Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12

AIBU?

To To be appalled at all the royal palaces.

279 replies

purplehazed · 04/01/2016 22:26

I've just watched Ant and Dec with Prince Charles. The sheer opulence of those numerous palaces. Just how many do they need? So so wrong imo.
Surely in these times of massive hardship for so many it is time they were scaled right back.

OP posts:

Report

TheSecondViola · 04/01/2016 22:35

And do what? Turn them into homeless hostels? Sell them to a russian oligarch or a saudi prince? Two are privately owned and the others are held in Sovereign Trust, so they can't be just sold off.
I don't think you've thought this through.

FuckyNell · 04/01/2016 22:36

Yabu

MuttonDressedAsMutton · 04/01/2016 22:38

Yabu. I expect you'd like that nice Mr Corbyn to convert them all into hostels and rehab centres wouldn't you. You really ABU.

Oldsu · 04/01/2016 22:39

Why??? you do realise that Kensington Palace, St James Palace Clarence House are not private residences they are the traditional homes of royalty, when Charles is King William will most likely live in Clarence House etc

What do you think will happen if they were scaled back, turned into council estates for the poor and needy - dream on they would be bought by uber rich foreigners.

WorraLiberty · 04/01/2016 22:39

They should turn them into Aldis.

Starwarsorbaby · 04/01/2016 22:40

YANBU

WorraLiberty · 04/01/2016 22:40

Or maybe a KFC?

There's enough land for a drive-thru.

Griphook · 04/01/2016 22:41

As long as they can pay for them through sheer hard work 😉like the rest of us, it fine by me

manicinsomniac · 04/01/2016 22:41

YABU

If you start there where do you stop?

Celebrities and the super rich who live in 2 bedroom mansions on acres of land?

Retired couples in 6 bedroom detached houses?

Affluent families with a guest room?

Anyone with a spare sofa bed?

Most people have more than they need. If we were going to be equal and share things then, in theory, that would be great but I don't think most of us would enjoy the subsequent changes to our own lifestyles.

purplehazed · 04/01/2016 22:41

Ok, so we'll just let one family have them all. All that upkeep, for only short periods of the year. Outrageous.

OP posts:

purplehazed · 04/01/2016 22:42

The difference being that celebs pay for them selves of course.

OP posts:

FlatOnTheHill · 04/01/2016 22:43

And what do expect them to do with empty palaces. YABU
WorraLiberty I will second that

Ubik1 · 04/01/2016 22:43

I'd open them up and let people enjoy visiting them, enjoy the grounds, maybe let people stay in them.

It's not such an outrageous idea, surely.

Oldsu · 04/01/2016 22:44

Charles lives at Clarence House when he is in London and his Office is at St James Palace so hardly short periods

PaulAnkaTheDog · 04/01/2016 22:44

So tell us your plans for them. Please.

Ubik1 · 04/01/2016 22:45

KFC far too low rent.

A Nando's would be much better.

imwithspud · 04/01/2016 22:45

YABU. Even if they were open to the public, it wouldn't exactly make much of a difference to the less fortunate.

TheSecondViola · 04/01/2016 22:46

In 2014 visitors to Royal Palaces directly brought in 55 MILLION POUNDS, much of which is used to pay for the upkeep of the palaces and the treasures held in trust for the nation. Thats without the rest of the cash they bring the country as a whole.

Again, what do you propose to do with them, and how will you replace the tourism money they generate?

Ubik1 · 04/01/2016 22:46

You could turn one of them into a real life hogwarts. With a nando's.

Dipankrispaneven · 04/01/2016 22:47

A number of them are open to the public already, including Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle.

TheSecondViola · 04/01/2016 22:47

I'd open them up and let people enjoy visiting them, enjoy the grounds

They do. They are. Buckingham, Windsor, Holyrood and Clarence House. All open to the public at times.

Ubik1 · 04/01/2016 22:48

You can keep the royals in much -reduced splendour.

All the bling can go on display. The queen could show people round.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Viviennemary · 04/01/2016 22:49

I disapprove of the whole concept of royalty. So I agree. France has no royal family but still has palaces for people to view. They could turn them into rest homes for fed up Mnetters.

purplehazed · 04/01/2016 22:49

I actually believe that there would be more visitors if the palaces were empty. I don't believe for one minute the myth that the royals bring in tourists. Paris doesn't do too bad.

OP posts:

MrsJayy · 04/01/2016 22:50

The estate in wales have holiday homes you can book dumfries house is open to the public the other 2 are royal residences with offices and apartments attached where would you like them to live charles can hardly book into a premier inn when he visits out of London.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.