To To be appalled at all the royal palaces.

[purplehazed]

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.

Why do the Yorks have such terrible PR advice?

I have no PR experience but I could do it.

1. Get a fun job of your choice through contacts

OR

1. Marry a man of your choice, settle down
2. Stay out of the papers

Princess Margaret's children manage this, and Edward and Sophie.

The Royal Family in their current form are an outdated concept. It is ridiculous that they still exist in the way they do.

If the Queen had one ounce of conscience she herself would demand reform.

Oh for crying out loud. The royals property and estates bring in vastly more than we give them. It's so simple. That's all there is to it. The Queen et al could easily say sod you all then and just live on her own income and screw us out of millions.

Such oppulence and wealth
Most of it it's historical. I even doubt they use those rooms, or would want to, in a regular basis.

A President would probably still have use of some of those palaces.

Stay out of the papers. Princess Margaret's children manage this, and Edward and Sophie.

I think Edward and Sophie learnt the hard way though, she got in trouble with that fake sheik and 'retired' from the public for a while.

It's so simple. That's all there is to it.

is it? have you read the thread?
if it's so simple where's your evidence?

Queen et al could easily say sod you all then and just live on her own income and screw us out of millions.

no, they couldn't. You realise that we don't have an absolute monarchy don't you?

Fergie and Andrew learned the hard way but don't appear to have learnt.

I think that historians will consider Fergie to be one of the most significant nails in the coffin of the RF.

If you look at Royal incomes vs Civil List bills then yes, they generate more than they take out.
Not so much if you include the cost of protection, costs incurred by official engagements and transport to them and grants for repairs and maintenance of palaces, indeed look at the redecoration bill that William & Catherine ran up redecorating KP. All comes from the public purse. We will never get yours of that apartment that's for sure!

I don't dislike any of them as individuals, it's the monarchy as a concept as it currently stands that bugs me. I'd expect if any kind of 'stuff you' was attempted that they e made to pay appropriate tax on all income and be entirely self funding with regard to security and costs if running their properties. Also paying for themselves to get to their 'work' just like anyone else.

The cost of protecting Princess Beatrice and Eugenie was £500,000 a year until a stop was put to that. They have retained their HRH title and apparently wanted to carry out royal functions until the Queen told their father it would be better if they pursued their own careers.
I honestly believe that if these two had been allowed to become high profile royals, it would have brought down the whole family. The contrast between this pair and Zara, who has never had HRH status despite being entitled to it and who has never had protection is startling. Plus, Zara has excelled as a sportswoman and helped to train a horse that went on to win the Grand National after her husband bought it in an auction when he was pissed...

OP (Nothing like living up to your name LOL)
The Royals bring in £500 million each year in tourism. Plenty of stats on the web- if you'd only do your homework.

It's people like John Prescott et al who did up their flats etc in Admiralty Arch when in office at at ridiculous cost - for their own bloody benefit- that make me see red. Talk about champagne socialists.

At least the Queen shares hers by opening it to the public and it's her bloody office. Unless you want a revolution then take a flying fuck and stop talking rubbish.

If a wing of Buckingham Palace was opened as a centre for the homeless I would have more respect for the "Royals". I think this kind of thing is totally feasible. Why not?

Perhaps because it would be a massive security risk?

It would cost a fortune to adapt, vet the users, and make it self contained and secure. (Which slightly defeats the point of a homeless centre). To say nothing of a priceless collection having to be moved and stored.

The homeless centre would also have to be shut down every time the likes of Obama etc) were being entertained. With 50,000 people a year being hosted at Buckingham Palace, it's just not feasible.

I think we need to look at why families such as the Windsors are so independently wealthy in the first place. I suspect it originates in the theft of common land with the Enclosures Acts. They have then been in an advantageous position to maximise that wealth, while the rest of the population were struggling just to survive.
They have no moral entitlement to that level of wealth and I strongly disapprove of the notion that some people are more important than others, based on nothing more than the family they were born in to.

