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.

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

You write a lot of sense, NNChangeAgain ... and this is precisely why it irritates some of us so much when "people coming to see the royals" is presented as a fact

As I've said before, facts are often very difficult to access on this issue, and past examples of them being deliberately placed out of public reach don't exactly inspire confidence

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

The President could pop round to host dinners, banquets, hand out gongs when needed if they didn't fancy living there.

vent quite got to page 11 yet but this gave me the rage

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?

Lets ask a family that are working/not working on 'goverment handouts' just like the queen is if they would like to trade with a woman that gets to go on loads of foreign holidays while on benefits, or trade with the woman that doesnt have to make that choice of heat or meat while being on benefits, how about the 100's of hours the royals get in free childcare while on benefits, she should be sanctioned and let her live off her savings, fucking work shy scroungers that they are

I do have an issue with a Monarchy.

I thought this thread was about the cost? Keeping all of those things isn't going to make more money available for the NHS.

What's more important?

A democratic Head of State with accountability to the British people.

Or an economic argument?

BP is a national asset
No it isn't, we'd get by absolutely fine without it. It's just a building. There's far too much sentiment attached to it. I'm far more concerned with the homeless, the money getting spent on it would be enough to get the homeless off the streets. Sort out your homeless and destitute before you even think of throwing money at bloody palaces. So so wrong.

I thought this thread was about the cost

This thread seems to be about 2 issues. The cost of the palace and the Monarchy - people are arguing that the Monarchy brings in money so therefore we must renovate the palace.

Do people think that tourists would still come and visit the UK - and all its Royal palaces etc if the Monarchy was replaced with a Head of State BUT the pageantry etc was still on show?

Or if we got rid of the pageantry and the palace but kept the Monarchy?

Or do people think we need the palaces, the pageantry and the Monarchy to attract the tourists who might never have come?

What's more important?

A democratic Head of State with accountability to the British people.

Or an economic argument?

I think both are equally strong - but any argument that supports the abolition of the Royal Family on economic grounds has to address the costs associated with the maintenance of State assets, and of continued State occasions.

I would remind you of the MPs expenses scandal. We'd have to elect one of these to be President. I like the Monarchy precisely because we don't have a choice. I was on a thread recently (guest post) where the guest poster said she'd love JK Rowling to be Prime Minister.

Sort out your homeless and destitute before you even think of throwing money at bloody palaces

TBF - I do think we need somewhere prestigious to 'meet and greet', do banquets, State Occasions etc. Most major economies have such a place.
It is sort of expected if you are a world player.

I can think of many more things we do waste money on that could be better directed. Nuclear weapons.

No it isn't, we'd get by absolutely fine without it. It's just a building. There's far too much sentiment attached to it. I'm far more concerned with the homeless, the money getting spent on it would be enough to get the homeless off the streets. Sort out your homeless and destitute before you even think of throwing money at bloody palaces. So so wrong. A building just like the Houses of Parliament which needs billions spent on it.

we'd get by absolutely fine without it. It's just a building. There's far too much sentiment attached to it.

The preservation and celebration of a shared history meets the psychological need of society for belongingness. But that need cannot be met if societies basic needs (for shelter, food etc) are not being met.

That may explain why so many people no longer view national assets as important.

so if you take away the things that raise money, like BP, and spend the initial flush on the homeless and destitute, how do you keep raising money to pay for them when it's gone?

I would remind you of the MPs expenses scandal

You do know that it's very hard to discuss the Monarchy in Parliament and the Freedom of Information act is hard to apply as well.

MPs are far more accountable than the Monarchy. A Head of State would also be accountable and open to scrutiny - in an elected Parliament.

I think both are equally strong - but any argument that supports the abolition of the Royal Family on economic grounds has to address the costs associated with the maintenance of State assets, and of continued State occasions

Most modern countries do that. It's part and parcel of being a first world country.

No problem with having a Palace. Massive issue with an unelected, unaccountable Head of State

I like a specifically non-political head of state.

I think the separation of the formal/ceremonial from the politicking has served us extremely well on the world stage. And of course, it's very popular domestically too.

I like a specifically non-political head of state

That's great if they don't interfere. The history of the Monarchy shows that there have been Monarchs who have been less than non political.

King Charles will, I suspect, struggle to be non political.

OP, you do seem very determined to ignore the fact that it is inevitable that we would keep Buckingham Palace even if the monarchy was abolished tomorrow. It would make no sense to knock it down.

No problem with having a Palace. Massive issue with an unelected, unaccountable Head of State

So you disagree with the OP, then?

But it isn't comparable to funding one Head of State and their family. Include the cost of relatives and all their offspring. It is absurd. Royal 'blood' is superior indeed. Pah!

So you disagree with the OP, then

Sod the rest of us, we're just the mugs paying for it. What a bloody burden this family are

Well - no problem with the State paying for it. But I agree with the fact that the RF are a burden. A Head of State would be expensive -but at least accountable and elected.

It's not owned by the queen it's owned by the state. The works are being paid for by the profits from the crown estates. All that means is there are less profits goings to the government for this work to be done. In no way are any of you paying for it unless you paid to visit the palace in the first place.

You do know that it's very hard to discuss the Monarchy in Parliament and the Freedom of Information act is hard to apply as well

I thought the royal family were exempt from he FOI Act?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8868380/How-New-Labour-gave-the-Royal-family-exemption-from-the-Freedom-of-Information-Act.html

All that means is there are less profits goings to the government for this work to be done

Well - you could argue that less profits to the State means that the State has less income. Less State income means either we spend less elsewhere or someone is taxed more.

happymum have you read the full thread. If you had its been pointed out a few times that we are paying for the refurbishments. The queen is allocated 15% off the crown estate profits. If it was hers she wouldn't need to be allocated anything. Now, to pay for this work she's going to be given a lot more. This means that it is taxpayer funded.

Why is this such a sticking point with people. Everything the queen gets is taxpayer funded. Or are we trying to imply that the queen owns the whole damn country. I'm sure some of you think this should be so.