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's wrong to justify such a huge spend on Buckingham palace by saying it's only £10 over 50 years. Why isn't that way of minimising a huge cost applied for IMPORTANT things that are necessary to the country. We never hear it broken down that way to make it sound inexpensive for anything else. It's the same when we hear how much the Royal family cost us, it's only 30p each or whatever per person, they make it sound nothing when in fact it's a huge amount of money that could be spent on something actually worthwhile.

Id really rather have it turned into somewhere for the homeless. I really don't care about "national icons" when just down the road there are homeless people freezing in shop doorways. There's about 300 bedrooms in that palace, it's disgusting.

Buckingham palace isn't just her house. It's a national symbol, a piece of history, owned by the state.

It is an asset used for entertaining foreign heads of state and diplomats, charity events are held there, the palace and the rest of the trappings of the monarchy is what brings billions of pounds of tourist money into this country every year. If the queen lived in a 3 bed semi in Wandsworth then I seriously doubt all those tourists would journey over here to spend their cash!
£350m sounds like a lot of money but in the grand scheme of things it is bugger all. People who are complaining need to see it as what it is, a relatively modest sum being invested for the future in the infrastructure of this country. If it were being spent on maintenance of a road I bet folks wouldn't bat an eyelid.

The thread title says it all really, reducing the complex role of a royal palace to a mere house for the queen betrays the basis for the objections. Petty jealousy,

Oh give over with your "petty jealousy", what a ridiculous and Ill thought out assumption. There's lots of things in life we don't agree with, jealousy is damn all to do with it.

Please give proof that the Royal family bring in billions in tourism. People visit Britain for its rich history and culture and many more things, most of them don't give a damn about the royals. It's a myth, and I'd even go as far as to say we'd probably get more tourists if we didn't have them.

All those lovely empty palaces. You only have to look to France.

I think that's really extreme, to be happy to just lose such a historical building. Yes we need more affordable housing and homeless hostels, but I think it is pretty odd to suggest Buckingham Palace gets given over to those purposes.

I'm not particularly a monarchist, and I think that when Charles ascends the whole setup will probably becone rapidly more unappealing. But I definitely think Buckingham Palace should be preserved, it is a huge piece of living history and I think we have a duty to preserve it as part of our country's heritage. I don't think any other country would dream of letting their most famous palace go to rack and ruin, even those that abandoned their monarchies long ago.

Yes it's a piece of history but really that's where it belongs. There should be no place in a modern society to have a "Royal" palace inhabited by one family, funded by the taxpayer (and no they DONT pay their way) there purely because of the accident of birth.

It's not odd at all to make it into a place for the homeless. Everybody in this country should be entitled to a roof over their heads. The queen has many more homes, and if this palace needs £370 million spent on it then it's a luxury she should do without.

Sorry but it is petty jealously - you only have to look through the comments on this and other threads started on the same topic, there are plenty of glaring example to choose from.

I'm afraid I don't have the latest figures to hand at midnight but it is a well established fact that the monarchy, as part of the culture of this country brings in a hell of a lot more money than it costs.
The crown estate (of which Buckingham palace is a part) is owned by the state and pays in millions upon millions in profits to the exchequer every year. The money for these repairs is being funded by allowing the crown estate to keep more of its profit. It will still be a net contributor to the nation! If you want to do a bit of research I'm sure you'll be able to find the figures.

As for more tourists coming if we abolished the monarchy , that's just utter bollocks.
I've been to France and been round some of the palaces etc, I thought that they were lovely but ultimately just rather sad echos of a bygone age. They can't compare to ours which are an integral part of the most envied and admired monarchy in the world.

Why don't they hold a Children in Need style fundraiser to raise money for the maintenance?

Because that would make the royal family look like a laughing stock to the rest of the world?

How can someone say it is 'Getty jealousy' to resent being told a small number of people are SUPERIOR to everyone else because they married into or were born in a certain family. It is ridiculous to suggest that is the reason they are resented. Really?There are not enough words!!!!

Petty even

It's not a well established fact at all that they bring in more money than they cost. If we didn't have them we would have the entire profits of the crown estates rather than have to give them a whopping 15% of them. Buckingham palace could and would probably make much more money for the exchequer if it was empty and all the rooms could be viewed.

The "sad relics"of a bygone age in France doesn't seem to harm the money they make from tourism. The crowds flock to the old palaces there, just as they would here.