I say we should open up all the palaces to tourists and use the money for upkeep and for the public good .

Plus, Zara has excelled as a sportswoman and helped to train a horse that went on to win the Grand National after her husband bought it in an auction when he was pissed...

That's hilarious. I think I like them a little bit more.

I always think this sort of thread is a plant - testing the waters so to speak. Or a journo.

The Royals bring in £500 million each year in tourism. Plenty of stats on the web- if you'd only do your homework.

there are no such stats.

Oh for crying out loud. The royals property and estates bring in vastly more than we give them. It's so simple. That's all there is to it. The Queen et al could easily say sod you all then and just live on her own income and screw us out of millions.

let's try it. Take what's ours, and give them what's theirs, and strip them of any special rights. I have no doubt who will come out ahead in that deal.

I think you need to differentiate between the "official" residences, which are used for state events or public entertaining (and belong to the nation) and the "private" residences, which belong to the family and are not used for official business.
In addition, where would you suggest a democratically-elected head of state should have his or her "official" residence? Clearly it couldn't be in any of the existing buildings as they are so bound up with the monarchy in the world's mind.
A new build? What would that cost to design, construct and maintain? Where would it be located? Wouldn't there be a public outcry at the use of land/cost?

existing buildings as they are so bound up with the monarchy in the world's mind.

and we should care what the rest of the world thinks because...?

The yorks are not on the list so need to generate their own income thats why they are in the papers doing or saying this that or the other the dodgiest york is the Duke wouldnt trust him as far as i could throw him.

Viola, '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.'

I may be being stupid and misunderstanding usually am but, if 'much of' this money is used for their upkeep, is there any actual profit? Or does the money brought in just go straight back out on upkeep, in a cycle?

I'm a raging leftie republican and I don't agree at all.

These places are very special and I don't trust any other organisation to preserve them or restore them.

I'm a raging leftie republican and I don't agree at all.

I am going to call your credentials into question.

Why don't you trust any other organization? The french government seems to do a good job with versailles.

I think it's necessary to separate the Monarchy itself and the existence and use of the palaces.

I can't think of any historical palaces in good condition that are used for things such as housing homeless people. Instead they are usually visited by tourists, used for museums, embassies, businesses, as high end hotels, etc, usually where they are well kept and can be appreciated.
I'm sure homeless people prefer nice, clean, small individual or low occupation rooms.

Then there's the issue of whether the UK should be a monarchy. IMO, nothing to do with the existence of these palaces and how opulent they are or not.

Not sure why you find them appalling and what you mean by scaling them back. Royal residences are all privately owned. They are all a part of British history that cannot just be erased and shouldn't be either. The Royals didn't use taxpayers' funds to acquire them.

British royalty generates a massive amount of public interest at home and overseas, so brings in tourists and therefore helps create jobs for people even if it's not millions of jobs.

Royal wealth is also inherited wealth, and I don't get what it is they would need to do to scale it back. I completely agree with Oldsu. Once you start any form of interference with private wealth, where do you stop? Wealth is a matter of perception and it's all relative. For one person, it's owning a palace. For another, it's owning a 3-bed semi in a great location next to a good school. What principle do we apply to scaling back anyone's wealth and more importantly why should we scale back wealth instead of encouraging the economy to grow in such a way that more and more people become wealthy and affluent?

I am personally far more appalled by how politicians use taxpayers' money for nonsense such as MPs' expenses to cover all manner of things, including second property for their convenience. We elect these immoral morons. What royals do is entirely private and doesn't bother me any more than what my neighbour decides to have for dinner.

I don't have any 'credentials'

Versailles is in the middle of fucking nowhere - our palaces are in the middle of the capital.

The national trust and English heritage do an excellent job but a lot of the buildings are kept very sparse because of heavy traffic. Stuff wouldn't survive in high traffic areas. The royal residences are full of very important 'stuff' - furniture/China/silver.