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.

I like the idea after Phil and Liz's death country gift it to National Trust. Charles can have St James Palace and Windsor for entertaining heads of state. How many homes does one need?

What's your decent argument temporary, if you really have to stoop to calling someone bitter because they can see the wrongs in having an unelected person as head of state it really just says it all. If you read all my posts and of others you will see some very good "arguments" for the reasons not to have a royal family, however if you choose to conveniently shut your ears and ignore all those and then say I "didn't have a decent argument" I really can't take you serious.

And this is why I am a republican. I don't think anyone is inherently better than anyone else because of the family they were born into. It isn't right

How many homes does one need

My Government will introduce the bedroom tax to penalise people who have spare rooms in their house.

We live in tough times for many. The Royal family, the sheer sycophancy and distraction it provides (weddings, births, birthdays, tours, release of pictures of their family) - it distracts us from the reality.

Opium for the masses. Forget the real issues, let's have a picture of Kate on tour and talk about her new dress.

The refurbishments are costing about 3.7% or roughly one thirtieth of what it cost us to host the Olympics.

Buckingham Palace is a historic building and the monarchy is very profitable on tourist revenue alone.

I believe the Queen does not even particularly like it. It is not for her or her family, or they would either be in Balmoral or a discreet penthouse in Mayfair, away from everyone's prying eyes.

All the drs in the world can't prevent some diseases heart. They didn't help her sister or her father.

I think you are just being provocative now as you're losing the argument. To say that a 90 yr old who works 18 hour days at times has a 'life of ease' just because she has someone cook her food and do her cleaning, either shows complete ignorance and education of her role, or it's just being provocative.

Loads of women have cleaners- read Mumsnet more! The Queen effectively works full time except for the month in the summer when she goes to Scotland.

You are just clearly totally jealous , have no idea of the real facts, distort facts to suit your own prejudices, and it's a very weak basis for a sensible discussion.

350 million, and by coincidence disabled people who rely on benefits will have £3500 to live on.

Housing benefit you say? Well only if you don't have a 'spare' room full of equipment.

The argument is about what to do with Buckingham palace. You've not come up with anything decent so far as I can see.

Buckingham Palace is a historic building and the monarchy is very profitable on tourist revenue alone

Pretty certain that the Royal Family don't see their role as being a tourist attraction. I think it's something to do with their divine duty, not as being an economic boost to the UK.

(Disclaimer - Charles and William may not think it's their God given right.)

The jealousy factor really is a silly and schoolyard argument. Replace the word jealousy with angry and you might be right.

heartskey When and if the monarchy is abolished, how much better will you feel? We will need some sort of Head of State. I'll bet you won't be happy with that either. I'm on the side of keeping rather than getting rid. It's more from the point of view of not wanting some ghastly Establishment insider being president e.g. Patricia Scotland. Anyway I love all the pomp and ceremony and so do many other people.

If we still had all the palaces, the pageantry etc - but a Head of State - would people still come?

Or is it the fact that it's the Queen that makes all the difference?

No reason why we can't have all the pageantry etc without an unelected unaccountable Monarch

Anyway I love all the pomp and ceremony and so do many other people

You can have that without a Monarch. Just replace the person on the horse etc with a Head of State.

Or is it the fact that it's the Queen that makes all the difference? Yes I think so. Would we want to see Tristram Hunt sitting on a prancing horse?

Or is it the fact that it's the Queen that makes all the difference

Roll on King Charles.

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.

Actually, you can. You can apply for one of the many jobs that are based in the Palace to maintain and preserve the state assets that are stored there, or the land and grounds around the palace, or the Palace itself. There is currently a vacancy for a live-in gardner. Other live in staff provide necessary services to the visiting dignitaries and heads of state who visit and stay at the Palace - chefs, waiting staff, housekeepers etc.

I know two former Palace staff, both of whom lived there. It was their home - unlike the Queen/Prince Philip, who do not refer to it as such - it is their London residence Mon-Fri.

