Queen's official residences to undergo £37m tourism revamp

Our monarch continues to be sovereign over 15 countries, also situated many thousands of miles away. Is that a desirable situation?
Well, it depends if those countries desire it or not.

They could always have a referendum as Australia did.

As I understand it, the US presidential model is defined as an "executive" one and is partisan. It is not the only model available. There can also be a non-partisan head of state, such as is found in Ireland.

America rejected the rule of the British and its monarchy. Who exactly could have taken on the role of monarch? Or is it suggested that their bid for independence was a retrograde step and that they would be better off being ruled by a monarch situated several thousand miles away? Our monarch continues to be sovereign over 15 countries, also situated many thousands of miles away. Is that a desirable situation?

Give me a monarchy over a president any day. At least you know exactly what you're getting. Fancy the embarrassment of Donald Trump as your head of state!

(But musing on whether the Queen has any dealings with offshore tax havens...)

I must confess , I think Charles has done some good work, and yes I feel rather sorry for him, well not quite true, I would if he would get out of wormwood and give the stolen title back too

I am no royalist and those two daughters of Andrew need sorting out too

I am not a monarchist. I can't differentiate between any of them really. Are they all just not hangers on ? What an archaic, outdated concept

Not sure what you mean by "workers"? You mean turning up somewhere in a limo door to door, everyone waiting on you hand and foot-that isn't work as I know it!!

I think you have to differentiate between HM, Prince Charles, Prince Philip and Andrew, Eugenie and Beatrice.
The workers and the hangers-on.

Oh dear what a hornet's nest! Like Anniebach says I'm not a subject, I'm a citizen. I have great respect for the queen who has lived all her life as a "bird in a gilded cage".
But this nonsense really has to stop. As others have said this wealthy family being lauded wherever they go at our expense when so many suffer so many cuts at present.
To see Charles being treated as heir apparent when in reality he is just a pandered chap who has never had to work for a living like the rest of the hangers on.
My 2 elder DGDs are both hard working students. If ever they spend time lazing about doing nothing they are known as Eugenie and Beatrice!
It must be wonderful never to have to worry about jobs, mortgages, homes, cars etc.
And their hypocrisy drives me mad; all this hunting, shooting and fishing and then President of World Wildlife!
And. . . . Ooh you've got me started now. Banging on about animals in Africa-what about the people suffering here in the UK?

So true Eloethan, one thing which bugs me is we are not allowed to know how much the country pays for protection of the entire family and all their properties . How can they justify all those houses when we have homeless sleeping on the streets . This is not a family that truely cares for the people

The Sovereign Grant has increased by 38% in the last five years. Unlike other grants/benefits, this Sovereign Grant can only ever go up - it cannot go down. So while several valuable museums in the north and libraries across the UK are being closed and the poorest people in this country are targeted for cuts we continue to increase the funding of a family that has enormous assets. It is said that they are just holding the buildings, the land, the paintings, the jewellery, etc. etc. on trust for the nation - and yet the nation has very limited access to any of this - and when citizens wish to have sight of these assets they have to buy a ticket to do so.

I agree Merlotgran, William and Harry may charm many now but come middle age they will be two middle aged playboys . Charles has faults - as do we all - but he carries out his duties well and I think the man cares for the people of this country

Many moths ago when I raised the question of whether or not William was doing a 'real job' working for air rescue I was jumped on from a great height.
It was obvious he was only going to work part time and nonsense that living at Anmer would make it easier for him to get to work.

We are now informed that once Prince George starts pre-prep, they will re-locate to KP. So much for the country idyll.

I've always been a monarchist but the Queen cannot live forever - neither can Prince Charles.

I don't hold out much hope after that.

Elegran, I am not loyal to the queen, I have no cause to be, I know little of her , I respect her. I am not a subject I am a citizen of the UK.

I accept many are very fond if the queen and believe she is worth the money she and her extended family costs us. I don't want a president, quite content to Charles to be King. I find the adoration strange, and for me a monarch can live a comfortable life with all she/needs to entertain visiting dignitaries but not at the millions the windsors costs the country. This I find offensive , we have so many homeless, and a monarch with so many homes . The praise heaped on William for choosing not to undertake his share of royal duties but to work for air rescue, now we know he work only part time

I'm happy with this; I also belong to the National Trust and don't manage to see all that many places but feel that our heritage should be preserved, whether royal or not.
At least these places are open for the general public now.

It would be wrong for money raised for a charitable trust to be used for flood relief purposes; I am quite happy for any money I pay in tax to go towards flood relief but if I pay to see a historic building I would want that money to go towards the upkeep of that building.

I am free to spend any money I may have for leisure activities in any way I wish, like a child with its pocket money. So is everyone else. Some people wish to spend some money on seeing parts of the queen's residences and some of the art she has in trust. Everyone has the freedom not to spend their money on these things too if they wish to 'prioritise' something else.

So what's the problem?

I would rather the money spent to help those who suffered from the floods , we all have different priorities I suppose

I am glad the revamp is happening. It is probably overdue.

On making the rooms convenient for us to see them. Would you rather they stayed inconvenient or that the collection was left to moulder away in a corner somewhere unseen? It takes money to put things on display and maintain them. Those who wish to look at them pay for their upkeep.

It is mostly foreign tourists who like to visit royal palaces if they don't have any of their own. Should they see them free as well as loyal subjects like yourself?

And what of all that is not part of the Royal Collection ? And the fact remains , we own the buildings, we have to pay to see a few rooms and the money we pay to see the few rooms is being spent on .

We are NOT paying for the work, The Royal Collection Trust is. The trust does the care and conservation of the collection, and organises the public exhibition of it to the paying public, using the income to pay the costs. No public funds are involved.
The queen doesn't get any financial benefit from people paying to see the collection. She can't sell off a painting or two, because she only holds them in trust. She has no power to sell them.

"Does the Royal Collection receive grant-in-aid or other public funding?"

"The care and conservation of the Royal Collection is funded entirely by Royal Collection Trust, a registered charity, with income raised from the public opening of Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and from associated trading activities. This income also supports educational activities, loans and projects to increase public access and enjoyment. The activities of Royal Collection Trust are undertaken without recourse to public funds."

"Does The Queen own the Royal Collection?"

"The Royal Collection is held in trust by The Queen as Sovereign for her successors and the nation. It is not owned by her as a private individual."

I don't want the. Royal Family selling paintings as they may go abroad. Strictly speaking they belong to the. Nation anyway.
I don't have an issue with the palaces being refurbished really but I do think we don't see much of them, only a few rooms.
I think if the public pay to refurbish any room then they should be seen.
I was just playing devils advocate mentioning the flooding.
What has happened in the North of England has devastated thousands of people. Myself included. The government just doesn't spend enough on flood prevention.

We do not own the theatres ,

The paintings probably belong to the nation as well.

Well, at least they are using the money people pay to visit these places, and don't forget, if you go to the theatre and pay your money ( you won't get in free) then the theatre use your money for the upkeep of the theatre.Visiting royal palaces is entertainment and people are happy to pay up to have a gawp.