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?

The building, which is a national asset, needs sorting so that it doesn't fall/burn down. I don't care if the royals exist or live there or not, but the place is an historical monument packed to the gunnels with priceless and irreplaceable artworks and furnishings etc. Sometimes you need to look beyond your prejudice and think of the long term.

Because they belong to the Monarchy.

not in the traditional sense, as we both agree.

The Monarchy themselves are a revenue source for the country, and it makes sense that they derive some income from their assets.

no, it doesn't "make sense". Since when is that adequate justification for laying out 85m?

so you can't argue it is overly excessive, given they are an asset belonging to the Monarchy.

yes, we can argue. If they don't have an absolute right to the revenue, why give them any of it?

Where are these 'facts' you quote actually coming from op?

OP, I'm convinced you're being wilfully obtuse if you really don't think that Buckingham Palace is a beacon for tourists. That's an incredibly daft thing to say (and I say that as someone who isn't in the UK).

If we are talking Versailles, or the Winter Palace in St Petersburg or something of that ilk, say minus a "sponging royal" in residence, would it be acceptable to let them fall to rack and ruin, so that they are not preserved for future generations?

The Queen doesn't spend all of her time or even much of it in Buckingham Palace - this is not being done for her personal benefit.

chilipepper20 the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning Monarch, that is a fact. Most of the revenue is sent to the Treasury for the benefit of the Nation, also fact. Under the Sovereign Grant the Monarch receives 15% of the revenues - how can anyone argue that the Monarchy receiving 15% of revenues from something belonging to them is "tax payer funded"?

Marcia it is her main residence, whether it's for her benefit or not i'm saying there are far far more important things we should be spending our money on. superbeagle i'm not disputing that buck palace doesn't get tourists, where did i say that i said that it is not the number 1 tourist spot in Britain and also that we would still get the tourists, as do France, without the royals. It is you who are being obtuse to have deliberately misinterpreted what i'd said.

I agree historical buildings need to be preserved - but there are better ways of raising the money. - open them longer to get tourist money. Then oust the royal hangers on out of grace and favour flats in Kensington Palace and other such residences and let them pay the market price for flats elsewhere at their own expense. The super wealthy tourists would pay a fortune to spent their holidays in these flats.

frilly all the major news channels today reported the queen was getting a taxpayer funded pay rise, and no the crown estates don't belong to them, if the royals were to cease tomorrow the entire estates would revert back to the country.

The Queen doesn't spend all of her time or even much of it in Buckingham Palace

This is true; she also spends a lot of time at Windsor, Balmoral and Sandringham

Which reminds me that the last two, said to be her own private property, were originally bought by Queen Victoria and that many consider the money for their purchase came from Privy Purse funding

If this is so, then given that the Privy Purse was publicly bankrolled, doesn't this raise questions of whether the two properties should be regarded as private assets at all?

It's her OFFICIAL residence, not her main one. She spends most weekends at Windsor, most of the summer at Balmoral, and a chunk at Sandringham, the last 2 of which are her own personal property. Plus all the travelling about. The royal family will be using a small number of rooms in Buck House itself. Many of the staff and other rooms are mostly needed for all the work stuff. State dinners, official functions, the Ceremonial shit that you can agree with or not etc etc. It's a business in all but name.

The complaints here seem to be that the Queen is getting some kind of upgrade for her personal living situation, when the reality is that a British monument, known the world over, needs some urgent work to stop it falling to pieces.

If we are talking Versailles, or the Winter Palace in St Petersburg or something of that ilk, say minus a "sponging royal" in residence, would it be acceptable to let them fall to rack and ruin, so that they are not preserved for future generations?

Why would they need to fall to rack and ruin, they could be self funding. But apart from that my thread is about how the upkeep of the palace shouldn't take precedence over more vital things. Many hospitals, schools, care homes and community buildings have already fallen to rack and ruin, the palace shouldn't be a priority.

Golly you call me blinkered OP and yet you opening and subsequent posts show quite frankly that it's you who is not prepared to listen to a counter argument.

I'm not, for what it's worth, particularly pro-monarchy.

What I do feel strongly about is the maintenance and preservation of of our national architectural history.

Your opening post was NOT about monarchy, it was about throwing "millions of taxpayers money at one huge old palace".

So what point exactly were you trying to make?

Or were you just being goady?

The complaints here seem to be that the Queen is getting some kind of upgrade for her personal living situation, when the reality is that a British monument, known the world over, needs some urgent work to stop it falling to pieces

Not from all of us ... although the high profile link is obvious, it's still entirely possible to consider the building repairs and the existence of a monarchy as two separate issues

As I've said, maintaining the properties doesn't have to involve maintaining a monarchy

Well you have posts on 3 threads with this name, so I'm going for bored and goady...

3 million in the community would not go far

Where do you suggest it goes instead Op?

Darthmaiden what did you think my post was about, and are you telling me now that it's "goady" to bring up a subject about the royal finances. Goady to who exactly? My post was about the fact that there are far more deserving causes in the country than one huge old palace. Is that hard for you to understand.

Darth what is your point about how many threads i've been on? But really you're coming across as a very angry person. But as for being bored? should none of us start threads then

3 million in the community would not go far

Where do you suggest it goes instead Op?

Where do you get that figure from? and as for it not going far, well we could say that about anything. Any spare money in the government coffers? hell let's throw it at the royals, they're most in need. it wouldn't go far anywhere else would it.

My EXH was a steward in the Royal Navy and had the joy of looking after Charles for one tour. Amongst his standard requirements was having his toothpaste put on his brush.

Excellent use of taxpayer money.

Keep the buildings, open them more and use the profits to maintain them. The monarchy need to stop taking taxpayer money, and pay for their own lifestyles. William, on the Air ambulance (very good and necessary work) unfortunately spoilt it by using a helicopter for his daily commute, to the tune of about 2k each way. We're all in it together though, right?

As to whether doing engagements is working hard... if I'm ever 91 I rather hope my time will be my own, rich or poor but not to have to attend 341 public engagements in a year (2015 official figure) or to have to read red government boxes every day, even Christmas Day. Every ex prime-minister has commented in autobiographies how impressive the Queen's knowledge and experience is, in their weekly meetings and how up to date she is with everything.

Would we invent the monarchy now? No, but the present Queen has my respect and has done a lot to trim down the hangers on. As for Prince William's part-time work, which he has now given up to concentrate on royal duties, air ambulance pilot was a pretty serious "part-time job" if you ask me.

I don't know the official status if Sandringham but it is certainly open to the public

The fact that she manages to carry out all those engagements shows that they aren't hard work. The queen has been cosseted and surrounded by servants all her life. She DOES NOT have a hard life ffs.

I totally agree.

More nurses anyone? Teachers?

Thought not.

Her maj and Co must be comfortable.

It's like the 1500's.