Eugenie moving into Kensington Palace

I'm a royalist too but really only as far as the Queen and direct descendants are concerned.
The Duke of York annoys me with his constant hanging on to his position and that of his daughters. Always referring to them as the Princesses and insisting they have Royal security and perks. How many official engagements do they undertake? None as far as I can see and isn't that the deal? You work for the "firm" and you get rewarded.
Even Prince William is getting on my nerves a bit, shirking his duties to spend time with his family, or so it seems.
Prince Harry for me, he's always involved in something.

Anniebach I am in favour of the monarchy - but a slimmed down monarchy which earns its keep, Head of State and a small team of deputies.

This is a step too far even for me especially since the flat she shares with her equally pampered sister was done up at huge cost not so long ago.

Of course, we don't know that she hasn't won the Euro Millions and can afford to pay the market rent for her flat!

Well said trisher .

I've always wondered why Andrew's daughters were 'princesses' but Princess Anne's children were untitled. I suppose it was her choice.

It's all to easy to sit here and knock these people, isn't it. None of us can choose the circumstances into which we are born, and I wonder how many of us would behave any better if it were us? However, I do think that those like Princess Eugenie should be making their own way in life and not depending on handouts of any sort.
I am a strong monarchist but agree it should be slimmed down. My admiration for the Queen is huge and I won't hear a word against her. And I like Charles, he does a lot of good I think. All of it is better than the fiasco of Presidential elections, isn't it? That would cost a lot more, and have no cohesion and history like our royal family have.

I imagine it's cheaper to provide the security the Royal Family needs when the individuals are all on one site. I thought I'd recently read Eugenie was marrying her American b/f? If so the residence won't be for long.

We provided housing for Andrew and his ex wife in Windsor. Apartments for their two daughters in St James Palace, apartments for William and Harry in KP and offices for them in St James Palace. Duke and Duchess of Gloucester , Duke and Duchess of Kent and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent live in K.P . In St James .palace we house both Andrews daughters, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra . We provide a house in Windsor for Andrew and his ex wife , Clarence House we house Charles and Camilla .

We also pay for round the clock security for Highgrove, Sandringham, Anne and Edwards country estates and Camilla's family home which she kept after her divorce , the Scotland holiday homes and Wormwood in Wales

Costs of security is not released to the public !

It seems the rumours of marriage are being denied, but according to the Daily Mail the boyfried will continue to live with her and no doubt help to pay the rent (or not).
A pity Andrew and children do not behave more like Edward and Anne and their families - or is it the press that is to blame for giving their mundane, mostly unproductive lives, so much publicity?

Its a wonder they don't earn enough from modelling those very strange hats they wore at William's wedding

In this case, Eugenie did an article in some glossy magazine or other.

In the grand scale of (non-royal family) tax-dodging, outrageous executive pay and bonuses, bankers' greed etc. which ultimately impoverish the rest of us, Princess Eugenie's cottage is a drop in the ocean.

I've nothing against the Queen is as a head of state, but I don't buy the idea that they bring in millions of tourists. How many tourists see the royal family or go in any of her palaces? They might gawp at the outside of Buck House on a tourist bus, but even if we didn't have a Royal Family they could still see that, more likely to be able to go inside like you can with Versailles in France, which I bet has a lot more tourists than Buck House.

Fsr more people visit Versailles than buck house, in fact more tourists visit the London Eye than Buck house. The most popular place is the Tower!

Go and get a job the pair of them, there not doing nothing and I expect we will pay for the wedding I find those two annoying and there mother.

Ya boo - Sour grapes you lot - I agree with Cavalier Mum- do you think all these foreign tourists would come to Uk if it wasn't for the Queen and the Royal Family - Scotland and Wales Included. Well maybe Beatrix Potter and Downton Abbey too!! All these other countries envy us our Royal Family and they mostly do a good job. If any parents want to subsidise their kids and grandkids, it's their right.

How many foreign tourists see the Queen?

Did any of you read the wikipedia link I posted?

First paragraph of the article:

The British Royal Family is financed mainly by the hereditary revenues of the Crown.[1] The British Parliament uses a percentage of the Crown Estate, a part of the Crown's hereditary revenues belonging to the sovereign that is placed at the disposal of the House of Commons, to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures.[1][2] This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment.

As far as I can make out, the Treasury receives the income from the Crown Estates and a percentage of that is paid to the Queen as the Sovereign Grant. She and Prince Charles also pay the Teasury a voluntary amount each year from their private income equivalent to what they would have paid in income tax had they been liable for income tax. So, apart from the cost of security (a figure for which I haven't been able to find) I can't see where any cost to the taxpayer is involved.

Historically all the land in a country belonged to a monarch, who then parcelled it out to their followers in reward for services to the Crown. That's how many of the huge landholdings of the 'aristocracy' were originally acquired. The Crown Estates are what is left after centuries of dishing out land to the favoured.

The Duchy of Cornwall was given to the monarch's heir in mediaeval times; that's what suppports Prince Charles and his family. Both he and the Queen are perfectly entitled to give whatever they want to members of their family out of their private incomes and properties; it's how any wealthy family behaves.

Sorry, I meant to post the link again

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

Kensington Palace , St James palace and Windsor castle are not the queens property

We're stupid enough to fund them.

We have no choice

We're stupid enough to fund all these hangers on.

Again, we have no choice

Thing is, I hate to burst Bebe47´s bubble, but living abroad, most tourists (and I know of a fair few people who have been tourists in London) do not go because of the royal family. Most of the rest of Europe is no longer under a monarchy and some countries with a monarchy are not particularly happy about it - mainly because they cost so much to support. Maybe a number of American tourists are curious about the monarchy, but no more so than interested in many other things London has to offer.
Another thing which has come up about the American presidency - don't you think the British Election are proportionately as expensive? I bet it aint far out!

Cant edit - American Elections certainly cost waaaay more, but the British ones aint cheap either!