8% increase in Queen's allownace

wheres a guillotine when you need one !

Very unfortunate timing in view of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, but I doubt any of the money being spent on Buckingham Palace would have found its way to that particular need nor of its residents.

Cut the royal family some slack, they were born to it and didn't apply for the job. Some of them do a great job, so keep the immediate royal family, they do bring in a lot of tourist money, and tourists would not be anything like as interested in a President or his/her trappings.

I am not particularly pro or against them, loathe Charles but think William, Kate and Harry do a good job, and they will bring up their children in a very different way. Totally agree that most of them should be left to earn their own keep, or at least pay rent.

It is verging on criminal the BP has been allowed to get in such a parlous state and of course it should be repaired. it would probably take more money to knock it down. And it does play an important role in the diplomatic life of GB. However once repairs are completed then BP should earn its keep and more rooms made open to the public and longer opening times. Some of the palace and its grounds could be hired out for outside receptions, such as weddings, corporate events etc. I could see a Russian oligarch paying millions for his daughter to married there.

When posters say the money is not from the public purse they are misunderstanding what the settlement was as a result of the Queen not paying tax. This money IS part of the tax payers fund, but is set aside in such a way as for the funding decisions to be decided without recourse to parliamentary debate. The residue is then given over to the general fund, which if course is subject to debate at the budget etc.

...and it would have only cost £5,000 to make Grenfell Tower safe!!!!

We've got to slim down the family - no doubt about that surely? I think the Queen should have retired long ago regardless of what she 'pledged' at her coronation.. Charles has not really had much to do - his Trust is looked after by others. Harry has told us that none of them want the Crown so why not end it soon.
A President won't have much power but he will have all the trappings the tourists come to see and in that way, not much changes. They can all get jobs; they've been fairly well educated but the money spent on Royal trains and planes is utterly ridiculous.

I am grateful for the work the Queen does. When you look at the mess politics is in now, the time her family went through with their divorces pales in comparison.

I would hate to have a president. Voting for a person who longs to be the center of attention and on achieving the post wants to leave his/or her mark, does not seem the best thing to me.

I like the continuity and UK history that survives because of the Royal Family, where the mark left is the performance of duty conscientiously over 60 years or more.

have I missed something?

Princess Alexandra

Just as they must be done to the Parliament buildings ( which does come out of the public purse) but we can't ket the place fall down or become dangerous.

As posters have already said.....this money does not come out of the public purse.
If renovations need doing then they must be done.

As with every debate, this subject causes a great divide of opinion.
I do so agree that while "fit for work" benefits are being cut, and public service wage increases continue to be held at 1%, it does seem most unreasonable for the media to be screaming "£8 million extra" to HMQ.
And yes, the timing is appalling... could it be this is the current Government successfully deflecting public bad opinion at their own situation?

Have any public service people (except MPs) had anything above 1% since 2010? Their pension (and other non-voluntary) contributions have also gone up percentagewise. And there is massive understaffing with nurses, doctors, police, fire fighters, teachers, prison officers. Supply and demand doesn't seem to function here.

netted me 84 million

um, it's a business out of which are the usual outgoings for a business and the 'homes' belong to the State not HM personally.

Oh dear...I do despair at the mentality of people who begrudge their 65p per year for the up keep and preservation of the National Heritage provided by the monarchy (not the queen) in perpetuity and whose Crown Estates profits this year increased by £24 million with the bulk going in tax to the Treasury at a percentage way above normal rates.

Not the only family with four children to have seven homes, first homes = five houses add a couple of holiday homes owned by family members = 7 , add grandchildrens homes and far more than 7 homes

Corbyn has a 3/4 bedroom house, just himself and the 3rd Mrs Corbyn, he could have given shelter to a family

Buck House is really little more than a set of offices. not a home - sure, her maj does much of her entertaining of foreign HoS there, (convenient holding your dinner parties in the capital!), but imagine having to meet and greet all those strangers and be polite to them day in day out, when what you'd rather be doing is reading, listening to music, playing with the gc etc. And criticised the whole time for what you wear, what you say, how you choose to live your life etc. Wouldn't want to live in a goldfish bowl for all the money in the world!

I was astonished when people booed Teresa May when she visited the tower disaster and yet were all wreathed in smiles when the royals went, singing their praises, while just along the road from that terrible tragedy, millions was being spent upgrading Buck House and they have so many other homes.

If I could get a job, where just turning up netted me 84 million I would seriously consider it despite my mobility problems.

We can never have a fairer society while we put some on a pedestal and carry on living in the past with titles and honours. I think the queen has done as well as can be expected but when she dies we need to knock it all on the head. The buildings are of historical interest and need to be kept us such but the rest of them are well able to fend for themselves.

Absolutely agree Farview have no problem with the Queen she has worked hard, but to think Charles will be next on the throne makes me seriously consider the concept of abolishing the monarchy and having a president, at least you can vote a president out !!!

I would have said that managers in the NHS on huge, inflated salaries were the ones who were doing what you describe spabbygirl.

NHS hospital bosses given pay rises worth more than a nurse's annual salary
Some hospital chief executives have been given pay rises of up to £35,000

Because they're worth it? I think not.

No, it doesn't because this is not an increase in salary for HM, it is to cover the costs of repairs and renovations to a neglected building.

It's like saying that money spent on repairing a hospital building is wrong.

It really sticks two fingers up at nurses etc. doesn't it? By the look of it the magic money tree is in fine fettle! I'd like to see the back of the monarchy, its an archaic hangover from when we were a military society and is totally silly to spoil one family rotten whilst others suffer. It looked really odd a family with 7 or 8 houses between them going to see families who just had a bed in a leisure centre

Of course, it's not pocket money for HM and her family - wages for the household, expenditure as in any other business.

Each year the Royal Household publishes a summary of Head of State expenditure, together with a full report on Royal public finances. These reports can be downloaded from the Media Centre.

So open and above board.

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

They are an industry, generating jobs and income for others and probably better value for money than a President.

I'm completely OK with this. The money is an 8% rise, taking the profits the Crown Estates will retain to 25% - in other words, 75% of the profit going straight to the exchequer.
Buck Palace is starting to decay scarily; fixing it now will be cheaper than waiting until bits are falling off.
It's got nothing to do with the Queen's income.

The Crown Estates were handed over to independent management after the Royal Families particularly unpopular period which culminated in the Windsor fire.

The tax payers made it clear that they were fed up paying for a family, whose behaviour left a whole lot to be desired and who paid not a penny piece to the country over which they nominally ruled.

Prior to the establishment of this entity, the civil list was debated in parliament which focus on the payment to the royal household, and was highly controversial.

The sleight of hand has taken away this debate and the yearly argument allowing the Queen to receive an ever increasing level of funding without the glaring publicity of a parliamentary debate.

The income comes from the Crown Estates. The Crown has handed over control of this income and receives only a percentage of it in return. This increase is a percentage increase on incomes received from the Crown Estates. It is not coming out of the public purse or general taxation.