Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

646 replies

heartskey · 18/11/2016 22:41

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.

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 19/11/2016 07:56

£350M is a relatively small amount of money in a national context.

To put it in perspective, the new Combined Authorities that are being formed, with new mayors, are each going to get £900M (over 30 years).

BillHicksRanting · 19/11/2016 07:59

Hospitals are being shut but the royals have millions spent on their big house. Disgusting.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot · 19/11/2016 08:03

It's a drop in the ocean compared to the £115billion NHS budget. Not enough to save one hospital.

It's the office/residency of the head of state. So needs maintenance in the same way as the White House does.

Just wait until we see the bill for the Houses of Parliaent which also need extensive works. Bet this will seem a tiny amount then.

RaspberryPi1 · 19/11/2016 08:21

Yabu. Read up on the Crown Estate. Most of the Queen's revenue from her commercial interests go to the government, she could rightfully keep it for herself. 370m might sound like a lot for you and me, but it's a palace that hasn't been refurbished for 60 Years!

Kai1977 · 19/11/2016 08:25

Tourists are not coming to visit the Queen. The vast majority will not see her or catch a glimpse of her family. They come to see the royal buildings, furniture and jewels. Otherwise why would the Tower of London be a top tourist attraction?

And if Buckingham Palace is held in trust for us commoners, why are we paying for her staff and security for her to live there when we could charge visitors year round and maintain it that way?

The money is bad enough, the fact that there is this idea that some people are better than others - why else does our tax help maintain her - is even worse?

And £350m may be 'a drop in the ocean' but we need all the help we can get right now.

Solasum · 19/11/2016 08:25

Quite a lot of Buckingham Palace and the garden is actually open to the public for most of the year.

Even if the Royals disappeared, you can hardly let the iconic central London palace crumble at the end of the Mall if you want to continue attracting tourists in.

DonaldStott · 19/11/2016 08:26

Whoever called me a numpty for mentioning the 'none existent' bedroom tax, can I please ask why you think this very real punishment of the poorer people of this country, is not real? And why you think it is up to us to pay for fuckingthem palace?

NNChangeAgain · 19/11/2016 08:33

why you think it is up to us to pay for fuckingthem palace?

Because it belongs to the state, which is paid for by the public purse.

We could, of course, sell it to the highest bidder.

We'd then have to pay for secure storage for all the state assets it contains, and pay for a 21st century secure venues for foreign state visits.

AllThePrettySeahorses · 19/11/2016 08:35

The so-called Crown Estates do not belong to the royals. They were ceded in 1760 by the debt-riddled George III. They do not 'give' us money from these estates - they take our money. And why? I seriously doubt they are 'better' than us. Quite the opposite.

Kai1977 · 19/11/2016 08:36

My point is that the palace could be open year round for increased revenue rather than only in the summer (which is when it is open as I understand it).

PinkiePiesCupcakes · 19/11/2016 08:47

The finances of the Royal family are shrouded in secrecy

And yet every year they release reports that are perfectly accessible by any member of the public.

www.royal.uk/media-packs

There you go.

The only thing they do t make public knowledge is the amount of tax the queen pays on her personal income. But then I don't know anyone who makes it poubkic knowledge how much tax they pay.

Geretrude · 19/11/2016 10:54

Infinite - I meant that older people generally don't have enormous families that need roofs over their heads but I can see how it might have come across as ageist (which I don't think does get flamed on MN but that's a whole other thread!).

Recently Charles and Camilla went to Dubai. The cost to the embassy (ie the government ie us) of hosting their royal visit, the plane, the security, etc etc would have been huge.

We have children living in poverty in this country. Families who have to choose between putting the heating on and having dinner. And an increasingly bloated royal family.

The Palace should never have been allowed to fall into such disrepair. Poor management

user1471439240 · 19/11/2016 11:24

To put £450,000,000 in perspective- it would pay 1800 non working people the benefit cap for 10 years.
Which is the better investment?

onelastpigout · 19/11/2016 11:30

it is the Queen's home but because it a massive piece of living history and a big touristic draw.

