Palace Renovations

rjsterry

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

dinyull

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

Probably not, but then he won't be seeking public money to fix his plumbing either.

Anonymous

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

ugo.santalucia

coriordan wrote:

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

Some would argue the same about you being born in the 1% of wealthiest folks in the world... not that you did anything special to deserve such privilege...

The Queen is a money spinner, without the Queen far fewer tourists would come to London... the Royals are 90% of what people around the world know and love about this country

It's the same for Rome... the coliseum is nice and good, but it's the Pope the real money spinner

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

yes fix up the Palace, its a great attraction, the Q is much "loved" and she has stayed out of political debate, however, who is next in line?
by the time the renovations have been done and trebled in cost, charlie will be there and he is lets face it, he is an idiot.
His contribution to the homeless is that twee village down in Dorset ffs!

If only it was a twee village for the homeless.
What started out as a small village with housing for local people has turned into a bl00dy great carbuncle that will actually be bigger than Dorchester itself. And much of the housing is beyond the means of locals so guess what? It's second homes alk round for the London City elite. Which just exasperates the housing crisis.

Garry H

ugo.santalucia wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

Some would argue the same about you being born in the 1% of wealthiest folks in the world... not that you did anything special to deserve such privilege...

The Queen is a money spinner, without the Queen far fewer tourists would come to London... the Royals are 90% of what people around the world know and love about this country

It's the same for Rome... the coliseum is nice and good, but it's the Pope the real money spinner

Who pays for the pope?

coopster_the_1st

Don't know what all the fuss is about, it's one week of our EU contributions

Garry H

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Don't know what all the fuss is about, it's one week of our EU contributions

We need the money to cryogenically freeze everybody that dies

ugo.santalucia

Garry H wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

Some would argue the same about you being born in the 1% of wealthiest folks in the world... not that you did anything special to deserve such privilege...

The Queen is a money spinner, without the Queen far fewer tourists would come to London... the Royals are 90% of what people around the world know and love about this country

It's the same for Rome... the coliseum is nice and good, but it's the Pope the real money spinner

Who pays for the pope?

Your grand grand grand grand father and a few other million people who were reduced in poverty... so basically you and me in the long run

Garry H

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Garry H wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

Some would argue the same about you being born in the 1% of wealthiest folks in the world... not that you did anything special to deserve such privilege...

The Queen is a money spinner, without the Queen far fewer tourists would come to London... the Royals are 90% of what people around the world know and love about this country

It's the same for Rome... the coliseum is nice and good, but it's the Pope the real money spinner

Who pays for the pope?

Your grand grand grand grand father and a few other million people who were reduced in poverty... so basically you and me in the long run

I'm not Catholic. How do I apply for a rebate?

rjsterry

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

bianchimoon

Mr Goo wrote:

I think I'm missing something here. The UK is in its worst housing crisis in decades. I watched the BBC news last night and saw that gut wrenching interview of a single mother with two kids living in one room in a guest house with shared facilities. She had been evicted despite having paid all her bills, never been in arears. Having to eat, live and sleep in a pokey room on your own is bad enough but with two young children?
And here we have the most privileged family in the land. Who want for nothing, now getting a £300m+ makeover for their shack. Perhaps they should watch the news more often and see what is happening to the real people.

Can we have a referendum on whether we should become a Republic?

Now that is a good idea, I'm in.. And they're out!

bianchimoon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

These renovations are a tenth of the cost of renovating the Palace of Westminster where the UK parliament sits. I don't see the huge negative comments on the cost of that!

These buildings and their history are what differentiates Great Britain and we only benefit as a country (tourism) from maintaining and selling that history to the world. Why would anyone visit Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace if we no longer have the Royal family creating the intrigue for tourists.

There is a world outside of London you know! Let the subjects contribute to the upgrade, as a citizen, I want nothing to do with them.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

CiB

£370m over ten years isn't it, to prevent one of the world's most famous buildings from becoming a wreck and a laughing stock that allows half the world [+ most of Bikeradar by the looks of things] to point and say look at that metaphor for what Britain's become? Sounds like money well spent to me. As the arguments about what the monarchy costs against what they generate seems to be the magic bullet for both sides it's probably true that they're almost cost neutral in govt spending terms.

