it way more than they do. If the whole lot of them had to pay for themselves would they still patronize these charities or would they disappear into the world of aristocratic entitlement and privilege? Would they spend time visiting sick children or decide which thoroughbred horse to invest in next? Kate and William are a sign of a bigger problem, imo.

      • LAK says:

        If they didn’t have the tax money, they wouldn’t be so charitable. the tax money cusions their lifestyle, but they also have to justify why they have it and so *charity it is.

        *charity was George V’s cunning idea. No one in the family has thought up a different one, so they all follow in his footsteps until someone thinks up another one.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LAK
        Completely agree. Had no idea all of the handshaking and ribbon cutting was so recent a concept. Was this a reaction to anti-German sentiments during the war? Was this part of the Coburg overhaul or embarassment that so many people were starving?

      • bluhare says:

        Noblesse oblige is an old concept, though. They DO owe the people something. They don’t work for a living, and their tax situation is so much better than the average Brit, they should give something back. A lot, actually.

        I’ve never been a republican but this is starting to sway me.

      • Rosehip says:

        I don’t doubt it IS an expensive operation to renovate and refurbish a historical building. The reason why we are all debating about it, is that they do nothing in return. They don’t ‘earn’ it, and they don’t even seem to acknowledge that they have to earn it in one way or another.

        Other question. How ‘private’ is ‘private’ exactly? Charles gets a big part of his fortune from the Duchy of Cornwall, if i understood things correctly.
        I take it we are talking about an agricultural revenue, right?
        How much agricultural support is Charles granted by the European Union for his Duchy? Did anyone ever ask and/or answer this question?

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Snark•

        Actually it was Victoria and Albert that started the Royals and charity connection (Albert really). Alexandra took it to a new level that kept growing and expanding to what it is today.

      • LAK says:

        Honestly Dame, it was venal self preservation brought on by anti-monarchist sentiment across Europe which was toppling royal families in many countries.

        Having come up with the entire family charity whizz, he sent out them to do as many charity/ events as publicly as possible to cement their position so that they could be perceived to be useful rather than being resented and removed like their European cousins.

        That’s not to say that none of the royals were charitable or had never participated in charitable endeavors, but the wholesale charitable visits by royals en masse was purely self preservation rather than anything substantive as some of the reasons you’ve listed. It’s amazing that it still works.

        All the other stuff he did eg changing their name and insisting on British spouses was another way to cement them here, but the charity thing was never about truly helping the poor. just photo ops dressed up as charity.

        EDIT: correction. the QM had the second bright idea. She came up with the royals as ‘Ordinary, despite the privileges’.

        She was a master at that one. She took George V’s idea and run with it. Brilliantly incorporating it into her ‘ordinary, despite the privileges’ schtick.

        Oddly, despite their not getting along, she was as good as Diana on the PR front. Much of what QM did were empty gestures when closely examined, but they made the royals extremely popular.

      • hmmm says:

        bluhare,

        I’m a huge supporter of noblesse oblige in that it gives the toffs a direction, that they have a responsibility to make, at the very least, their world around them better. It’s a beginning. I don’t know how prevalent it is today.

        In the olden days, some did care about their tenants, subjects. whatever, coming from a world of privilege as they did. Now, it’s all just shallow PR for the BRF.

      • wolfpup says:

        It is called Her Majesties government, but where is the money, because that is the answer. England is not held together by the queen’s 500M. Who wants her in “power”? I am not asking about royalist/republicans (the people). Who actually depends on the royal family? How would the government hold up if she were not on the coin? Is Britain riddled with corporations like America is? I always fancy Prince Charles in a drawing room being political, or politicians courting him…just holding tight to that money circle.

        What a spoiled brat William must be to insist on having his own life. (multiple meanings)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LadyS
        Thank you – makes me want to go to ebay and brush up on my Victoriana.
        LAK
        Pathetic but fascinating! It reminds me of reading about the extensive and expensive overhaul Clarence House received after Liz and Phil tied the knot. Just like KP it was part taxes and partly a big gift from daddy. Still suffering from the devastation of war, many people also complained. But no one really cared and Churchill never wanted to say no to the QM. That’s why she got a pay hike, extra staff, an enlarged expense account and Castle May to boot following the king’s passing. Churchill would’ve given her anything to convince her to come out of her self-imposed mourning ‘retirement’ because the people needed to see her.
        Well played, rf. Ugh.