They are a grotesque relic of a less civilised time and shouldn't have any place in a supposedly equal society, and far from being the most envied and admired in the world, they're the opposite, they're an international embarrassment. Other countries show interest in them because they're figures of fun, they find it absolutely bizarre that we still have them.

flora monarchists really don't have a decent argument for keeping a monarchy, their "arguments" tend to get shot down in flames. Hence they come out with their ludicrous "you're only jealous" type statements.

Is that you, don? Haven't you got a country to run or something? Ah no, my mistake. You have a month or two yet. Funny how powerful this anti-establishment rhetoric is, when you fan the flames, eh? Send your mate Nige, back. We might have a job for him after all. That Corbyn bloke is nowhere up to the job, but Nige should be, the canny bastard.
A good wave of anti-establishment feeling is just what we need right now. And the poor buggers can't even see they are being played. Bahahaha.
Another cigar? Look at 'em frothing.

Now you're just coming across as totally irrational. Let's just raze all of our historical buildings to the ground shall we?! They're far too expensive to maintain.

Bin the royals, refurbish Buckingham Palace at the taxpayer's expense and turn it into something for the people - a museum, a gallery, a centre of learning, or all of the above.

I don't see why a bunch of people should be deemed to be better than us simply because their ancestors were happier to kill other people than ours were.

Vive la république!

This thread doesn't seem to reflect the general feeling about the Royals according to polls - most recent one I can find says they have a 68% approval rating, with a further 17% not being bothered either way.

yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

I wonder if it's another example of inaccurate polling, or if mumsnet skews more anti monarchy for some reason. Or if it is due to the wording of the question in the poll.

It's the skewing.

Man is not reflective of majority national opinion.

And electoral results show that seeking to dominate the odd website doesn't translate into actual RL outcomes.

There is a small, but enthusiastic, group of anti-monarch posters who do start an awful lot of threads.

Never in the actual topic, though, I notice. Which always leaves me thinking it's campaigning rather than interest in real discussion. But if so, it's not making any inroads.

Buckingham palace could and would probably make much more money for the exchequer if it was empty and all the rooms could be viewed.

Presumably offset by the cost of providing a suitable venue for foreign state visits? You know, equipped with the technology, security and facilities needed?

Unless you are suggesting that as a nation, we no longer host visiting Heads of State, and insist they make their own arrangements while here?

it is a well established fact that the monarchy, as part of the culture of this country brings in a hell of a lot more money than it costs

Certainly it's a well established claim, but a fact? I'm not so sure about that, given the very skilled public relations folk the palace employs to keep their subjects cooing over them. As with so much else, the issue of the crown estates can be spun in a way which suits the family very well, provided not too many awkward questions are asked

I'm another who appreciates that the palace would have to be maintained whoever lives there, but it's very hard to discuss the upkeep in isolation without feelings about the monarchy in general creeping in

FWIW I'd have hoped we'd progressed far enough from the times of serfs and touching of forelocks to replace it with something more appropriate now - but hey, that's just me ...

Such a non story generally beloved family spends own money restoring and preserving house for the nation; a few keyboard warriors froth on forum whilst the general populace, who in the main approve of and support said hard working family (bar the odd feckless princess but hey every family has one or two of them). A family who have no real choice in their position (well done Princess Anne exceptionally well played game from a badly stacked deck of cards) and in the main work exceptionally hard under a constant spotlight (filmed at mothers funeral aged twelve).

Spends own money? how the hell is it their own money. If it was their own money how come the government have decided to ALLOW the queen a larger cut from the crown estates to pay for it all. If it was their OWN money the headline would be "the queen decides to spend £370 million on palace reservations.
Of course it's not their own money, do you really think that they have the rights to the ENTIRE profits from the crown estates?

As for them being hard working...the Royal family have never done a days work in their lives. I find it so strange that people want to accept the myth that the royals work. They have to do something for the massive amount of privilege and money we throw at them but it sure ain't work.

That is hysterical have you read your own thread? YABU and in the true spirit of AIBU totally unable to see it.

Not their money, but not their property, either.

Yes, they use it as offices and a residence "rent-free" but in return, the building acts a storage for state assets and to host state visits.

I'd be unwilling to pay much in "rent" if I had to accommodate high-value items that may not particularly enjoy looking at, and share my living/workspace with individuals and their entourages that I had no opportunity to refuse, irrespective of their conduct, ethics or personal hygeine!

the queen may not even be alive when all the work is done.

the Royal family have never done a days work in their lives

Sweeping generalities like that which are patently untrue don't help further your already quite extreme argument!