8% increase in Queen's allownace

Yes Rosesarered if we have work carried out it has to be paid for so let the Royals pay for their own repairs and the ' it keeps companies in work' doesn't wash with 600 blocks of flats to sort out I reckon they ll have plenty of jobs on their hands

I m neutral as regards royals, don't adore or hate but the example they are setting in these difficult times is atrocious and I totally agree get all of them out to work escept Queenie and DofE

Diolch Jalima

why has it been allowed to get so bad?

I don't know, but presumably no-one who works for Crown Estates has ever heard of 'Planned Maintenance' to allow it to get into that kind of state.

Pragmatically, I prefer a Monarchy above politics to an elected president. Yet another election - "You're joking! Not another one!" I do think that a presidential system would cost more in the long run too.

However, the timing is atrocious.

Talking about homes and the homeless - message to anniebach; you will be pleased to know that at long last I have managed to hand over the promised money for you - and in the Welsh capital too!

If works need to be carried out then it has to be paid for.It's going to keep a few companies and people going isn't it? The Palace is open to the public as well as being the home of the Queen.If we need new boilers and pipework we get the work done don't we?
My only question is what another poster mentions, why has it been allowed to get so bad? The same could be said of Parliament in Westminster.

I think the number of royals that we pay for should be drastically pruned. I would also like to see more transparency about the palace expenditure. The sovereign grant is only a part, there is the security bill which is picked up by Met police, and I think local councils foot bill for Royal visits. Us loyal subjects are informed by government that there are no magic money trees but there is apparently a whole orchard of them for some of their "deserving causes".

A lot of it comes from high-class commercial and residential property - so it is largely income from the rich, those taxpayers who should be contributing more to the economy.

Oh whitewave, you are determined to find fault even where there is none, aren't you? ?

So the estates revenue belong to the country. In my book that amounts to saying the tax payer forked out the bill.

Smoke and mirrors.

???.....disgusting!!! Nothing against the Queen but the 'hangers on' need to be self supporting...the Queens VAST wealth should be enough without receiving the BIGGEST 'benefit payment' in the world...

"Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury,[4] thus relieving him of the responsibility of personally paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil list. "
Not just in return for getting his own personal debts paid. Previously the Crown Estates had largely bankrolled the running of the whole country.

And I have just seen "£328.8m Net revenue profit up 8.1% compared to 2015/16 " so my guess that Crown Estate profits were up this year was right.

There is a link to the accounts, if you have time on your hands to read them.

There is a website here - www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

It is not owned by anyone. It is held in trust and administered by an independent organisation, with the profits dedicated to the funds of the nation.(I am not sure of the details, but it is all online somewhere)

Who owns the Crown Estate?

The rise didn't come from taxes. The amount paid to The Queen through the Sovereign Grant is calculated by 15% of the amount the Crown Estate makes. So the Crown Estate must have made 9% more than it made last year. As the other 85% of the income from the Crown Estate goes into government funds, the coutry has had a rise too.

(found another equivalent value conversion site which goes up to 2017 inflation.stephenmorley.org/

£900,000 in 1782 is approximately equivalent to £143,100,000 in 2017)

I am pretty neutral about the monarchy in the sense that I have no experience of the alternative and I am sure a presidency is expensive too. But the dynastical element whereby the state supports so many of the family is not acceptable any more. Those members of the family who play a role in supporting the nation's interests should receive fair recompense I guess; but the hangers-on, free-loaders and rent avoiders are not acceptable any more. We no longer see the monarchy as god-given.

And the issue of historical buildings in which they live is problematical - I guess no-one wants to see them fall into decay.

But to be spending this on Buck Palace while people are dead and homeless after unwise penny-pinching over the safety of social housing tenants is pretty well beyond the pale. Austerity for one should mean austerity for all.

I'm a monarchist and I have the utmost respect for the Queen but I despair.......

Oh dear - very bad timing. They cannot slip this one under the wire this time. And quite right too.

I don't want a president, another election and it will the very wealthy standing.

So keep the monarchy , Charles as King but get the rest off their backsides and in employment. Harry does an occasional tv appearance or gives a poor me interview to the press. What else? popping off to America or Africa and we pay for all the security thst goes with him. William want's family time, OK, get out of KP , thousands of fathers want family time but they go to work.

It is 84 million this year

In about 1782-4, the Civil List as paid to George III was fixed at £900,000.
The Reign of George III, 1760-1815, the conflict of groups 1782-1784

In 1780, £900,000 would have the same spending worth of 2005's £56,565,000
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/default0.asp

" . . . accounts revealed the Queen's official net expenditure last year increased by £2m, to almost £42m."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

I keep seeing the Crown Estates popping up and people saying its HER money and she generously give it to us ...did no one ever learn history.The crown estates were handed over to the governemnt by George 3rd to help pay his debts ,in return he was to have a small income from them.That "small income" has become quite sizeable now!! This is shocking,when Mrs May talks about money trees to folk who are genuinely struggling yet she can find cash for this overprivileged shower of parasites who think they are ENTITLED to the life they have ...and the number of them keeps on growing When will the people of the UK see how they are being used This is a medieval concept being accepted in the 21st century by people who should know better.The monarchy and all its hangers on needs to end when Lizzie dies

Perhaps the people evacuated from the fire risk, cladded towers could be housed temporarily in one of the many royal houses? !!

How hard to you have to work for 84 million?

Just think how hard developing world women work for starvation wages.

It's another the rich get richer and poor get poorer I have no problem with queen she at least works hard it's all the hangers on they should be paying rent at least .they have no idea what it's like to live hand to mouth like a lot of people are now living through no fault of their own .