8% increase in Queen's allownace

Don't forget KP anniebach; I did apply for a studio flat there to use on my sojourns to London but haven't heard anything back yet.
That was a few years ago now.

Balmoral and Sandringham MissAdventure, so you could say a home and a holiday home like some others in this country.

She has five properties, two are hers, three are the Crowns , Windsor, Buck house and Holyrood , she owns Balmoral and Sandringham

How many properties does she have? Are any of them actually hers?

The queen lives in what could be called a tied property, repairs are carried out by the owner not the tenant

No it doesn't Theoddbird check the facts.

The Monarchy brings millions and millions and millions into this country via tourists. This generates jobs right across the country...

I haven't seen any 'republican' royal bashing. Just people discussing whether the queen should pay part/all of the cost of improving the property she lives in rent free.

As to who would be president. That's impossible to say as it's not something that is happening nor is likely to happen in the near future so there are no potential candidates.

It is in the papers now, but it takes time and consultation for things like this to be organised. Whose decision was it to get the work done now? The Queen as occupier, the Crown Estates as owners, or Parliament? Whose decision to hand over the extra money to get it done? How bad was the Palace? When were the decisions made?

These are all relevant to how much criticism should be levelled and at whom.

I think she could have waited. She is not likely to go without.

Persistentdonor It isn't deflection - the need for work to be done on Buckingham Palace was news at least a year ago, maybe more. That need hasn't gone away. If they are not carried out, the place will get worse. The record profits of the Crown Estate, which will provide the extra money, could hardly be engineered deliberately to distract from political chaos. In fact, the profits are good news, they show that all is not doom and gloom in the financial world.

Another misinterpretation of what 'Great' means!

I do get really peed with the republican Royal bashers who never every come up with anyone who could represent our country better that the Queen
Now that the no hopers in the palace of westminster have had their way there is no one else to keep the great in Great Britain
But maybe we should be done with it and then we could rename this country fairly mediocre Britain
Guy fawkes where are you when we need you the most

Swanny

oops, sorry, of course!!

Jalima what if the President's husband wanted to war the crown and carry the orb and sceptre?

The amount is irrelevant because it's multiplied by millions and therefore becomes a substantial amount of money.

We could still keep the Crown Jewels. People would still pay to see them just as they'd still pay to go into Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Maggie fenced of Number 10 but people still go to see Downing Street.

Who would wear the Crown jewels then Penstemmon? What would be the point of keeping them?
If we get rid of the Monarchy we may as well flog them off to help pay off the national debt, can't have a President's wife wanting to wear a crown (much too heavy) or carrying an orb and sceptre etc etc.

Ana I think it is 65p per annum each

There is actually no evidence that the royal family bring in far more than they cost. Paris manages to get plenty of tourists sans monarch as do many other capitols and many attractions in this country bring in far more. Buckingham palace should at the very least be open to tourists for longer than a few select weeks so that it can earn its keep.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the state not the Queen and as such needs to be kept in good repair. End of story

Peaseblossom I am interested in your statement that the royal family brings in more money. How exactly? Tourists get to see the Crown Jewels and palaces etc. but they would still exist even if HRH no longer did. I, and millions of others, go to lots of non monarchy places for holidays!

It would be perfectly possible to set up a republican Presidency with the remit/style we wanted..a bit like the mayors of smaller towns: a dignitary to be the public face but, as HRH does now on state occasions, remains politically neutral. Simply a figurehead, with a fixed budget!

What, 65p a week?

Why is it that when anyone questions the payments made to the monarchy they are accused of monarchy bashing. If we pay so much money to this family then surely we have a right to question how it is spent.

Charles benefits from the Duchies of Cornwall and the Queen benefits from the Duchy of Lancaster. Both estates make £millions a year for the respective owner. Charles and the Queen pay income tax but unlike us they decide what part of their income is taxable and therefore how much they pay.

The money the Queen gets from the Duchy is her private income and not part of the civil list.

I'm not bashing the monarchy. I'm simply suggesting that in this time of 'we're all in it together' the tenant of the largest social housing scheme in the UK pays towards it's upkeep as she doesn't actually pay any rent.