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 won't be slimmed down. They is the RF won't allow it and like it or not, they along with many of their subjects think they are superior to the general public.

The current lot yes - not so sure William and Kate will think that way. I mean, they think they are superior, sure, but I THINK they would be smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing in terms of second rate royals like their cousins and second cousins and fifteenth cousins once removed and get rid of them. We shall see.

I think we should keep the monarchy but only the good ones. We could vote to see which ones get beheaded at the Tower of London like in the good old days. Andrew, you're definitely first.

I bet that many of those people would still go and see the palace / Guards.

Why would the palace have guards if there wasn't a Royal Family? The clue is in the name, the Queen's Guard. No Queen, no guards!

Security for an elected Head of State would be the responsibility of the Police, not the military.

Why would the palace have guards if there wasn't a Royal Family? The clue is in the name, the Queen's Guard. No Queen, no guards!

Actually, I've definitely seen a changing of the guard type ceremony in one of the old imperial palaces in Russia, so no reason why we couldn't keep it for the tourists.

There would need to fundamental changes in legislation to allow that to happen - and really? Given all the outcry about the privatisation of public services, you think the public would be happy with a fat-cat led Commercial Company managing state land?

Sorry, just seeing this now NN. But my understanding is that this already happens. The crown estates are managed by an independent company. The profits go to the treasury, who pay the sovereign grant from those profits, but keep the majority for state spending.

If we dismantled the monarchy, the only difference would be that the Sovereign grant doesn't get paid.

Should have said 'I presume the only difference' as there's a certain amount of haziness around what would happen to the sovereign grant, as evidenced in last night's discussion.

I'm a little bit torn over this on the one hand I get the heritage/tourist arguement, but then again - they do have rather a "unique" tax arrangement don't they, especially Charles. A good compromise would be they meet some of the costs? How much could be determined by some kind of means test!! How funny

The crown estates are managed by an independent company. The profits go to the treasury, who pay the sovereign grant from those profits, but keep the majority for state spending.

The Company currently manage it on behalf of the RF though - the state may benefit but have no say on how the company is run.
Get rid of the Royals and how long before details of the CEOs salary or Directors benefits are plastered all over the front of the tabloids - or a probing question is asked in Parliament?

The clue is in the name, the Queen's Guard. No Queen, no guards

To guard the Head of State. Many countries who have Heads of State have a ceremonial Guard outside.

No need to lose the ceremonial aspects and the pageantry. That would just be mean.

or a probing question is asked in Parliament

At least we'd be allowed to ask questions about the RF and the estates.

I think it is money well spent. It will boost employment manufacturing. Our local school cost £47 million a few years back.

The Company currently manage it on behalf of the RF though
No, because George III handed over the Crown estates to the state. So the state primarily deal with the Crown estates, not the royal family.

the state may benefit but have no say on how the company is run.
I have no idea how this functions currently, so can't comment.

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.

How much do Canada and Australia and all the other countries where she is head of state pay?

Security for an elected Head of State would be the responsibility of the Police, not the military

Her security and the security of the rest of the RF is down to the police at the moment.

I wonder what it costs to provide security protection for all of them?

I think we should keep the monarchy but only the good ones.

Yes. Perhaps we could have a vote on which ones we kept. Or perhaps we could go one step further, and include in the role of "monarchy" anyone and everyone who is capable of doing the job, and then we can all have a vote on it.

I have of such a system...

I don't actually understand monarchists who think we should be able to pick and choose the monarchy. That's the whole point. You don't get to pick and choose.

It was a joke. You understand jokes, right?!

I think we trim it to the immediate RF and cut out the hangers on beyond a certain limit say the top 6 in line or something

We could have a X Factor type competition. Edward could organise it.

It was a joke. You understand jokes, right?!

They're sometimes hard to detect when written!

I think we trim it to the immediate RF and cut out the hangers on beyond a certain limit say the top 6 in line or something

again, when we are nickle and diming the NHS and education, why be so generous with this lot? What's the justification in supporting any more than the head of state? and possibly his/her direct dependents?

I think the history and the pomp are a good reason. I like britain's history. We've always had a king or queen. I feel mild warmth for that, and am happy enough with the current situation. I simply wouldn't feel the same for some newly elected random and wouldn't want to support them.

Other people will feel more strongly at either end of that spectrum I think!

• apart from the Cromwell years, before Laurie reminds us ;)

@Temp

I asked what's the justification for supporting any more than the HoS and immediate family. You wouldn't need to get rid of the queen to not support the entire flock.