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.

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

the tories justify the cuts based on the very real fact that our public finances are in a poor state. that equation includes how much we spend on our head of state.

I don't think we should have the royals as head of state, but can't get upset about this - Buckingham palace is part of our history and we should maintain it. The reason it's such a fuss isn't that the queen continues to live there while the work is being done - she could easily move out - but even when she's not there they have extensive office staff and government still need the state rooms to be available for official state functions, because the queen is the head of state, 10 Downing Street doesn't have spaces to host the large state functions, the large ones are always officially hosted by the queen not the PM at Buckingham Palace.

I thought as well that each monarch had to sign over the crown estates so Charles could say no if he wanted to. Morally it would be a better position.

Our whole attitude to the Royals is a fudge, we don't mind them as long as they don't cost too much and don't look like they are having too much fun, we'll campaign for loads of shit like leaving the EU as it's un democratic, but there's just grumbling, no campaign to stop the monarch being the head of state. It's odd.

The greed of the royals is staggering. They get a huge salary, and should budget to look after their house from their salary, just like everyone else has to. They keep breeding without thought for the people supporting them - every time lazy Katie drops another one, its another taxpayer dependent. If you can't feed them (without the taxpayer), don't breed them. And the cost of their flunkies, jewels, holidays, polo etc must be astronomical. When the queen dies, we should get rid.

The greed of the royals is staggering.

I don't think they are exceptionally greedy. What's staggering is how they get us all to happily hand over all this money.

Every time lazy Katie drops another one

I'm no royalist but that's a deeply unpleasant thing to say. They (not she) have two children. You make it sound like a Victoria-esque brood.

I'd like to know how much it amounts to for each working individual. I think I can afford a pittance a year for 10 years to fund the Queen's home. It won't be more than a pound I bet

I tell you what - I need a new roof & my old house rewiring. My house is far older than Buckingham Palace, and is also part of our British heritage, as a record of early 18th century domestic architecture.

If you all chipped in 50p each, I could do it without having to pay for it myself. Even though I earn way above the average wage.

Because, you know, it's our heritage

Tourists still visit Hampton Court and Henry VIII has been dead a while, move the Royal family into a council house throw open the private living quarters at Buckingham Palace to the hoards of eager tourists at £25 a pop and let the Palace pay for its own renovations, I've got better stuff to spend my tax dollars on

Every time lazy Katie drops another one

Drops another one?

Is a horrible term regardless of who its said about.

unbridled snobbery Nothing to do with this but for unbridled snobbery you can't beat MN.

I'd like to but can't afford some home improvements too. If you could all just send a pound my way, that would be great. I will even build a balcony if enough of you contribute and stand out on it during the year so you can all come and courtesy to me. As long as you all stand well back. Some of you might see me out and about. Please remember to speak to me only if I allow it and speak to you first. I've a few grandchildren who like Shoreditch. Please don't throw coins at them directly. It might offend them to have to bend down to pick up their free money. Feel free to admire and give them money from a distance though and remember they have royal blood so are vastly superior to you.

Forgive me if someone's already mentioned this, but I wonder how much of the bill will be down to "little extras" which Charles will demand? I know it's supposed to just be work on the building's fabric, but with someone who's notorious for meddling in absolutely everything, I'd be very surprised if the prospect of a few more freebies for him and his partner doesn't tempt him to stick his oar in

After all, one day it's going to be his home ... God help us all

People who work there have the right to a safe work place. Visitors also have the right to safety when visiting

Unsuitable electric that has deemed to be a fire hazard and falling plaster and other things is not a safe place to work.

Can't she afford to pay for it herself? Poor thing might need to get a bank loan like the rest of us plebs!

People do have the right to a safe working environment. In every other workplace, this is paid for by the employer.

So what do those who are against this money being spent want to happen instead? Should the building just be left to rot or to burn down from a fire started by the ancient wiring in it?

I think the monarchy should be abolished. But the building is of cultural and historic significance and should be maintained. Even if the monarchy were abolished the cost of maintenance would still be there. It belongs to the people of the U.K.

Put aside your prejudice for a minute and imagine it was a museum or a cathedral.

You do know that the Crown is paying for it? The fund which is supposedly taxpayers' money is actually funded by the Crown.

Well someone was injured by falling plaster recently and what if the whole thing went up in flames. It is unsafe.

How much does it bring in tourism? Apparently it's the number one visited item in the uk - it wouldn't look great to tourists if it didn't look great!

I'd like to see some unbiased figures on what it's worth v the cost before I can get outraged about it, as I do think it's a money spinner as well as a money pit.

I don't think it is the number one tourist spot. I think that's the British Museum. Buckingham palace doesn't even make the top 50. The whole "tourism" thing is a myth that "justifies" us keeping a family in obscene wealth.

We do benefit because without a monarchy we would be a republic with the clear possibility of having the country run by a despot. What we have in the UK is by far the safer democratic option. Exactly how much is it costing anyway? £10 over 50 years, so 20p a year???

Well you can apply that logic about anything.How about a few new hospitals and more nurses. It's an obscene amount of money for one crumbling (according to them) old palace. Should be demolished.

Why on earth would it be run by a despot, highly unlikely, but at least we wouldnt be stuck with them forever, four years and they'd be out. It's called democracy.

You beat me to it amicissima.

We would be shouldering the cost even if the Queen no longer lived there and the Palace became nothing more than an important historic building. Unless the moaners would prefer to see it sold off in vast apartments to visiting Russian or Chinese billionaires?

"How about a few new hospitals" - heartskey that's another argument you can apply to just about everything. As we have recently seen, it rarely works out that way.

You'd really demolish it or let it rot? Even if the monarchy were abolished? Surely that would be unprecedented in modern European history, letting a national icon like that be swept away...