Roll on King Charles. Let's hope his reign is short

Open BP and have tours of thei personal quarters. Dress up a few well known actors and have them carted around in a carraige waving at people. They could even sign a few autographs as well as wave. I'm sure some people would turn out to see them too. Make an annual festival out of it.

Let the Windsors retreat from the great unwashed prying eyes as some people seem to believe they'd like to do.

Ask yourselves why it won't happen!!!!

Polly your argument is ridiculous, of course doctors can't insure against heart disease or whatever. Margaret was a heavy smoker and drinker. Please give over with your 18 hour days nonsense. You'll have us all believing she lives a life of drudgery next. How anyone can deny she's lived a life of ease is unbelievable, of course she's had a life of ease. To compare some hard working mums who pay for a cleaner to the army of servants the queen has is beyond ridiculous. What the hell are her servants for if its not to give her a life of ease.

Your calling me jealous (which is just a typical, tired, same old, same old response to anyone who dares speak against them,) doesn't surprise me, it's all monarchists can say. But even if I was, rather that that a forelock tugging, royal worshipping sycophant.

Far from ME losing the argument I think your post calling me "jealous and provocative" proves the opposite is true. It's the kind of post that always comes up when a monarchist has lost the argument. But thank you for confirming it.

No reason why we can't have all the pageantry etc without an unelected unaccountable Monarch

The annual cost of the pageantry eclipses the cost of the refurbishment of the Palace. A quick google search reveals that the direct Policing costs of one event (Trooping the Colour) were over £100,000 back in 2008 - I dread to think what it is now!

Not only is there the direct cost of keeping the horses and storage and maintenance the carriages, uniforms etc, but all the planning, license applications, security, rehearsals, public facilities, street cleaning - it makes the upkeep of the Palace look like a bargain .....

So are people suggesting Buckingham Palace should be closed up and just be a façade when the wiring and heating get condemned and the roof leaks? Maybe it will save money by falling down all by itself?

They have probably tried to tick over on patching things up for years, nothing will be modern, energy saving or water efficient. Anyone who has ever lived in an old building knows what a money pit they are, especially if it hasn't been refurbished since the 1950s. Even the Daily Mail reports a serious risk of fire and water damage.

BP is a national asset, it needs maintaining just like everything else, or disposing of, but it shouldn't be left to fall into disrepair or it becomes worthless and then any money spent on it so far will have been wasted.
It does sound like a lot of money but much of it will go back into the economy in contractors to do the work.

Why isn't it clear in this day and age weather they are or aren't a financial drain on the country?

Maybe because they'd rather it wasn't clear? After all, clarity can lead to awkward questions which they might prefer not to answer

PPs have mentioned the queen's supposed frugality, political neutrality and reluctance to throw around the few powers she has ... which brings me right back to wondering how folk will feel when (if?) Charles takes over

Why isn't it clear in this day and age weather they are or aren't a financial drain on the country?

Maybe because they'd rather it wasn't clear? After all, clarity can lead to awkward questions which they might prefer not to answer

I think it's more the fact that it is only possible to determine the impact the existence of the Royals have on indirect income from tourism by removing them and waiting a generation or two for memories to fade.

It is absolutely impossible to establish whether the family from the USA who take a two week break in England including a stop-over in London to see the Palace, changing of the guard etc would have come or not if the royals were not a factor - or even the memory of the royals.

The only way of being sure is to remove the Royals, wait about 50 years, and see what the difference has been. Only of course, by then, Visit England and other Destination Management Companies would have invested significant additional money to attract those visitors in other ways.

It is absolutely impossible to establish whether the family from the USA who take a two week break in England including a stop-over in London to see the Palace, changing of the guard etc would have come or not if the royals were not a factor - or even the memory of the royals

The Palace can exist without an unelected Monarch.
The Changing of the Guard can exist without an unelected Monarch.

We can have an elected Head of State who could live in Buckingham Palace and be protected by the Guards who can change as they want to.

We don't need an unelected Monarchy to have all the pageantry.

I don't have an issue with Buckingham Palace. I've been to other countries where the Head of State lives in decent place with the guards outside and tourists come.

I do have an issue with a Monarchy.

And what if we elect someone like Corbyn who wouldn't live there?