The queen's decor

Not us, then, vampire.

They would be unaware of it themselves, of course.

Can't be us because we use considered, reasoned argument to put our views across.

I'm definitely not prejudice or jealous of the wealthy. I have no problem with Tamara Ecclestone spending £20K on a night out or anyone else spending their own or family money. I don't have to pay for their upkeep.

I think that the practical inefficiency of Buckingham Palace makes spending large sums of money to maintain it as a royal residence of doubtful benefit. The present royal family and the previous king and queen all admitted to disliking the palace. It might be better to convert it into a showpiece heritage site that includes art galleries and museum pieces with facilities for state and even non-state banquets. It could still keep the balcony for display at royal weddings, jubilees, christenings and other public occasions. That way it would serve as an even greater tourist attraction while providing an impressive setting for entertaining foreign heads of state, Commonwealth Prime Ministers, etc.

That's what is called a considered, reasoned post to put your view across, note I dropped the word 'arguement' .

absent good ideas! Non-state banquets, weddings? Can you imagine how many stupidly rich brides would pay to get married in BP?

I think using buck house for functions etc as said by absent is an excellent suggestion . Charles holds functions at Hampton court, Frogmore etc, I assume Clarence House is too small for this. The queen holds functions at Windsor . Buck house is only open to the public two months of the year,if opened throughout the year so many more would see the vast art collection, the priceless Faberge egg collection etc and the money taken in admission costs would certainly go a long way to paying for the upkeep. The queen hot foots it to Windsor or Sandringham often and the official residence of the reigning monarch is still St James Palace

May I add this post as my other posts are without prejudice or envy

POGS, have I done something to offend or upset you.

I may not agree with your opinions but I don't recall typing anything that could be construed as a personal insult to yourself or any other poster.

I don't see a problem with the word 'argument' in the sense that it means a fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason.

I can't really see any major changes taking place during the Queen's lifetime but who knows what will happen next?

Charles won't need it as an official residence because he's already got one and so has Prince William. So long as it remains a focal point for national celebrations and state occasions I think absent's post is spot on.

The grounds could easily become another park and Prince Harry could host an annual pop festival.

A shoo-in for Alan Titchmarsh's knighthood?