To think this is an obscene amount for the queens home.

[heartskey]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment
Its all right for some isn't it. Sod the rest of us, we're just the mugs paying for it. What a bloody burden this family are.

She has the final say on what goes on in our country.

yeah, she really proved her worth on the morning of the Brexit result didn't she? And if she didn't even attempt to 'steady the ship' on a morning like that, what is the point of the Queen, exactly?

what is the point of the Queen, exactly

To bring in money to our country?

Forget democracy, unelected elites, etc. She's just a tourist attraction.

The queen is head of state and head of the C of E but in a democracy she doesn't have any power unless she chose to use it - and she never has, nor have any other kings for centuries. She is infamous for being politically neutral.

what I find shocking about some views in this thread is the sheer lack of imagination from some posters about the work the royals do. I;m not in favour of hangers on like Andrew and his clan, but the key royals work bloody hard. I assume you've never studied the court announcements to see what a typical day's work is for Anne, or the Queen?

Typically they can have back to back engagements almost every day, in 3 or 4 venues. For someone like the queen to do that at 90 is bloody amazing- 98% of the population is dead at that age, never mind hosting banquets till midnight.

Add to that the fact their lives are lived in a goldfish bowl who would want it?

I'd rather have the queen than a 'president' Blair with his numerous houses all over the place and his pomposity. Like it or not, the Royal family give stability in difficult political times.

God, the president Blair argument is so tired. Not to mention lazy.

Ireland have done a good job in electing presidents of merit who have achieved something in their own right. No reason why the uk couldn't do that too.

I'm sure it's possible to have someone who is an elected Head of State, who can ensure that the Government follows the rules of law, acts for the people and can attend ceremonies etc.

There are countries who do have Heads of State like that. The President does not need powers like the US President.

Also, Ireland spent a fraction on their president compared to the UK. So that's perfectly possible too.

When the age and size of the building is considered (ignoring the historical significance and the argument over the Royal Family), I think £370m over 10 years is actually a surprisingly low figure.

Parliament and Westminster is estimated to top £7bn to bring it up to modern standards.

I'd rather have the queen than a 'president' Blair with his numerous houses all over the place and his pomposity. Like it or not, the Royal family give stability in difficult political times

Edward? What did he do? Abdicated.
We have been lucky with our current Queen. But if you look at the Monarchs in the past, how many have them have been up to the job? Given stability?

Why do people always talk about President Blair as though he would simply be made president? Presumably he would need to be elected?

Our country has a democracy. If enough people wanted the royal family to pay for their own keep, they could get elected and declare us a republic.

Oh please! If the royals suffered as much as some posters appear to believe, there is nothing stopping them from stepping down. They won't though will they?

If enough people wanted the royal family to pay for their own keep, they could get elected and declare us a republic

Maybe the idea of a Monarchy could be discussed in Parliament?

Hang on - that's not allowed, is it?

Add to that the fact their lives are lived in a goldfish bowl who would want it? well it must be a good old life or they wouldn't be doing it. They know what side their breads buttered that's for sure. We've only just heard how Andrew is desperate to get his two daughters on the gravy train (ie funded by the taxpayer)

I've no problem at all with the money spent on Parliament, it's the seat of our government, a necessity, Buckingham palace isn't. It's a relic of a rather shameful time in our history. There are far more important buildings in our country. Ones to be proud of, there's nothing about royal palaces that make me proud.

For someone like the queen to do that at 90 is bloody amazing- 98% of the population is dead at that age, never mind hosting banquets till midnight
No it's not amazing at all, it's testament to the life of ease she's has. If she was such a hard worker, as many say she is, she too would probably be dead, like the majority of women of her generation. She has servants for her every need for fucks sake, is she hell a hard worker. She's keeps busy perhaps but that isn't the same.

I'm so sick of people marvelling at how much stamina the queen has, who wouldn't if they'd had the life she has with her own private doctor tending to every little ailment, and everything done for her. If all women of her generation had had such lives of ease they're probably still be alive now bursting with good health.

It's an insult to all the hard working women of her generation to compare the queens robustness to theirs.

She has the final say on what goes on in our country
And that is what truly appalls me, that our country has a person who is only there through the accident of birth having this power. She shouldn't have any say whatsoever.

She shouldn't have any say whatsoever

This.

I would bet my bottom dollar that after 'suffering' through their meet and greets, the royals have a shower to remove the germs of the great unwashed and a good snigger at some of the people they met during the day!

So historic buildings are only worth keeping if they make you proud? What a lot of shite.

By that reasoning the coliseum should be bulldozed!!

It isn't her house; it is a palace belonging to the nation. I understand the Queen doesn't even like staying there. The question is not 'should it be done up?' But rather 'should we keep it at all?' If it is to be kept then it needs to be done up. I am in favour of keeping it. Heritage is important. It is a lot lot cheaper than the money being spent on the Houses of Parliament. I also think it is worth much more to the nation than say the O2 arena/millennium dome.

So Buckingham Palace makes you "proud" does it?, and no you're trying to twist my words, if we're going to spend that kind of money I'd sooner it go on something worthwhile, spending £370 million on a crumbling old palace is a "load of shite" as you put it.

Hey Blaeberry, I keep forgetting it belongs in to the nation because you know, only the Royal family seem to live there. I wonder if we all could get a room there. The queen doesn't have to live there you know, she could just retire....perhaps not though, her loyalty to the country wouldn't allow it.

Flora I agree, the ones they snigger at are most likely the ones who fall for all the shite, the sycophants. How they must laugh.

It's a relic of a rather shameful time in our history Oh get over yourself.

disappointing. I thought you might have a decent argument, Op. But no, you're just full of bitter froth, it seems.

Buckingham Palace has only been used by the Monarchy for 180 years. Given many things in the UK, it's not that old.