      • LAK says:

        Dame: speaking of Castle Mey, it’s now available for short term rentals though QM’s bedroom is off limits.

      • Aeryn39 says:

        A lot has been mentioned about how George V re-envisioned the concept of the monarchy having a more direct relationship with the people through charitable works and regular visits to localities across the UK a means for survival following the demise of several European monarchies during WWI.

        I do think sometimes Queen Mary, George V’s consort, gets a bit lost in this though. Queen Mary grew up with a very strong sense that charitable efforts as a fulfilling and a duty, a firm belief she inherited from her mother, Princess Mary Adelaide. Now Princess Mary Adelaide was horrible with money and even went bankrupt at one point and she and her family had to move to the continent for a year or so. But it’s really fascinating to read up on Princess Mary Adelaide’s charity work and how it affected the future Queen Mary who acted as her mother’s personal assistant (Princess Mary Adelaide didn’t have one). I’ve even read several stories about how Queen Victoria was not too pleased about the popularity of her cousin Mary A. as a result of how much affection she generated for her works and that during sometimes during processions, Princess Mary Adelaide would receive more rapturous cheers from the crowds than the Queen.

        So I do think Queen Mary’s sincere commitment to charitable work combined with George V’s determination to save the Crown created the perfect mix we see today, perfect that is until Doolittle and Will Middleton. I do think that HM, the DoE, Princess Anne and the Prince of Wales and others do have have sincere commitments to their patronages. While it may be seen as a duty, I do not necessarily believe that duty automatically undermines sincerity.

        If you have a moment, you might want to check out two very interesting biographies I’ve read about Queen Mary: Matriarch by Anne Edwards and Queen Mary by James Pope-Hennessy. Also, Queen Mary’s Photographs by Christopher Warwick is fascinating as well (I bought it when it first came out and love to re-read it once a year).

  26. Tolva says:

    Can’t wait for their next holiday, these two think they can get away with anything.
    I’m surprised the DMail is turning hard on them, but I like it.
    No way these two end up with a. Monarchy when their time comes, IMO they just don’t get it!

  27. Jocelyn says:

    Their expressions in these photos plus this story makes them hard to bear. I used to like them but Kate & William have an air of smugness about them. Some people pick on Kate for this exclusively (not this site) and William is excused because he’s Diana’s son but he has it too.

    • bluhare says:

      I totally agree. I’ve been noticing the smug much more lately, especially on Kate.

      • Jocelyn says:

        You actually pointed it out to me in a story a couple days before lol. You were really spot on. I never really thought about their expressions but now I notice it every time time I see a picture of them.

      • bluhare says:

        Madame bluhare sees all! 😀

      • Original N says:

        Hi Blu! I hope you have been well! I, too, see it all the time which is why I just avoided posts during/after the tour. To observe the smugness, the extravagance, the incessant vacations … the taxpayer-payer funded lifestyle so overtly displayed on W & K and then read of starving children, kidnapped children, tortured animals, etc. makes me ill. Something is terribly wrong with someone who has the power to bring about change in a world that so desperately needs it and instead, her (and his?) attentions are focused on redoing a shade of beige that turned out ‘too purple.’ I have no additional words to express my dismay other than I fully support what Maple Goodness said above!

  28. Kori says:

    And in the meantime the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore (where Victoria and Albert are buried) is closed until further notice because it is so decrepit its unsafe for visitors.

    • hmmm says:

      Great point, Kori. Makes one wonder what about the BRF’s priorities (as if we didn’t know 🙂 ).

  29. SoCal says:

    I understand that it will be a lot of money to renovate a historic building of Apartment 1A’s size. That being said we know that Kate has expensive taste and that she probably chose the most expensive appliances, fixtures, paint, etc for her home, adding more to the amount of money already spent. Kate doesn’t believe i the phrase: “How to decorate for LESS.” She sure doesn’t dress for less.

    Asbestos removal? Weren’t there people using Apartment 1A for office space before the Cambridge’s renovation? So no one thought to check for asbestos then? I guess the lungs of the office occupiers didn’t matter. Wow.

    As for the helicopter, again expensive taste. The Cambridge’s can’t be caught dead using a car for a visit that is 30 minutes away. But I do think other members of the RF will be using it as well.

