The queen's decor

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?

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 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

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

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

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.

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.

They would be unaware of it themselves, of course.

Not us, then, vampire.

All those posters who have displayed little more than blind prejudice, obviously.

I'd like to know too.

The question is for the society of today and b----r all to do with the past, other than is it a historic building that deserves to have funding for renovation and modernisation.

It's fine to have an opinion of a political persuasion but surely the questions and answers should be whether or not it makes financial sense, is it an asset or liability and the only history connection to be had is whether or not it's iconic building status is worth maintaining.

So who did you mean, Ana?

The OP was light-hearted and then it turned into a fairly even discussion about the expense of having a monarch versus, er.....not having one.

I've lost interest now.

Are you the only poster on this thread, durhamjen?

Perhaps you find it impossible to recognise the difference.

I think you will find that I have posted a lot of facts, Ana, not prejudice.

But let's not allow the facts get in the way of blind prejudice, Lilygran - that would never do!

I wasn't intending to enter into a discussion of the significance of Magna Carta which would bore me senseless, has been extensively covered in the press, on television, on radio, carved onto trees, painted on banners and would be ignored by nearly everyone on GN. I was intending to make the point that in England (then Britain, then the UK) it was established quite early on that the Crown was subject to the law. It didn't happen in a lot of countries which may explain why we still have a monarchy.

Parliament started abolishing clauses in the Magna Carta in Queen Victoria's time. Today there are only three clauses still in existence, and none of them are to do with royalty.
One is to guarantee the freedom of the English Church. One is to confirm the liberties and customs of London and other boroughs.
The third is about no free man being stripped of his rights or possessions without due process being legally applied.
However, laws are changed quite regularly on the whim of the government. In 2012 the government introduced 7000 new laws without a vote in parliament. This is the government that promised to get rid of red tape.

The government itself now has more power than parliament. That was not in the spirit of Magna Carta.

I thought the money raised by opening the palace was for the upkeep.

CelticRose The present royal family's origins have nothing to do with the monarch being under the rule of law. Magna Carta (1215) was one of a series of agreements and events which led to the sovereign gradually giving up rights until we arrived at the kind of constitutional monarchy the UK has today. I expect executing Charles 1 and evicting James 11 also helped in arriving at the present situation.

Lilygran I note the reference to the monarchy of 1215C, but the present lineage only goes back about 200 hundred years - 300 years less than my traceable, ancestral lineage. It's a wonder the ancestors survived in reality, what with having to work to earn their daily bread and then fighting for their corner. If nothing else, we all hasten to Wiki to learn about our beginnings.

Who are the ' we' Lilygran? A group unknown by name ?

So if someone I know is being prosecuted and I suddenly remember a conversation with them which supports their defence I just ring up the court and the case is dropped ?

I do not dislike the royal family, I don't know them , the queen has never caused the country any embarrassment , is always dignified, seems to work quite hard for seven or eight months of the year , I just am not a flag waving, isn't she /he wonderful how lucky we are to have them person. I wish the queens sons did half as much work as her daughter and I admit to a fondness for Philip. My gripe throughout this thread has been the queen asking for over 6% pay increase and her very lazy! very costly grandchildren

If I had a magic wand I would turn all the windsors into Katherine Kents, I so admire and respect her and she didn't need a PR team spinning daily, she worked and she genuinely cared for people .

Good post, TerriBull!