Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
WouldHave · 20/11/2016 13:12

The comparison with the White House is entirely valid, because if we did not have a queen we would have someone like a President and would need an equivalent building. In essence Buckingham Palace would be providing precisely the same function as it does now, given that it is in fact primarily offices and ceremonial/guest areas, and we would still have to maintain it.

trixymalixy · 20/11/2016 13:15

Agree. The comparison with the White House is perfectly valid.

chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 13:18

The Royals bring in more than they cost us through tourism.

it's like a doll with a string on it. I could have quoted that from many posters here. This has to go up there as one of the most baseless claims ever.

26 billion? that's a laugh.

WouldHave · 20/11/2016 13:23

They live active lives and they DO things but it should never get confused with actual work.

Is piloting an air ambulance not work then? We'd better stop paying the people who do it now, then.

Suppose your itinerary for the day was:

  1. Do homework for three engagements due today: check who you will be meeting so you can talk intelligently to them, inform yourself about the business/hospital/charity/whatever, check speeches.
  2. Dress for first engagement.
  3. Travel 60 miles to first engagement.
  4. First engagement. Official opening of factory, make speech, shake a lot of hands, make conversation with various officials. Go to official lunch, make speech, shake hands, make further conversation.
  5. Change for next engagement.
  6. Travel 10 miles to second engagement.
  7. Open hospital, make conversation with officials, make speech, go and talk to patients, shake lots of hands.
  8. Travel back home.
  9. Spend time going through red boxes from government, note issues arising, consider advice/action needed.
10. Meet people to plan official tour. 11. Change for official dinner engagement. 12. Travel to dinner. 13. Attend official function, more hand shaking and conversation with strangers, make speech. 14. Travel back home at 11 pm.

If you had that planned for today, would you feel you were doing nothing, or that you were doing rather a full day's work?

IvorHughJarrs · 20/11/2016 13:23

I'm not a royalist and am in favour of pruning out the royals who are funded but have no problem with this. I think Buckingham Palace is an important historic building which serves a function in the modern world and the royal family do have a valid function in the country, heritage, tourism, etc whether it is to my taste or not. I'd sooner pay for it under these circumstances than pay for it to be a new White House for President Blair or similar which is what we could end up with if we don't keep them

heartskey · 20/11/2016 13:27

The comparison with the White House is entirely valid, because if we did not have a queen we would have someone like a President and would need an equivalent building
Absolute nonsense, the president of Ireland doesn't live in a huge palace and also the cost of their presidency to run costs much much less than the Royal family costs us.

OP posts:
heartskey · 20/11/2016 13:31

Prince williams piloting duties have no bearing on it. That is employment outside of the Royal family. What a strange comparison. All the other things you mention are not work, they're things that ordinary people would consider as pleasure or something they would pay to do.

OP posts:
WouldHave · 20/11/2016 13:34

Official residence of the President of Ireland.

Looks pretty palatial to me.

thejerkstorecalled · 20/11/2016 13:36

Why isn't Downing Street or something similar grand enough? Just because other countries still have big fancy houses doesn't mean we can't change.

Sorry but that day's agenda doesn't sound much like work to me. Also it's not appropriate to compare the actual jobs that some of the royals have (which are work) to royal duties (which aren't really work).

PollyPerky · 20/11/2016 13:39

OP These figures are 6 years old now but even so, have a look.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7914479/Monarchy-attracts-500-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html

Over 2 million visitors to the UK, the Queen is no 3 on the list for their reasons for coming and the income to the UK is in the list.

The point is- what is your alternative?

A dictatorship? Look at the corruption of the countries where they have a dictator. Or a president. I doubt if you can find an example where everything in the garden is rosy.

The queen is frugal in what she spends. I think people ignore how extravagant she could be if she wanted to be. Most of the expense is on entertaining officials from overseas which help trade and world peace.

If you refuse to see the benefits of a monarchy that's your choice, but your argument about the cost of the upkeep of 'the firm' is just silly.

PollyPerky · 20/11/2016 13:42

And to say the queen doesn't work is just laughable.

If you look at some of her typical days they'd exhaust someone in their 30s, never mind a few months off 91.

I am sure she hates dressing up and being on show sometimes at 3 engagements in a day. My parents are the same age and they are in bed by 9pm, not hosting banquets with heads of state till midnight, after a day of reading government documents and doing goodness knows what else.

sterlingcooper · 20/11/2016 13:43

So there are Royals who have done a day's work in their lives then, you admit.