It's not as the country being run as a constitutional monarchy has the nation rioting in the streets most weekends. They seem a popular bunch, the top few at least. When there's a whiff of revolt & republicanism in the air we can revisit that situation, but for now there isn't.

surrey_commuter

CiB wrote:

£370m over ten years isn't it, to prevent one of the world's most famous buildings from becoming a wreck and a laughing stock that allows half the world [+ most of Bikeradar by the looks of things] to point and say look at that metaphor for what Britain's become? Sounds like money well spent to me. As the arguments about what the monarchy costs against what they generate seems to be the magic bullet for both sides it's probably true that they're almost cost neutral in govt spending terms.

It's not as the country being run as a constitutional monarchy has the nation rioting in the streets most weekends. They seem a popular bunch, the top few at least. When there's a whiff of revolt & republicanism in the air we can revisit that situation, but for now there isn't.

Have you missed the public backlash against immigrants coming over here refusing to work or taking our jobs living off the state whilst having ever more children and demanding ever bigger houses?

Bloody Germans!!! even taking our surnames. Why not stick with Saxe-Coburg?? and probably best not to mention a tendency to marry close members of your own family.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£1.2Bn.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£900M.

Nationalise them

lesfirth

Coopster the 1st wrote:

These renovations are a tenth of the cost of renovating the Palace of Westminster where the UK parliament sits. I don't see the huge negative comments on the cost of that!

These buildings and their history are what differentiates Great Britain and we only benefit as a country (tourism) from maintaining and selling that history to the world. Why would anyone visit Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace if we no longer have the Royal family creating the intrigue for tourists.

It is the principle of all this .The cost is secondary.

The Queen owns Buckingham Palace. She could flog off a few acres of her vast estate to pay for renovating her own property. We own the Palace of Westminster so we cop for the cost of maintaining it.

The guide outside Buckingham palace addresses a group of Japanese .
" This is one of the palaces where the Queen used to live" compare to " This is one of the palaces where the Queen lives". The difference will not make a bit of difference to the tourist trade.

We now know that God did not give the Monarch their position. It is now accepted that the Queens ancestors murdered and stole to get the job.

Garry H

It all went downhill after the Tudors.

rjsterry

lesfirth wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

These renovations are a tenth of the cost of renovating the Palace of Westminster where the UK parliament sits. I don't see the huge negative comments on the cost of that!

These buildings and their history are what differentiates Great Britain and we only benefit as a country (tourism) from maintaining and selling that history to the world. Why would anyone visit Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace if we no longer have the Royal family creating the intrigue for tourists.

It is the principle of all this .The cost is secondary.

The Queen owns Buckingham Palace. She could flog off a few acres of her vast estate to pay for renovating her own property. We own the Palace of Westminster so we cop for the cost of maintaining it.

The guide outside Buckingham palace addresses a group of Japanese .
" This is one of the palaces where the Queen used to live" compare to " This is one of the palaces where the Queen lives". The difference will not make a bit of difference to the tourist trade.

We now know that God did not give the Monarch their position. It is now accepted that the Queens ancestors murdered and stole to get the job.

Bzzzt. The Queen does not privately own Buckingham Palace. It's part of the Crown Estate, the same as the Palace of Westminster.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£900M.

Nationalise them

Why on earth would we want to? Are we going to start compulsorily purchasing all estates? All sounds a bit Bolshevik.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£900M.

Nationalise them

Why on earth would we want to? Are we going to start compulsorily purchasing all estates? All sounds a bit Bolshevik.

I was trying to be conciliatory. As the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy is feudal then let's take their power and possessions off them at the point of a sword. That after all is how their ancestors acquired them. i may have used poetic license.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£900M.

Nationalise them

Why on earth would we want to? Are we going to start compulsorily purchasing all estates? All sounds a bit Bolshevik.

I was trying to be conciliatory. As the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy is feudal then let's take their power and possessions off them at the point of a sword. That after all is how their ancestors acquired them. i may have used poetic license.

Weren't all the estates and lands appropriated by monarchs of the past. Who then dished out land to their favoured lords. Ergo the land belongs to the people. Therefore an uprising is called for to take back what is rightfully the peoples'.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

coriordan wrote:

I think it's the ridiculous notion of being being born into such privilege without it really having been earned.