  30. Megan says:

    Firstly, a large portion of the issue with London real estate has to do with houses being purchased by foreigners ( the 1%) see NYT article here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/londons-great-exodus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    Even out in the country, the richest English are buying second or third homes they spent a few weekends at a year, boosting the price of the area, and taking up precious space in the tiny country. In a democratic country, this is unfortunately not something that can be monitored or controlled, not the fault of the Queen or Kate.
    Secondly, for an insightful look at the functioning purpose of the Royals, take a look at CGP Grey’s video The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw). The fact is that tourism is a huge industry, everywhere, and it’s nothing to be sniffled at. You don’t want them to renovate the palaces or even exist? There goes your tourist dollars, which is staggering. That means fewer bookstores, coffee shops, museums (which are free!), clothing stores, sex stores, chocolate shops, bars. If I were English, I certainly wouldn’t be going on about driving out the main source of the country’s economic stability.
    As a Canadian who lived in England and saw lived the tax expense and laboured in kitchens in London, I found the health care system superior to Canada, groceries and clothing far less expensive, and transit far more efficient. Aside from high rental prices, my pound went further than my dollar does back home.
    Regardless of history, that is, how the Windsors came into “power”, the fact is that they aren’t hurting anyone. I can’t imagine why the cost of upkeep on the castles and palaces, which are beautiful, heritage tourist draws (after all the PM of Canada lives in a leaky, freezing, decrepit shamble of a house that is effectively falling down but they won’t renovate for fear the citizens will revolt) rather than question the secretive, terrifying power of the City of London (the city within a city no one wants to talk about, I worked there, it’s bizarre).

    • hmmm says:

      The Windsors aren’t ‘hurting anyone’? What kind of argument is this? Is murder/assault the only criterion?

      As for tourism, commenters here have proved over and over again that the loss of the RF would not be a great loss. Proof of fact- the French.

      PR is powerful. People buy into it all the time, IMO. And that goes for Canadians, too. (I’m Canadian).

      • wolfpup says:

        Who is driving the PR – what’s in it for who?

      • wolfpup says:

        Seriously, does the royal family still milk the masses as in times of yore? Or is it different now… Is it any less humiliating to curtsy?

    • Suze says:

      Oh, heavens. If they moved the royals completely out of these beautifully renovated heritage sites and hustled the tourists in and out constantly, rather than intermittently, as they do now, they would make even more money.

    • mazzie says:

      The Queen of Canada (for she’s also that) doesn’t really help us but we do have to pay when anyone from Canadian Royal Family visits. Waste of time.

  31. AmyWinelake says:

    As a Scottish taxpayer, the Royal fam exist entirely on taxpayer money. This isn’t really a scandal. We SHOULD insist that PHG gets nekkid every time they spend a quid though!

  32. Wallpaper says:

    I agree with You admin.
    I got knowledge from it.
    Thanks

  33. Xantha says:

    At this point I’m just trying to wrap my head around just how spoiled and coddled these two truly are. There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to sit them down and tell them off. But no because one of them was born a heir and the other married said heir they must be deferred to. And all that deferring and cowtowing to their every demand has made them into entitled assholes.

    Well one good thing about this is if these two ever dare try and act like their life is so hard, more people than not will roll their eyes and scoff. The goodwill they had at their wedding is long gone and I don’t see how they can actually get it back. Not even a new baby or more shots of George would truly help them regain it because, well, cute babies can only do so much. And many people are savvy enough to know that public figures like them use their babies for PR.

    Do I think the BRF will go down like the French and Russians? Not likely. But I do think the Republic movement will grow, especially if a) These two continue their spoiled behavior and b)The British Press actually continue to call them out on it.

  34. FLORC says:

    And now we know why there have been so many events lately. This news was bound to be known soon and for bumgate.
    Ofcourse.

