Palace Renovations

13»

Comments

  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    mamba80 wrote:
    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.
    If any other council house tenants had allowed there hosuse to fall into such a state of disrepair they'd have been evicted, shocking disregard for state property :wink:
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    bianchimoon wrote:
    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!

    Me? I have no right to vote in a referendum... I don't care. I just feel compelled to point out that the Royals bring in more money than they cost... as a Brit you probably don't understand how popular these folks are abroad. It is very likely that over half the people on this planet are only aware of Great Britain because of the queen. It is the only really popular British product... the rest is niche... being that Scotch whisky or Rolls Royce... This, like it or not, churns out revenue... from mugs, to postcards and holidays... the Royals are a massive source of revenue for the country... the real issue is that how much is hard to quantify, but I bet it trumps the sales of Whisky ten folds at the very least
    left the forum March 2023
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    So last year the Crown Estates brought in £300 million approx. to the exchequer, 15 % gets paid to the royal family via the civil list. That leaves £255 million for the govt. So take away £38 million a year for ten years to pay for renovation and the govt still has over £200 million a year from the Crown Estate to spend on the rest of us.

    Fairly good deal.

    And of course we will continue to entertain heads of state at Buck House so a big diplomatic asset is preserved.
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    Gave my Oath of Allegiance to HM the Queen 27 years ago and it still stands today.

    As such, all you roundheads should be hung, drawn and quartered!

    Up the Cavaliers!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    I really don't understand the uproar here. Landlords pay the upkeep of tenant's homes everywhere and, grand as it sounds when the home is a palace and the tenant a queen, that's what we have here.

    Obviously, if we hadn't scared off all the Polish plumbers and sparkies the cost would have been far lower and it would have been done in a year ;)

Categories