The ultimate state-funded celebrity.

I trust you'll donate anything you inherit to charity.

See in bold.

Such a level of state funded privilege is ridiculous for it to be a birthright.

They are very fortunate, but they have no less earned that privilege than other families that have accrued wealth over several generations. How many generations have to pass before your inheritance is not deemed earned? The royal family are on one level just very well established landlords. The money they receive is in return for the Treasury taking most of the income from the Crown Estate. The monarchy gets 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. The other 85% goes to the Treasury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

The Government does far better out of it than the Monarchy.

If you abolished the monarchy, they would still be the owner of very large estates (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), which they could pass down the same as everyone else.

I kind of assumed we were taking all the estates off them as well as the houses.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are privately owned - we'd have to buy them at the cost of ~£900M.

Nationalise them

Why on earth would we want to? Are we going to start compulsorily purchasing all estates? All sounds a bit Bolshevik.

I was trying to be conciliatory. As the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy is feudal then let's take their power and possessions off them at the point of a sword. That after all is how their ancestors acquired them. i may have used poetic license.

This was all sorted out in the 17th and 18th century. The Queen has no real power and the Crown Estate is effectively state property.

awavey

actually £365 million over 10 years is an absolute bargain to be frank considering the age and size of the building, Ive worked for companies who spend more than 36.5million per year just maintaining really quite rubbish office buildings built in the 70s.

but just for comparison have you seen how much they are quoting for the cost of fixing the houses of parliament, its a minimum of 4 billion pounds, minimum 4 billion!!! and thats only 5 years (planned) work.

so all the politicians who complain about austerity and how dare we spend 365million on Buck House, ask them how they justify spending 4 billion on their meeting room instead.

ugo.santalucia

I think you guys are mad. Living in a golden prison is by no means a great life. She never really had a choice of what she wanted to do in her life... not a chance to book a last minute holiday to San Francisco or take a course on leather making or apply for the X factor... From her teens she has been channelled into a script... I would never want to swap a normal western life with that of the Queen of England.

Now, the other royals live a more 'normal life"

mamba80

awavey wrote:

actually £365 million over 10 years is an absolute bargain to be frank considering the age and size of the building, Ive worked for companies who spend more than 36.5million per year just maintaining really quite rubbish office buildings built in the 70s.

but just for comparison have you seen how much they are quoting for the cost of fixing the houses of parliament, its a minimum of 4 billion pounds, minimum 4 billion!!! and thats only 5 years (planned) work.

so all the politicians who complain about austerity and how dare we spend 365million on Buck House, ask them how they justify spending 4 billion on their meeting room instead.

Both these stories show what happens when you dont keep on top of these things.
Westminster in an iconic building, great shame it has been allowed to fall apart.

Bad PR from the Windsors, they ve been riding high in the public esteem and could easily have made a substantial contribution, i guess it does show the contempt they hold us all in.

surrey_commuter

awavey wrote:

actually £365 million over 10 years is an absolute bargain to be frank considering the age and size of the building, Ive worked for companies who spend more than 36.5million per year just maintaining really quite rubbish office buildings built in the 70s.

but just for comparison have you seen how much they are quoting for the cost of fixing the houses of parliament, its a minimum of 4 billion pounds, minimum 4 billion!!! and thats only 5 years (planned) work.

so all the politicians who complain about austerity and how dare we spend 365million on Buck House, ask them how they justify spending 4 billion on their meeting room instead.

Why not build a new Parliament t'up North somewhere? That would move at least 100,000 jobs out of London and easing housing issues. HoP could then be restored as a museum which must be cheaper than trying to convert to a modern working environment. They all bang on about boosting the regions so surely would leap at the chance.

Selling all the Govt buildings in central London alongside all the royal properties will raise tens of billions.

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think you guys are mad. Living in a golden prison is by no means a great life. She never really had a choice of what she wanted to do in her life... not a chance to book a last minute holiday to San Francisco or take a course on leather making or apply for the X factor... From her teens she has been channelled into a script... I would never want to swap a normal western life with that of the Queen of England.

Now, the other royals live a more 'normal life"

So why do you want to perpetuate it!