Is it bizarre to question the Monarchy's Budget?

Before we star on the Queen I would like to know where the money is coming from to refurbish the Houses of Parliament because it is a lot. And then there is the Olympics and lots of other projects of which I'm not sure of the source.

I agree Eloethan and I also agree with goldengirl, how many of these things are we actually funding or putting towards. I mean, think how many refugees you could give a temporary home to in Buckingham Palace?

The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace, the country does. She lives there, some of the time, because it goes with her job. Just as we pay MPs second home expenses like the many thousand pound refit of the kitchen at No 10 when the Cameron family moved into the house that goes with his job.

No, start on the queen. We pay her lots of money as it is. If we need a new boiler we have to pay for it out of the money we have.
I'm with Eloethan and Suzanne Moore.

Not this again! The royal palaces DON'T belong to the sovereign but to the state. If she were a president, living in the presidential palace, we (tax-payers) would pay for the lot, like we do for the PMs residences and the various other country and town houses various officers of the government live in free of cost. Remember John Bercow and the fuss about refurbishing the Speaker's House? And the Queen DOES pay towards the upkeep and repair of various state residences - after the fire at Windsor, for example. If I were the Queen, I'd retire to Sandringham or Balmoral (which she does own) and tell the government to make its own arrangements for entertaining assorted foreign heads of state, criminals, and other people they want to get on-side and for travelling the globe flying the flag. And while this is under discussion, why doesn't Margaret Hodge, a Labour MP but one who inherited considerable personal wealth from her family, scrutinise the cost of running the Palace of Westminster, Portcullis House and other subsidised facilities for MPs and ministers?

We don't pay her lots of money! We pay towards the cost of having a Head of State!

Re Mollies point I just looked up this about the status of a lot of the "Royal palaces."

Many are actually state owned. I do think those with grace and favour accommodation should pay something towards their accommodation.

republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20property/index.php

Well said, Lilygran

Interesting, Nellie. We could charge them the spare room tax equivalent.

They do Nelliemoser ... and the Queen pays for those who can't afford to. Just ask Princess Pushy (aka Princess Michael) ... they had to sell their house to be able to afford to pay the rent on their Kensington Palace apartments...

Btw, can anyone explain to me why it's acceptable for Bob Crow, the chap in charge of Unison who constantly brings the London tube out on strike, with his £100k+ salary to live in a council house?

It is a slightly odd situation with the state owning the major palaces and paying the queen a stipend which includes money for upkeep. The point is that the public accounts committee (which includes tories and lib deems) are not impressed with the way the queen is managing the money and the buildings.
It is not just Ms Hodge -although it is clear that she is exercising great leadership of the committee. I have to say that she and the committee have done fantastic work looking at all kinds of issues to do with public spending - far more proactive than any PA committee that I recall. The high point of this parliament, to date, without a doubt.

Maybe a good compromise would be to open the palaces to the public more often, especially during the tourist season, to raise revenue.

Where does it say we will be paying for a new boiler?

The Queen is in no way being criticised. Suggestions are being made that Buck House could generate more funds to off-set state contributions if the financial side of the household was managed differently. ie letting out more of the palace for posh corporate events etc.

Sounds reasonable. It's a big place.

So long as they keep the noise down after Queenie' s bedtime.

To answer the question rather than sidetrack – it isn't the least bit bizarre to question how much public money should be spent on a public servant.

I think they went out of their way not to criticise the Queen herself. Just the Finance department of the Royal Household.

No, it isn't bizarre. An MP on The Daily Politics yesterday suggested the management of the royal palaces should be taken over by a government department. Yes, right! They do such a good job.

mollie Thanks for that info. I had no idea about it.

I think it should be put up for competitive tender, as long as SERCO and G4S are not allowed to bid.

She's a lot cheaper to maintain than a President and First Lady (Tony and Cherie?), and she brings in the crowds, including lots of overseas visitors

Why is it when anybody questions the role or cost of the monarchy in the UK, the automatic assumption is that a republic would be headed by an American-style president?

Eloethans link says royals-want-new-boiler-we-pay-for-it, Jingle.
I agree with you, JessM, about Margaret Hodge and the committee. I enjoy watching her on parliament TV.

I don't think people come to this country to see the queen , there may be the odd person who saves for a holiday just to visit the UK in the hope of a glimpse of her , most odd. I am rather cross that we also pay for Andrews daughters to have flats in St James Palace, Andrew and his ex have a house in Windsor castle, Anne has an office in St James , Andrew also has an office in Buck house as I think does Edward, plus town accommodation . Then the Kensington Palace lot. We also pay for the security for these places and for security for their private homes. We even pay for security for Camilla's home which she needs as a bolt hole, seems Highgrove, Clarence House, Burkhall and Wormwood isn't enough .

I think they do come here to see the Queen, Americans for sure love her! Not sure about indulging the rest though, although I think P. Anne gives value for money.