It's an iconic building and instantly recognizable around the world and we should preserve it.
One of the reasons Germany tried to avoid bombing it during the war was because apparently Hitler admired it (and wanted to eventually live in it)

SukeyTakeItOffAgain · 19/11/2016 11:43

YANBU. It's absolutely abhorrent. People are using food banks, LAs are broke because of government cuts, front line services are being cut...and now this. If the royal family had any decency and integrity, they'd suggest an alternative plan.

LunaLoveg00d · 19/11/2016 11:49

The money comes from the Crown Estate, of which she receives only 15% of the annual profits. The rest goes to the treasury. So it's not coming from your taxes, it's coming from commercial investments.

But that's not going to stop the frothing at the mouth of people who are anti-Royal.

I don't begrudge the money at all. It's not just the queen's house, it's where visiting heads of state stay when they come to the UK. You cannot put Mrs Merkel and Emperor Akihito up in a house where the wiring is unsafe and where the loo won't flush. This money isn't for redecorating because the Queen has decided she doesn't like the wallpaper, it's for essential maintenance of a national asset. It's one of the most iconic buildings in the whole of the UK.

chilipepper20 · 19/11/2016 12:31

I think it is in Britain's economic and cultural interest to keep Buckingham Palace in good condition, not because it is the Queen's home but because it a massive piece of living history and a big touristic draw.

it is certainly in our best interest to upkeep Buckingham Palace. But we don't need to keep the queen in there. Part of the reason why it is so expensive to repair is that people are currently living there. She also recently asked the government for extra money for heating her council overly spacious council dwelling.

they do pay for it themselves. I wish people would do their research, fgs.

me too. those are crown estates, not the queen's personal assets. Very different. They put in squat.

So just over a tenner each.

I am struggling to think of something less worthwhile than the queen. I'd gladly put that money towards the NHS, higher pay for nurses or teachers, or charity within Britain or abroad, or just have that tax money back. The list is literally endless. Anything else is better.

SukeyTakeItOffAgain · 19/11/2016 12:39

It may be a "drop in the ocean" in the grand scheme of things. It's the signifance of it which is what horrifies me. Surely they should have the nous to realise "OK, this will look bad" and think of another way to fund this, even if it's just match funding. That would be an acknowledgement and gesture at least. As far as I know the Queen, despite her long years of so called service to the Commonwealth etc, has never once looked the British people in the eye and said "Thank you for having me as head of state. Thank you for supporting me and my family. We would not be here without you."

I imagine this move has created quite a lot of republicans.

PinkCrystal · 19/11/2016 12:46

Obscene. Let them become self funding.

chilipepper20 · 19/11/2016 12:51

And yet every year they release reports that are perfectly accessible by any member of the public.

Thanks for posting that, because it was an eye opener. Here are some of the things we spent our tax money on.

4 Jul: Queen and Duke of Edinburgh: travel from residence to residence (Edinburgh to RAF Marham): 17,000 pounds (travel by charter of course)

13 Oct: Princess Royal (so, not even our head of state): travel: Attend Scotch Beef Club Masterclass and Medal Presentation, Dunblane, and Save the Children Aryshire Art Exhibition, Alloway, Ayr. 10,500 pounds. (travel by charter of course)

Money well spent. I guess.

sophree · 19/11/2016 12:52

Yes British Heritage is so important...
Totally worth half the country living in poverty.

Cocklodger · 19/11/2016 13:00

I'm not pro or anti royal, I don't really care about them either way.
but regarding the vital service cuts and benefit cuts we really need to stop with the blaming of the person next to or below us, and sometimes, those above us, too.
''I DON'T GET FREE CHILDCARE AND I WORK''
''GET THOSE PESKY IMMIGRANTS OUT''
''I don't get 500 quid week so we should cut benefits''
''I don't get 380 week so we should cut benefits''
''I don't get a council house so refugees shouldn't either for the love of GOD THEY HAVE iPhones''
and now the queen, who as pointed out puts more in than she takes out like it or not....
Its a fucking farce to distract us from the fact tories are pissing on our heads and telling us its raining.
shit won't change until we the people make it change and try to save our services.
Moaning about the queen will not make that happen
Change ''the queen'' to benefits/free early years education/immigrants/refugees/forrinerz/people who've less or more than you and you get the me result.

Cocklodger · 19/11/2016 13:01

same result*

witsender · 19/11/2016 13:15

Fuck the monarchy.

amicissimma · 19/11/2016 13:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.