To think there are higher priorities than Buckingham Palace.

[lazylab]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-pay-rise-royal-public-funds-buckingham-palace-sovereign-grant-royal-family-crown-a7809716.html

Whether or not we agree with the monachy i don't think now is the time to throw millions of taxpayers money at one huge old palace. There are far far more important things that need our money. Anyone agree?

lazylab, tapandgo said upthread -

Her disfunctional children Andrew and Edward and their wives/ex wives and children would not know a days work if it bit them on the royal butts

And what did Sophie do? Do you have links/evidence or are you saying that to suit your agenda? It doesn't take away from the fact that she has earned a living, when others on this thread claims she hasn't.

Orlantino as user147 pointed out we probably all own something that historically was stolen. So shall we all give it back? 1066 was almost 1,000 years ago, do you really think it's reasonable for a single person to atone for someone's actions 1,000 years ago? TBH this line is just used as a paltry attempt to fit people's anti-royal narrative. And yes I do believe in a democracy. We have a democracy and a royal family. We are not North Korea, the queen is not out to dictate or create laws based on her own personal beliefs, unless you can point me in the direction of an instance where she has done so?

Some people might argue that the ONLY reason they have a voice and can influence policy is because they are Royal. Other people who don't have a voice but want to change things are ignored because they are not Royal. Is that fair? People are only listened to because they are deemed important enough

I really don't give a shit why people like the royals. For all I care people can be pro-monarchy because they like the shoes that Kate wears. Doesn't change the fact that they have a huge following, and they use that following for the benefit of others. And other people do have a chance to make a difference in this country if they want. Saying it "doesn't count" because you believe people are brainwashed or because royals have an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Doesn't mean they help any less does it? Your post smacks of great bitterness TBH

I find it amusing that people on this thread would say "the queen" shouldn't get money for "her house" (when actually it's not hers it belongs to the people so it's no different spending money on restoring Stonehenge) in the same breath say "if there were no royals we could still keep Buckingham palace". In which case it's a building that needs maintained. As it does now. It's getting money spent on it because it's in a state of disrepair, not so that the queen can deck it out in Elephant and Ball wallpaper and buy Next furniture

Your post smacks of great bitterness TBH

It does. Because this family have, by law, a position of great influence in this country. Not because they are clever, well informed, great leaders, inspirational and have stood out amongst their peers.

No - because of who their parents were.

Is that right? Great influence and power by birthright, not ability?

And yes I do believe in a democracy. We have a democracy and a royal family

Our Queen can veto signings if she wants.
Luckily she chooses not to.

What would happen if she did?

The Armed Forces sign up to obey the Monarch. Not the Constitution or the Country.

Who are they loyal to?

I wonder why you don't all rant at the Govenment for not charging the big money earning companies the TAX they should pay us

Many of us do object to this and often post to say so - but this particular thread happens to be about something else

Our Queen can veto signings if she wants. Luckily she chooses not to

I believe this is an important point. Whatever we each think of the monarchy as a principle, at least we currently have a moderate kind of sovereign who appears capable of reasonably sensible judgement

What really worries me is having her idiot eldest son in that position ...

Versailles brings in a ton more tourists than Buck House.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/apr/08/uk.news
what did sophie do? well there you go cherry a bit uninformed aren't we, but as with many monarchists it's easier to not dwell on the bad things isn't it. What a bloody shower they are, and to the poster who talks about being "bitter" really? is that the best you can come up with. There must be a hell of a lot of "bitter" people in this country then, and some will be a lot more vocal about the wrongs of a royal family than i am.

Not terribly good business people by the sound of it either, lazylab:

www.standard.co.uk/news/cash-worries-for-sophie-firm-6968646.html

To be fair, Sophie's company was doing better before she shot her mouth off so unwisely, but then whose choice was that?

As for Edward, apparently incapable of doing much "production" work which didn't involve his family/properties (and even then making a hideous loss) - well, perhaps it's best to draw a discreet veil over that ... ...

I find it amusing that people on this thread would say "the queen" shouldn't get money for "her house" (when actually it's not hers it belongs to the people so it's no different spending money on restoring Stonehenge)
No you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting, my OP was about how i believed it was wrong to allocate money for doing the palace up ahead of other much more pressing needs. I'm also sick of people saying the house isn't hers, it's as good as, though isn't it, there's only her and Phil get to live in it.

I'd be happy for the queen to keep 100% of her income, in exchange for being liable for repairs and inheritance tax.

I really don't give a shit why people like the royals. For all I care people can be pro-monarchy because they like the shoes that Kate wears. Doesn't change the fact that they have a huge following, and they use that following for the benefit of others. And other people do have a chance to make a difference in this country if they want. Saying it "doesn't count" because you believe people are brainwashed or because royals have an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Doesn't mean they help any less does it? Your post smacks of great bitterness TBH

if we cut her off, she is welcome to do charity. There are plenty of people who help charites by donating their own money instead of the money a willing population gives them. In fact, the treasury could just give the money they would have given directly to the monarchy directly to charity. Why have a middle man?

what this thread has shown me is that there are enough people who fawn over these people that we are stuck with them until we get someone really distasteful.

that's why I love Charles.

Oh yes, and Camilla too

Strange though that you can be thought of as "bitter" because you'd rather see a worthy cause benefitting from having a vast sum of money thrown at it rather than someone who has a personal estimated fortune of £350 million. I'd call it having your damn priorities right.

Who is giving her this money... please clarify

The treasury, from the proceeds from the crown estates.

if we can give her substantially less and she still perform the same function, why not?

They should means test her, like they do with everyone else, with £350 mill in the bank she'd never get another penny. Sorted.