Eugenie moving into Kensington Palace

Just thinking what a grumpy lot you Gransnetters are and then spotted cavaliermum's response - you restored my faith in old codgers!!!

All very fashionable but would we rather have president May or Corbyn - not sure it would bring as many tourists and income as the royal family do. Of course, it's all nonsense but we do it well in this country (pomp and pageantry) Eugenie didn't ask to be born into the family but has to deal with it including the massive interest in her life. Most of the minor royals have jobs including William but they still have to attend functions and represent the Queen who at 90 deserves a bit of time off. They have to be protected because they are targets.
They are like any other family with their ups and downs and I admire their courage and work ethic.

Welshwife, the queen cannot sell Buck house, Kensington palace or Windsor , suppose you could class them as tied cottages,

None of the land in britain belonged to the monarch originally, it was common land then the enclosure acts allowed the local bigwigs to fence it all off, so they could look after it, i.e. control it. Then they introduced Toll Costs.

I think the whole idea of a monarchy is crazy, if the man from the moon came down & we said we keep one family in total luxury with a large lump sum + staff etc. They'd think we were mad. It must be psychologically bad for them too.

I don't think we need a monarch & I think the republican movement is growing.

Who owns them then Annie I thought Crown Properties were owned by the monarch and were theirs because of. Their status as opposed to private homes and money the monarch may have acquired and can do with as they wish.

Cant edit - American Elections certainly cost waaaay more, but the British ones aint cheap either!

Thing is, I hate to burst Bebe47´s bubble, but living abroad, most tourists (and I know of a fair few people who have been tourists in London) do not go because of the royal family. Most of the rest of Europe is no longer under a monarchy and some countries with a monarchy are not particularly happy about it - mainly because they cost so much to support. Maybe a number of American tourists are curious about the monarchy, but no more so than interested in many other things London has to offer.
Another thing which has come up about the American presidency - don't you think the British Election are proportionately as expensive? I bet it aint far out!

Again, we have no choice

We're stupid enough to fund all these hangers on.

We have no choice

We're stupid enough to fund them.

Kensington Palace , St James palace and Windsor castle are not the queens property

Sorry, I meant to post the link again

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

Did any of you read the wikipedia link I posted?

First paragraph of the article:

The British Royal Family is financed mainly by the hereditary revenues of the Crown.[1] The British Parliament uses a percentage of the Crown Estate, a part of the Crown's hereditary revenues belonging to the sovereign that is placed at the disposal of the House of Commons, to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures.[1][2] This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment.

As far as I can make out, the Treasury receives the income from the Crown Estates and a percentage of that is paid to the Queen as the Sovereign Grant. She and Prince Charles also pay the Teasury a voluntary amount each year from their private income equivalent to what they would have paid in income tax had they been liable for income tax. So, apart from the cost of security (a figure for which I haven't been able to find) I can't see where any cost to the taxpayer is involved.

Historically all the land in a country belonged to a monarch, who then parcelled it out to their followers in reward for services to the Crown. That's how many of the huge landholdings of the 'aristocracy' were originally acquired. The Crown Estates are what is left after centuries of dishing out land to the favoured.

The Duchy of Cornwall was given to the monarch's heir in mediaeval times; that's what suppports Prince Charles and his family. Both he and the Queen are perfectly entitled to give whatever they want to members of their family out of their private incomes and properties; it's how any wealthy family behaves.

How many foreign tourists see the Queen?

Ya boo - Sour grapes you lot - I agree with Cavalier Mum- do you think all these foreign tourists would come to Uk if it wasn't for the Queen and the Royal Family - Scotland and Wales Included. Well maybe Beatrix Potter and Downton Abbey too!! All these other countries envy us our Royal Family and they mostly do a good job. If any parents want to subsidise their kids and grandkids, it's their right.

Go and get a job the pair of them, there not doing nothing and I expect we will pay for the wedding I find those two annoying and there mother.

Fsr more people visit Versailles than buck house, in fact more tourists visit the London Eye than Buck house. The most popular place is the Tower!

I've nothing against the Queen is as a head of state, but I don't buy the idea that they bring in millions of tourists. How many tourists see the royal family or go in any of her palaces? They might gawp at the outside of Buck House on a tourist bus, but even if we didn't have a Royal Family they could still see that, more likely to be able to go inside like you can with Versailles in France, which I bet has a lot more tourists than Buck House.

In the grand scale of (non-royal family) tax-dodging, outrageous executive pay and bonuses, bankers' greed etc. which ultimately impoverish the rest of us, Princess Eugenie's cottage is a drop in the ocean.

In this case, Eugenie did an article in some glossy magazine or other.

Its a wonder they don't earn enough from modelling those very strange hats they wore at William's wedding

It seems the rumours of marriage are being denied, but according to the Daily Mail the boyfried will continue to live with her and no doubt help to pay the rent (or not).
A pity Andrew and children do not behave more like Edward and Anne and their families - or is it the press that is to blame for giving their mundane, mostly unproductive lives, so much publicity?

We provided housing for Andrew and his ex wife in Windsor. Apartments for their two daughters in St James Palace, apartments for William and Harry in KP and offices for them in St James Palace. Duke and Duchess of Gloucester , Duke and Duchess of Kent and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent live in K.P . In St James .palace we house both Andrews daughters, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra . We provide a house in Windsor for Andrew and his ex wife , Clarence House we house Charles and Camilla .

We also pay for round the clock security for Highgrove, Sandringham, Anne and Edwards country estates and Camilla's family home which she kept after her divorce , the Scotland holiday homes and Wormwood in Wales

Costs of security is not released to the public !

I imagine it's cheaper to provide the security the Royal Family needs when the individuals are all on one site. I thought I'd recently read Eugenie was marrying her American b/f? If so the residence won't be for long.