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 not her home, she doesn't even own the building. If we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow we would almost certainly install the President or whoever we had instead, because we still need somewhere to hold big events, receive foreign dignitaries etc etc. So we would still need to spend the money.

In denying that the Royal Family do any work, you really are showing your ignorance and massively devaluing any argument you might have. And how many women do you know who are still working at 90?

Why isn't it clear in this day and age weather they are or aren't a financial drain on the country?

It's so complicated: some of the property they sleep in sometimes is theirs, some of it isn't theirs. Big chunks of England belongs to the 'crown' - is this individual wealth? Some of the 'bling' they wear belongs to them some of it doesn't and is 'borrowed'.

Who would we even all trust to work the definitive answer out? How is any informed intelligent discussion meant to take place without a clear answer to the most basic question - are they worth it?

Funny I was listening to the news about this the other day and was struck by how cheap it sounded.

It's got, what, a thousand rooms? And it's Grade 1 listed, so it's not as if we can just slap a bit of magnolia around and negotiate a bulk discount at B&Q. Bosh a central London premium on and 370million sounds like a surprisingly small bill.

I do slightly question why it's only going to cover the next fifty years, though. Doesn't sound very long to me.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9292607/The-Queen-gets-a-44bn-valuation-for-family-Firm.html

On top of that, the monarchy is reckoned to be worth an additional £26.4 billion because of the economic benefits it brings to the UK, through the boost to tourism and other industries.

£370 million is a drop in the ocean compared to the £26.4 billion.

Yes, but would those tourists stop coming if we got rid of the monarch as head of state? France I believe has a large number of tourists. They do have better weather though, granted.

wouldhave I'm not derailing my argument at all. No they don't "work". They live active lives and they DO things but it should never get confused with actual work. People might like to call it "work" what they do but I don't. No I don't know any women that still work at 90, they're usually worn out after a life time of toil and financial worries. Not so the robust queen, who still manages to do things and is active and healthy, which is a testament to her having led such a privileged life. What other 90 year old do you know that have their own private physician.

It is the people who describe the things the royals do as "work" who are truly showing their ignorance.But never mind, carry on tugging those fore locks, it's the forelock tuggers and sycophants who the royals probably secretly laugh at.

"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"

Because the monarch voluntarily relinquishes the revenue of the Crown Estate to the Exchequer. The monarchy would be vastly better off of it did not do that, and it gives about £3b per year.

And that's aside from what is passed on as personal property (for this is a rich aristocratic family as well. I know some people would want to abolish the ability to inherit, and this is an extreme example as it's been unbroken for centuries - though of course a number of ducal and other aristocrat families are very rich, as are those of the original USA billionaires)

Of course it's obscene. People who tell you it's actually fine to spend hundreds of millions of pounds sprucing up one of the many luxurious homes of a rich and privileged family whilst we have people living on the street, people choosing between heating and eating... they make me sick. They tell us the royal family brings in billions as if that makes this perfectly ok. Of course it's not remotely OK but some people will refuse to see it.

Would we want to take the risk.

If you take into consideration of the effect of the Brexit how well would it go down if we started changing the very core of Britain.

We have always had a monarch as head of state, to get rid of them will make us a laughing stock of the world.

Eve there is no proof of that at all, and what are those "other" industries that the royals apparently "boost"? Sorry the "tourism" thing is a myth that is used purely to justify the ridiculousness of it all.

YABU it sounds vair reasonable to me.

I don't think we have much to gain from losing the royal family - a lot of upheaval. The outcome would probably be something even more expensive and difficult. It would be a change nearly as pointless and problematic as brexit.

But heartskey you are right - it absolutely takes the piss to say what the royals do is 'work'. It is not work.

I really don't see why they can't just live in a normal house. There's plenty of nice venues in London that could host state visits and all that.

The notion that people visit London because we have reigning monarchs is utterly ludicrous.

It's not their home really, though they stay over some of the time. Home iin SE England is Windsor Castle (which they pay for).

It's home to staff, hotel to visiting heads of state, and offices. Even with a president, those things would be needed (and would be more expensive if not co-located on one already-owned site).

I'm amazed that anyone would think getting rid of them would make us the laughing stock of the world. That we aren't already? Practically the whole of the world doesn't have a royal family, but we'd be the laughing stock if we got rid?? On the contrary they are an embarressment to the world. An obscene relic of a brutal monarchial past. The world is AMAZED that we still have them. What a ridiculous argument to hang on to something because "we've always had it", just imagine the state of the country if that had applied to everything. We'd still have child chimney sweeps.

Soooo predictable to find this here and the Graundian.

Same old envy, same old arguments.

It's not really her home. Buck House is more a series of offices for the staff. her 'real' homes are Windsor Castle and Balmoral.

The Royals bring in more than they cost us through tourism. The upkeep of their property is a necessity not an option.

The arguments of NHS versus upkeep of stately homes is just a nonsense.

Maybe the lefties here should look at the millions of public money wasted by certain MPs on doing up their grace and favour homes for the short time they were in office (John prescott for example) and the offices of the TUC etc - some of the biggest and most costly in London. (champagne socialism.)

If the rest of the world are amazed at us having a Royal family, they are a relic, obscene etc (LOVE to know where you have found these opinions OP) then why do people come in their millions, boosting our economy, to see them?

You need to get your facts right OP instead of bleating on like some 1960s socialist on a soapbox.

And maybe look at communist states where the Chinese and Russian rulers live a life of sheer indulgence.

23% of countries have monarchies. It's neither rare nor unusual.

It is very short sighted.

Every country has a place for business.

It's like saying get rid of the White House.

If Buckingham Palace belonged to say a minor Saudi Prince, and we were a Republic with a president there would still need to be something a little more grand than Downing Street. Like the White House, the Elysée or the Kremlin. I suspect the maintenance and security bill for any of these is pretty equivalent - or should the elected president be paying for the maintenance.

Buckingham Palace is listed, which always adds to the cost as you are not allowed to use basic materials, and complete replumb/rewire and make good is never cheap.

The Queen is irrelevant in this debate really - pretty well every nation has something like Buckingham Palace in the capital city serving the functions it serves, and a modern building would look good for a very few years before becoming outdated and tired - and would blatantly go over budget (Holyrood...).

There's no comparison with the White House. That is the official residence and workplace of the president who runs the country. The queen doesn't run our country. pollyperky no they do not come in their millions to see the royals., and the irony of comparing me to some 1960s socialist, from someone who thinks that's it's still, in this day and age ok to have a non elected person as head of state. It's you who are living in the past, wanting to hang on to such an archaic throw back to the past.

Buckingham Palace is listed, which always adds to the cost as you are not allowed to use basic materials, and complete replumb/rewire and make good is never cheap.

Listing buildings is a way of preserving the past and our heritage - something that many people have expressed a willingness to sacrifice in order to service the national debt.

I think you need to look into the doings of Baroness Scotland, OP.

At the moment Buck Pal is the residence of the Head of State - if the head of state wasn't the Queen it would be someone else. Downing Street wouldn't work as seat of state, Westminster is more expensive to repair and lacks bedrooms fit for another country's president - Buck Pal or equivalent exists in most national capitals, including many republics - it is part of the machinery of government whether the head of state is David Cameron, Tony Blair, John Prescott, the Queen or Donald Trump.

I'm happy to spend £10 a year fixing Buckingham Palace, so long as the Queen moves out and stops being the Queen.

I think it should be turned into a huge Primark. That would attract far more tourists.