  35. Sozual says:

    The monarch is funded by the Crown Estates, which is property owned by one of William and Harry’s great, great, great grandfathers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate. I am still looking into this, but evidently from what I have found is that the estates are used publicly even though technically William and family own this property. So tax payers pay for this property that is used publicly and the monarch gets %15 of the profits, which is about 33 million/per yr. The profit earned from these estates is 200 million each year. I am doing more research, but this is the info I have gathered. It is like one of their great great grandfathers turned his mansion into a “museum” and the tax payers are paying to use it see it etc. Part of the “museum” though is for private use. Since the royals do own these properties they could just take it back , not have people pay tax for it, and have it rented out for millions of dollars a year. So they would still get their money because they own the property. The real people that get usage of these properties are tourists and the royals. If people of London benefit then it is the people that own business and get the tourist money. Regular folks benefit if their bosses pay them well. If you own land you own land and will get money off of it. No matter how that land was acquired centuries ago, just like the land of America being stolen. I think the motives of the BRF for the past centuries has been to maintain their titles and not get overthrown, even though the beginning motive with George III was paying off some debt (motive was money). When I say motives I mean doing charity work, being open about their spending, and etc.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      Fascinating!

    • Sixer says:

      Sozual – the RF don’t own the Crown Estate. It belongs to the nation. The RF does have private wealth and property – eg Balmoral – but does not own the Crown Estate any more than the President of the US owns the White House or Air Force 1. They could not “take it back”.

    • LAK says:

      The crown Estates have NEVER, EVER been owned by any of the royals.

      The current crown estates website as well as the BRF website not to mention every single history/legal book or document states this very clearly.

      The use of the word ‘crown’ confuses because of course HM is the crown, but you might as well say she owns (or her ancestors owned) the government since the proper term for that is Her Majesty’s government.

      The crown estates are different from the duchies of Cornwall (pay for the POW) and Lancaster (pay for the monarch).

      They were set aside in Norman times to pay for the instrument of government which included army, parliament expenses and government expenses. Since back in ye old times government also included the King, it was assigned to pay his expenses which extended to his family.

      Britain was very lucky that they thought of this so early in the formation of the Kingdom because unlike peasants from the rest of the world, they weren’t taxed into the ground to pay for their own government.

      Taxes, when they did come, were few and for short periods and for specific things eg income tax was specifically to pay for Nelson’s Napoleonic wars. It wasn’t supposed to be a permanent thing.

      The national debt was paid by import tax, not taxing the peasants.

      The monarch was expected to manage the estates, but frequently mismanaged them and went to parliament to ask that the peasants be taxed to raise extra revenue. Again, very specific taxes and for specific reason.

      Eventually, George III decided it was too much to manage them so he handed their management over to parliament on condition that they continued to pay his expenses. This is the origin of the civil list which is now the Sovereign grant.

      The estates’ name has undergone many changes throughout history, currently it’s called The Crown Estates.

      The website gives information on it’s current incarnation, it’s current assets, how they are managed and expenditure disbursed. It doesn’t go into the history of those assets except to state what it’s previous incarnation was called – the crown lands, and the fact that it has never, ever been owned by the royals or their ancestors.

      IF we became a republic tomorrow, with a president, the sovereign grant would simply transfer to their upkeep.

      The estates, today, pay for public services eg Police, Army, NHS and of course government. The Sovereign grant is for the upkeep of the head of state who happens to be a royal. It’s a salary of sorts. The head of state has never owned the crown estates.

      • wolfpup says:

        A salary!

      • Sozual says:

        The information I have says they did. King George III started this whole thing off. Research and show links about the beginning of the crown estates.

      • LAK says:

        Sozul: I just told you were to find them. Go to the BRF’s official website and look at crown estates line. First 2 sentences tell you about Norman times and the fact that they were never owned by the royals.

        Then go to the Crown Estates’s own website. Look under FAQ. Same as above.

        George III started what became known as the civil list. It doesn’t mean that the royals owned the crown estates.

        The best way to explain what GIIIR did is to give an alternative analogy where Charles decides he can’t be bothered to run the duchy of Cornwall and hands it to parliament to run in exchange for his expenses being paid. Those expenses becoming known as the civil list. It’s a similar situation with the crown estates.

  36. Megan says:

    Christopher Wren is one of England’s foremost architects and the tradition of taxpayer funded Wren projects goes back to 1669.

    Amner Hall is a private residence, meaning it belongs to them personally, not to the crown, which is why the renovations were paid for by the family, not taxpayers.

  37. Stephanie says:

    The place hadn’t been refurbished since 1963 well why the hell not? All decades of inflation and no one had the forsight to realize putting it off would cost that much more? Morons.

  38. juan carlos says:

    i don’t get it, you’re soooooooooooooo excited because Angelina Jolie is a DAME (YES!) now and you’re also a “social concient” who critizes royalty????