Ordinary people might find it a pleasure to do Royal duties for a while, but do you seriously think most people would want to do all that hundreds of times a year for decades and decades until they die? I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't choose to be a Royal even with all the money and luxury. I'd rather have the freedom of a normal life.

PollyPerky · 20/11/2016 13:45

All the other things you mention are not work, they're things that ordinary people would consider as pleasure or something they would pay to do.

Really? Really? You've got to be joking.

So it all boils down to envy,

Smiling when you feel crap, dressing up when you'd rather be in your jeans, making speeches if you are camera-shy, being on planes half way across the world and having to be on show when you're jetlagged....

I can only assume you have never had the tiniest bit of experience doing any of this or you'd not write such drivel.

WouldHave · 20/11/2016 13:47

Prince williams piloting duties have no bearing on it. That is employment outside of the Royal family. What a strange comparison. All the other things you mention are not work, they're things that ordinary people would consider as pleasure or something they would pay to do.

Don't try to gloss over what you said, which was "the Royal family have never done a days work in their lives". You acknowledge that Prince William has done precisely that.

Likewise, if you really think carrying out a number of official engagements day in, day out, potentially from 9 am. to midnight, having to make speeches, meet and make polite conversation with hundreds of strangers, being on show all the time - even, when, say, you really feel rather rough - is something people would pay to do: frankly, you demonstrate that you are in total denial and completely invalidate your argument.

thejerkstorecalled · 20/11/2016 13:52

Thanks for the telegraph link. So is the number one reason why people visit Britain so that they can ride on one of our buses? We should definitely keep buses.

I don't want to abolish the monarchy but really the argument that she does so much for her age is very revealing. Social inequalities of health are a massive public health issue. There is lots of actual credible research to prove this.

Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 13:53

Ok heartskey, let's say we do it your way, and make it into a "palace for the homeless".

Who's paying for that?

NameChanger22 · 20/11/2016 13:59

'The freedom of a normal life'. Hilarious!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2016 14:05

If they don't like their onerous workload, they could always step down.

Hmm, don't think that's likely, do you? Hmm

Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 14:07

Because I've been involved in many a clean-up after squatters (almost inevitably well educated middle class dropouts in my personal experience), and that shit is not pretty. So someone is going to have to look after the inhabitants so it doesn't turn into a squat, run it, heat it, light it, clean it, etc etc. most of the many hundreds of existing staff - all of whom pay tax into the treasury too - would leave, and the many hotels, shops, restaurants etc would close because none of the hundreds and thousands of people who come to see the queen are going to come and look at a hostel.

So, you have to find a way to pay for it and top up the economy there too. As well as making sure that you replace it with a symbol to broadcast around the world to raise British tourism that is as effective as the royal family on the balcony.

I'm sure you've thought all this out as you're clearly v passionate on the subject (no sarcasm intended), so what do you propose?

I'm on the fence but swaying towards doing the works as part of our heritage and tourism, so intelligent arguments against it welcome...

WouldHave · 20/11/2016 14:07

Having to be polite to people like Donald Trump is a very hard day's work on its own.

WouldHave · 20/11/2016 14:09

If they don't like their onerous workload, they could always step down.

It's not an issue of whether they like it, is it? The point is that OP claimed they don't work. And it's perfectly clear the Queen regards it as her duty to keep going.

NameChanger22 · 20/11/2016 14:12

I can't imagine it's that much fun being polite to the Queen.

sterlingcooper · 20/11/2016 14:15

NameChanger22 - so if I say I wouldn't be a member of the Royal Family given the choice, it must be because I have been brainwashed/conditioned into thinking my life is preferable to theirs, because objectively it couldn't be the case? Is that what you are saying?

ego147 · 20/11/2016 14:27

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

Part of Brexit was about 'not wanting to be ruled by unelected officials' and taking back control.

Yet we have an unelected Head of State and an unelected Prince of Wales who wants to interfere in Government policy.

There is no justification for a Monarchy in 21st C Britain.

ego147 · 20/11/2016 14:29

A dictatorship? Look at the corruption of the countries where they have a dictator. Or a president. I doubt if you can find an example where everything in the garden is rosy

Bingo.

You can look at countries who do have a Monarch and discuss the issues there. What's the going prison time for criticising the Monarch in Thailand?

Plenty of monarchies have issues. As do some presidencies.

But there are others who don't.

Swipe left for the next trending thread