To think that when more people than ever are having to use

[lottieandmia]

The Royal Family should pay for their own fucking renovations on the palace. It makes me so mad, we supposedly have a deficit so bad that disabled people are being declared fit for work 10 days before they die from their condition.

Something is very wrong. Don't tell me they bring in loads of revenue from tourism. Think about the cost of security and police protection they already have that is funded by the tax payer.

They should sell one of their other houses to pay for it.

I know they don't 'own' buck palace, but they are renting it! So cough up!

The government spent more than this rebranding the Royal Mail only to change it back to Royal Mail a few months later, didn't they? This is pocket change in comparison to the massive hole in the NHS coffers. Perhaps you should be wingeing at the people, who voted to leave the EU as their decision will cost the NHS far more. Just because you don't like the royal family, it doesn't make them defunct. Without them we'd potentially have the French system. The queen likely spends far less on her wardrobe than certain French presidents have on their hair and the latter preening is paid by tax payers.

HMQ isn't particularly expensive as a Head of State.

BP houses the offices of all the various officials, and they would still exist even under a presidency.

Aren't the other palaces in England owned by the Queen, as opposed to owned by the nation for the head of state? And their maintenance not state-funded.

I actually agree that it needs to be repaired from a historical point of view but I would be in favour of moving them all out to their country homes and opening up to the public full time

France doesn't have a royal family and does quiet well out of tourism - ditto Germany and Italy

The HISTORY of this country including the buildings and trappings of royalty bring in tourist - the actual royals - not so much

two so are you saying anyone who rents should all pay for repairs themselves then?.... or just trying to create a rule for a couple of pensioners?

It may not technically belong to her, but the royal family reap all the rewards of living there. The masses aren't exactly free to roam and make use of the lovely gardens and lake. I hope we get rid of them when the queen dies.

Keep the landmarks open and get rid of the unremarkable royal family that we are all supposed to bow and scrape to because of nothing other than accident of birth.

So, Lottieandmia, would you rather bow and scrape to Donald Trump or Nicholas Sarkozy? The Royal Family is way less expensive than the security and pensions of all the past Presidents of somewhere like France: even if they only serve one term they are entitled to a president's title, pension, staff, security detail etc for the rest of their life. So at present we are paying 9.6 million Euros a year for the three former presidents (who are all "rich men" anyway)- and next year we'll be paying for Hollande too (she says "hopefully".)

I still don't buy it.

Preserve the landmarks - I get the argument for that. What I don't get is why it should all be funded by the tax payer.

I agree with ghosty.

the French have been renovating the Palace of Versailles, like Buckingham Palace its a national monument

I didn't know we were paying for past presidents of France!

However, surely the royals should pay for the privilege of living in Buck House. If I lived there, I would happily give three quarters of my worth to upgrade it. And if I had two Grandchildren finding it hard to establish a worthwhile role in the workplace, I would use my influence to get one of the construction company's involved to give them apprenticeships.

Don't worry - I do whinge at people who voted to leave the EU!

I don't think the royals care one bit whether it's renovated or not, I'm sure they'd prefer to just live in a country mansion somewhere. But it's one of the main tourist attractions in London so I think it does need to be renovated. MPs expenses should be reduced, that'd help to fund some of it. Maybe sell off couple of royal mansions in central london. Ask donations from the wealthy. The queen could host a couple of intimate dinner parties for some oil billionaires, tickets would cost 1 million pounds per ticket. or a weekly dinner party at buckingham palace, higher price for sitting closer to queen. Could get cheapie tickets for standing at the side and nibbling stuff from the plates when they're cleared off. I got loads of ideas for raising funds for this. Then the government money could be used for where it's more desperately needed such as services for disabled, or NHS etc

I'm in at least three minds about the whole thing. But I do remember reading that x million social rented homes still don't have the 'decent homes policy' bathroom, kitchen and window upgrades they were due to drag them into the twentieth century. That policy was rolled out ages ago, maybe 15 years ago.

Maybe it's time for a city tax to help fund the tourist attractions we have to subsidise.

lottieandmia because look at the amount of people who work there and people who visit..... it needs to be safe....health and safety at work and all that. It's not a 'home'. They have an apartment inside but that might not be the part which needs renovation

Queen and prince Philip are likely to be dead before it's all finished

actually agree that it needs to be repaired from a historical point of view but I would be in favour of moving them all out to their country homes and opening up to the public full time

And this. HMQ is reputed to detest Buck House anyway.

They could always reserve it for a dozen days of "official duties" such as garden parties, state dinners and balcony events per year, as a working venue.

They technically are paying for it (although it's not that obvious). The Sovereign Support Grant, which is paying for it, is funded by 15% of the Crown Estate.

TBH I can't bring myself to get worked up about this money.

The funding that we spend on the Queen has been reduced drastically over thr last couple of decades and is now subject to the same scrutiny as government funding so can't be wasted.

Even if we didn't have a Queen we'd still want to have the building kept in a fit state as an historic landmark.

The Queens estate funding is now shared with a good proportion coming from the revenue they make from tours etc.

The sum really is pocket change when you look at the kind of sums of money the Government is dealing with. The Benefits bill far, far exceeds this amount, and if you diverted the money to benefits it wouldn't make much of a difference to people needing to use foodbanks

The government is spending way way way more than this on local growth projects to create jobs for people and reblance the economy.

I'm not a Tory by any means, and do think what this Government is doing to poor people is despicable. But I still they should fund this too, and that we should keep Buckingham Palace in a fit state.

Its not just Buckingham Palace either. The government funds both tge National Trust and Heritage England to make sure landmarks and sites of historical importance are well kept and maintained and can be enjoyed by us all.

This is only different because it makes a good headline for the Daily Mail etc.

If it was open all year round, the revenue could have paid for the renovations and gone towards the jobs/wages etc created. The money from the Exchequer could then have gone towards the NHS, disability benefit etc.

We have homeless young people and mentally ill people living on the streets. If "we" are paying for it, we should be addressing our homelessness scandal at the same time.

It's a disgrace. Totally.

If it were open all year round things would break more often and need replacing more often plus you would have running costs plus it wouldn't be a luxury anymore so the price would need to drop

More staff than Royals live in BP. It's a work place for the head of state, whoever that is.

"If it were open all year round" you'd need to hire somewhere for all the state functions, and pay for the additional security to check them every single time. Rather than having a secure (usually) perimeter and a vetted workforce. But I suppose some people would prefer to spend more than is necessary for the current arrangements.