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?

It's one of the things that represents our history and our very British way of life. Buckingham Palace, Houses of Parliament, Stonehenge and the many other heritage buildings need to be maintained as in other countries and not allowed to crumble into decay.

mummy all the things you mentioned would still be maintained without the royals, as they are now. The queen gets 15% of the profits, a huge amount but she doesn't pay for any of the maintenance of the sea beds, beaches and forests that you mention.

Versailles is something like the 12th most popular tourist attraction in Europe. Far above anything in GB.

Looks like the best thing we could possibly do for tourism is get rid of them and turn Buck Palace into one big theme park.

llangenith why do we need a royal family to ensure these old heritage buildings survive. We'd have more money to do so if we weren't supporting the RF and all the hangers on.

Lazylab, all these things are done by the Crown Estates in the name of her govenment with money from the Crown Estates, before the Profit is the shared out 25% to the Queen and 75% to us......

Parliment is given free of charge and lots of other govenment buildings pay no rent, there are lots of things done that are not headline grabbing. Lots of properties that would crumble if they were not cared for by CE...

And if we stop the agreement, that would mean she gets the lot back and we'd be worse of as a country, but hey hoe, that doesn't make good headlines does it..

why not just clad it - much cheaper way of doing it up

I was interested to learn that the current facade is a cosmetic overlay. Before the current concrete "cladding" (not sure it's the right term in this case) Buckingham palace had a brick outer layer.

The UK doesn't have lots of things people like about the rest of Europe. We don't have the weather, beaches, great cheap food and wine, a cool foreign language or attractive people (sorry!). It's overcrowded and expensive. If people didn't feel it was "classy" and love the idea of poshos and high tea, they'd go to the many many better, cheaper countries instead of paying eyewatering sums to stay in London.

you are simply guessing, and frankly selling the UK short. London is the finance capital of the world, a huge musical hub, possibly the world's theatre capital, and great (though probably not cheap) food. while we don't have exotic languages, we have one that many know (a lot of people like that), and we have rule of law and are a relatively safe place for tourists.

That's just London. other UK cities also have a lot to offer.

Frankly, I find it an impossible claim. The country that is, along with Germany, probably the biggest magnet for migrants in europe, has very little to offer besides the royals?

can I ask if the appalling, toadying address in your post at 11.12 was taken from something recent

The Queen's Speech. Today, 2017

that would mean she gets the lot back

Do you really think so?

Anyway - this will never happen because the establishment is so up the Monarchy's arse and it's rare to hear prominent people and especially politicians criticise them. And if they dare criticise them, then the media attacks them for doing so.

We can but dream though.

Still, some people seem to want to live in a land where they think it's ok for one person to rule over us by birthright and they think that this person has complete rights to all the Crown Estate and they are being so fucking generous by 'letting' her subjects have a Parliament free of charge.

Maybe the Russians and French were right......

Serious question: who isn't? Parliament is. The media are

Parliament is accountable. The media is accountable.

The Royal Family?

mummy sorry but that is a very inaccurate post. It's like you've just plucked those "facts" about the royals out of thin air. You thinking it doesn't make it true.

Re: the Royals bringing in tourists.

It's not like tourists actually see the Queen though is it? Not exactly 'breakfast with Lizzie' a la breakfast with Mickey and Co at Disney.

Tourists come for the architecture yes, and the history, they don't expect to see them in person.

Sure and Brexit is good because we're "not being ruled by Brussels" anymore

rolo

I voted Remain.

I don't believe a Head of State should be there by birthright.

Maybe you do?

And if we stop the agreement, that would mean she gets the lot back and we'd be worse of as a country, but hey hoe, that doesn't make good headlines does it

This is utter nonsense. She does not own the crown estates and never did. She gets the sovereign grant in her capacity as 'the crown' and not outside of that.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uks-top-50-visitor-attractions-7509660

Here is the top 50 tourist attractions of Britain, i could be mistaken but Buckingham Palace doesn't seem to have to have got a mention oh dear.

Mhairi black gave a good speech in parliament about how strange it is that the government argue many things (better healthcare, education) are "unaffordable" yet there is money to spend on fixing up palaces.

The Houses of Parliament is due a refurb too.

Made me fucking furious, the day after Grenfell she was at the polo. The polo. Enjoying herself

Fucking furious? What is it you expect? That at 91 she volunteers to make the tea? Are you pissed off that any British person with any kind of privilege lived life as normal the day after Grenfell?

At least she visited. She didn't have to.

She didn't have to

I think she did. It's in the job description. Or should be. Otherwise what is the point of the Head of State.

Buckingham Palace doesn't seem to have to have got a mention hmm oh dear

Of course it won't be mentioned. There is no way to record who goes there. I suppose someone could count the every one of the thousands of people who turn us every month to have a look. But then that would cost even more money.
Oh dear

Of course it won't be mentioned There is no way to record who goes there
So they don't keep a record of who visits the palaces but they do with everything else? Why on earth wouldn't they?, you're not talking about the people who just rock up to have a good gawp but don't actually, erm visit the palace are you? Good grief there are records of how many visitors the palace gets every year. Dear me.

I suppose someone could count the every one of the thousands of people who turn us every month to have a look

In my world, the Head of State would live there. The Guards would be dressed up in their uniform, the Guards would be changed as they are now and a flag would fly.

So we'd have the ceremonial trappings that people like to see.

loopytiles that is exactly my point. it's beyond appalling.

I've rocked up to london before to specifically take my kids to gawp at the Palace...I doubt I would have been counted. Do I not count as a tourist then? I even had a camera!

I've rocked up to london before to specifically take my kids to gawp at the Palace

Did you do anything else in London?

If the Palace was occupied by the Head of State and the Guards were still guarding it, would you have gone - or do you think the Queen has a mystique about her? If so, do you feel the same about Charles?

Yeah loopy i do similar sort of stuff, but people are always harping on about tourists bringing money into the country (they do but they don't come specially for the RF) our sort don't count, we haven't been spending money see.