8% increase in Queen's allownace

well, we have a lizziepopbottle I think - you don't think

If the queen is on GN what do you suppose she calls herself?

I hope the Queen doesn't read this. I think she has done the best she can with this difficult role in life.
Personally I favour the Monarchy over a president, but I do feel that only the monarch and immediate heirs should be supported by public money. The other relatives should earn their own living, surely.
Regarding the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, yes it should be maintained as it is a great asset to the nation.

The Crown Estates generate income, a small portion of which is paid (15%?) to run the monarchial system ie the Sovereign Grant. The rest goes into the Treasury.

Were we to abolish the Monarchy the Crown Estates would still have to be run (it is a large business), any profits paid to the Treasury and a Presidential Grant (possibly more than the Sovereign Grant) would have to be paid.
Buckingham Palace or its equivalent would still have to be repaired and maintained and used as Presidential offices for entertaining other Heads of State and probably the shabby, neglected private rooms would not meet the approval of a new First Lady or First Gentleman anyway - it seems to be de rigueur for Presidents' families to need a complete, very expensive refurbishment every time one is elected in other countries.

I prefer the status quo.

It doesn't have to be a politician as head of state, but importantly they would be elected, not inherit the job. I think it's an anachronism to have a hereditary head of state in a modern democracy. Ireland seems to manage it pretty well.

Or Corbyn , at least we know what his Christmas message would be - I feel your pain

Would much rather have what we have got as opposed to a presidential head of state. Could end up with someone like Mr Trump or the odious Blair. Luckily I will be long gone by the time any radical changes are made.

I can assure you, when Edward 8th visited Merthyr and caused a storm when he said 'something must be done' the people he met were not especially selected,

I am not sure why anyone who thinks the monarchy is a better option than a president should be thought of as 'worshipping' them.

I certainly don't but, financially, politically and pragmatically, I prefer them to the alternative.

Remember the Royal Family is a construct. The Hanoverians were not the most popular royals. When the middle classes became more powerful Victoria, led by Albert, set out to seduce them by creating an image that would appeal to that section of society. This continued into the 20th Century when they realised that they now had to appeal to the working classes so the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) was sent out to seduce them. Suddenly royals were seen meeting miners, dockers, mill workers (especially selected of course) and people lined the streets to see them. This was when the walk about started. The people could stand behind barriers and see the royal who passed by waving and smiling. Today we have a royal family that is adept at using the media to maintain it's popularity. The younger royals have grown up in the media age and know how to smile and give sound bites. They have media and PR advisors who tell them when to release pictures of the children, when to release pictures of the 'happy couples' and feed stories into the media.

They wouldn't like that because we'd suddenly see how they really live and not how we think they live. Some people think the queen is frugal because she turns lights off, "just like us" but then how would they feel when they see best quality meat being fed to the dogs off silver plates, or the footmen having to accept that the dogs will nip their ankles (I bet a bit of secret kicking goes on when no one is looking lol).

We would see how little they actually do for the money they receive and perhaps people would stop worshipping them.

"The only way is Windsor"

They keep their breakfast cereals in Tupperware - that could be a good advert!!

Can't see it being exciting enough - two old codgers pottering around and having snoozes when they haven't got any public engagements.

The private lives of the corgis would probably be more interesing!

Oh yes and other expenses. Wearing the crown and regalia in some episodes would be compulsory of course. The Americans would pay a fortune for it!

to help to pay for the roof?

I've always been in favour of a Heritage show featuring the Royal family, great tourist attraction, but now I think there should be a TV reality show as well. You know something like TOWIE or Chelsea wives. It would be soo popular. Could be Life with the Royals or some such thing.

We live in a society that says a rich family can live rent free in the largest council house in the UK but the poor get their housing benefit cut if they have a spare bedroom.

If Buckingham Palace belongs to Marg, why would she have to pay £23 to visit a small part of it?

er, I had my roof completely renewed last year and I had to pay out of my own pocket.
Buckingham Palace belongs to you as well Margs not to the Queen.

I wonder if she'd let us all stay when we're next in London? A GN Grand Get-together!!

Let's face it, even if the whole family relinquished their roles, they have enough personal wealth and powerful connections to scrape by somehow.

And now isn't Harry having a property done up for him at our expense? He's made clear he's not interested in the Royal role but, like Margaret before him, he doesn't want to give up the life style-who would, for goodness sake?
He should back out now, get a job and a mortgage like our families have to do and pay his own way now he's far down the pecking order as are the daughters of that other expensive layabout Andrew.
We honestly must be mad to put up with this when so many are finding life really hard.

I have no interest one way or another in the monarchy. I'm as indifferent to them as they are to me, but yes: it seems quite repugnant to me to have so much given to so few.

Well, I am a republican and I don't see why republicans should not express an opinion. It is not "royal bashing" - it is not aimed at individual members of the royal family but at an archaic system of privilege and automatic entitlement that some people believe has no place in a modern society. This is an opinion that rarely sees the light of day on the media, whereas fawning coverage of the royal family is constantly on our screens and in our newspapers.

Even some people who are generally supportive of a monarchical system are questioning whether it is right that people working in our most essential services have had their annual pay increases capped at 1% for many years while the queen receives an 8% increase this year.

It's said that this extra dosh is to pay for the refurbishment of Buck House - er, I had my roof completely renewed last year and I had to pay out of my own pocket.

I couldn't go cap in hand to the DWP and say (whilst wringing my hands) "I wouldn't ask but it IS essential......)