Palace refurb

I agree, Jalima. People who use words like Queenie might try showing a bit of respect towards a woman who has served this country well for most of her life. She did not choose to be Queen. But I agree about the extortionate amount being spent, apparently, on repairs to Buckingham Palace. But the nation own it, not the Queen, and I think it is an asset to London and does attract tourists.
And I would prefer any amount of money being spent on our monarchy or national assets rather that the circus which has just taken place across the Atlantic. How much does all that hullabaloo cost every four years?

slimmed down? I dont think so have you seen recent photographs of them the numbers go up every year .I'd slim them down...wheres a guillotine when you need one .lolI never refer to the queen as queenie I always call her lizzie ,ridiculous that people have mediaeval titles in this day and age

If 'Queenie" grates it is quite deliberate, the only other name I would be willing to use is Liz, but I expect that would be as bad! Both working class names and both familiarities, calling her anything else would give the impression I bought into this antiquated concept of a monarchy
As Queenie has all the advantages of a central London pad she should be prepared to do something to help fund the cost of this.
Why would the repairs coat more if we opened State Rooms to the general public and closed them on State Occasions? Anyway the income earned would help towards costs.

She did choose to be queen, she had a choice get crowned or abdicate

The queen/monarch privately owns only Balmoral and Sandringham.

Buckingham Palace is owned by the state. It is probably more of an office that anything else. A government function house for entertaining foreign dignitaries heads of state.

To let it collapse would be bad for tourism. Let's let Nelson's column collapse, and the tower of London they all cost lots of money to up keep. Big Ben is practically collapsing as it is.
All our national statues, art galleries, Museums, etc. Why waste Arts grant money reconstructing building The Globe theatre and other such places.
FGS keep some beauty and awe in our country. Or we could go for Stalinist brutalism.

I wonder if this is another example of certain parts of the press trying to stir everyone up, judging by this thread it has. From what I have read the funds will come by increasing the Queens grant from Parliament over the ten year period by an agreed percentage each year. In return for this grant the Queen gives up her rights to other monies which have historically belonged to the Monach.

People support other historic buildings being maintained by NT and Historic England, why not the building which the whole world recognises as a symbol of the UK.

I personally hope we do get a scaled back monarchy like the others in Europe, but the issue of whether we want nationally important buildings to be preserved is an important part of the tourist industry and that is why it gets support.

I don't agree that Buck house is a symbol of the U.K. And I do not accept tourists come to this country to see it, yes it's on the list of places to view but if it fell down the tourists would still come here

We have so many historical buildings we preserve, loss of some wouldn't matter . We have many sleeping on the streets yet there is no problem with spending millions on one building .

St. James Palace is the official residence of the monarch yet we have Andrews daughters living there

Nelliemoser I agree;
however, I would also point out that, although in the Soviet bloc most people lived in horrible concrete blocks of high-rise flats or in poverty in the countryside, the powers that be lived in some opulence and had their dachas too for a nice break when they felt like it.

And as for Stalin, who died the year that our Queen was crowned:
As the absolute ruler of Soviet Union, Stalin had access to anything and everything he could think of and he often took advantage of this privilege. He had two countryside residences and an apartment within the Kremlin compound. He had a personal train with multiple luxurious cars. He had multiple villas in other parts of Russia, especially the Soci Villa, and took over the Livadia Palace in Crimea
Ceaucescu?
yomadic.com/communist-architecture-romania-parliament-interior/

If the plebs don't like it, then 'disappear them' in their millions.

Or perhaps Trump-light anyone?

And I do not accept tourists come to this country to see it, yes it's on the list of places to view but if it fell down the tourists would still come here
Have you been to London lately anniebach?

Our Australian visitors went there earlier this year; it is truly astonishing how many people come to look at Buckingham Palace, the Changing of the Guard and hope to catch a glimpse of the Queen.
Then spend money in London, helping the economy.

Truly!

I am not a fan of Royalty, but what would you do.... have the place fall down? If it needs maintenance then it needs it, end of story.As Jalima states it's use is for far more than housing the Queen.

Jalima, I accept tourists look st buck house but they don't come to the UK to look at it , more visit the tower

If Buckingham Palace and Westminster had spent more money on regular maintenance over the years, neither would be in such an awful state now.

I do agree rosesarered

If we are to pay for the refurb, then her maj and co. should move out to something smaller and the building should become a tourist attraction only with the artwork etc. available to us all to view. We are paying for all this - we should have the right to look at it.

Perhaps we should get the National Trust to take it over. Or English Heritage (like Osborne House).

Maybe The Donald could turn it into a golf resort.

Nooooooooooooooooo! I'm starting a petition to give the Queen squatters' rights!

The first thing my Italian friend wanted to do was have her photograph taken in front of the palace. Not sure why because it's a very boring building.
Have you noticed the rooms where Putin tends to give press conferences? Ive never seen so much gilding anywhere, even The Donald would be pushed to match it. I presume that they were kept in the same style during the communist era when they were all busy being "equal"

Under communism everyone is equal Deedaa - it's just that some are more equal than others.

Will Donald and Melania gild the White House?
At what cost to the US taxpayer?
But at least he does not pretend to be a communist.

That's presidents for you.

Well, it is an iconic building as far as Brits are concerned - one of our landmarks. In that vein I don't mind the expense although I do feel deeply for those who cannot make ends meet. But every country must have its images. Rather than pull it down or sell it off as a hotel, let's turn it into a fabulous art gallery. Better able to be protected than most of the ones we have.
I am of the mind that once the Queen pops her clogs the young of Britain won't give a damn. The truth is the monarchy now is Elizabeth II and everything else is collateral damage. They all have a good education and most have University degrees so go out there and earn your crust just like the rest of us.

I lived in an 'ex' communist country for a few years and have travelled to every other eastern block country, and I have travelled in Russia. That 'palace' in Bucharest is truly amazing. The Romanians are very different to all the rest of them: and I think this is down to the fact that when they said: enough is enough and took Ceausescu and his wife outside and put a bulletin in the back of their heads future governments knew they had to watch their step.
All these countries have the same mindset: come the revolution the Rolls Royce is mine.

I think Charles should be King , it may be a short reign but surely he has served the longest apprenticeship in history , let him have his time

If, as someone said on here, the nation owns Buckingham Palace then why does the nation only have access to a small part of it - AND have to pay for that access?

While the government cuts the money available to local councils, and councils in turn are forced to make cuts to vital services, it seems quite immoral to me that a family with several large homes which are only occupied for part of the year expect the state to pay for the maintenance of those homes.

Whilst tourists may well go to look at Buckingham Palace when they visit London, I really don't believe that they would not visit London/Britain if it was not a royal residence. Anyway, most people who haven't seen it before are quite disappointed when they do - it's not a particularly attractive building.

I don't think we should let it collapse, I think we (as co owners) should sell it to the highest bidders and have it converted into a hotel to cater for all those tourists who would pay silly money to think they might have have slept in the same room as the "queen of England" whoopee do.

Slight change of subject but I am wondering why the royals all have names that you can add "y" or "ie" to the end of?

Lizzie, Charlie, Andy, Annie, Eddie, Willy, Harry, Katy, Georgie..... It can't be a coincidence ?