The Big House is to get a lick o' paint.....................

..............and a few other bits and pieces: only £369m to you, guv.

Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment - BBC News

"Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m, the Treasury has announced.

The Queen will remain in residence during the work, to begin next April.


Ageing cables, lead pipes, wiring and boilers will be replaced, many for the first time in 60 years, owing to fears about potential fire and water damage."

Personally, I'm relaxed about it, though I must admit to hugging myself in glee at the forthcoming infarctions to be suffered by republicans, socialists and other bitter and mean-spirited folk.
 
Hence the reason why I posted this in Int Cell instead of CA: given the subject matter and slavering of some of the users here, I suspect (and hope) that some will not be able to contain themselves and be ROP'd into the next century.

It's my civic duty-I look for no thanks.
 
If we had a vote on keeping the royal family or turning the country into a republic, I'm not sure what way I would vote frankly. Politically I might prefer a democracy where anybody could aspire to be the head of state. Looking at some of the monkeys in foreign climes makes me doubt though whether it would be a better deal for us. I also think the Queen does a great job. She's going to be an exceptionally hard act for her son and grandson etc to follow.

I'm ok with a refurb for Buckingham Palace. It's part of the heritage that is our capital city. To let it go to ruin doesn't do anybody any good. I might quibble at whether the price has been padded. It is public money after all. However when you consider what's being projected for Parliament to be refurbed, the price quoted for the Palace seems like a reasonable one.

So yeah..... Go for it!
 
Hence the reason why I posted this in Int Cell instead of CA: given the subject matter and slavering of some of the users here, I suspect (and hope) that some will not be able to contain themselves and be ROP'd into the next century.

It's my civic duty-I look for no thanks.
Couldn't agree more. Stand by for the usual skiplickers to whine and moan. 340 millions - a week after BREXIT will foot the bill :)
 
If we had a vote on keeping the royal family or turning the country into a republic, I'm not sure what way I would vote frankly. Politically I might prefer a democracy where anybody could aspire to be the head of state. Looking at some of the monkeys in foreign climes makes me doubt though whether it would be a better deal for us. I also think the Queen does a great job. She's going to be an exceptionally hard act for her son and grandson etc to follow.

I'm ok with a refurb for Buckingham Palace. It's part of the heritage that is our capital city. To let it go to ruin doesn't do anybody any good. I might quibble at whether the price has been padded. It is public money after all. However when you consider what's being projected for Parliament to be refurbed, the price quoted for the Palace seems like a reasonable one.

So yeah..... Go for it!
If we had a republic, no doubt the Head of State would be just a political retread - e.g. Heath, Wilson, Major, Blair, Kinnock and yes, even Thatcher.

The mere thought of it is depressing.

And don't think for one moment that UK Presidents would be shy about spending just as much, if not more.

Indeed, I understand the French Presidency costs more than our Monarchy.
 
Someone must have got their sums wrong. £340 million?
Westminster is only going to cost 10 times that. (until the final bill comes in, probably an order of 10 greater)
Still, much rather see the money spent on Buckingham Palace.
Hopefully the roof of Westminster will fall in on the creatures infesting the place.
 
If we had a vote on keeping the royal family or turning the country into a republic, I'm not sure what way I would vote frankly. Politically I might prefer a democracy where anybody could aspire to be the head of state. Looking at some of the monkeys in foreign climes makes me doubt though whether it would be a better deal for us. !
Looking at others I see the same families and groups each time - effectively creating a new monarchy so to speak from the new ruling elite.
 
Don't have a problem with it, better to spend it now than further on down the road. Like others have said the whiners and moaners will no doubt be shouting from the rooftops.

As for getting rid of them no thanks look at the US in the past 100 years and cronyism that goes on there
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
To be honest I'd be in favour of this even if it was all going to be blown on Bolly and Foie gras, based solely on the principle that anything which will piss off Corbyn's rouge-tinted rabble is worth every penny. However, as it's an increase in HM's pocket money to refurbish Buck Hyse, I think we should double it and give the Queen an opportunity to build an indoor racetrack / underground boating lake / gun range for Phil / bordello for Andy.
 

gung_hobo

Old-Salt
Indeed, I understand the French Presidency costs more than our Monarchy.
@Balleh Very interesting. Do you perchance have any sources or links? A question with positive intent as proven figures could shorten a few discussions I'm having with "instant opinion but uninformed rumour pedlars"!

As Buckingham Palace is a Grade 1 listed building, it is irrelevant who occupies it as it would still have to be upgraded/made or kept safe etc. at public expense.
 
To be honest I'd be in favour of this even if it was all going to be blown on Bolly and Foie gras, based solely on the principle that anything which will piss off Corbyn's rouge-tinted rabble is worth every penny.
Indeed, but I note that Corbyn has been silent upon the subject of profligate spending by Lady Scotland, so perhaps he won't mind.
 
@Balleh Very interesting. Do you perchance have any sources or links? A question with positive intent as proven figures could shorten a few discussions I'm having with "instant opinion but uninformed rumour pedlars"!

As Buckingham Palace is a Grade 1 listed building, it is irrelevant who occupies it as it would still have to be upgraded/made or kept safe etc. at public expense.
The French President ( and Ministers ) have a dedicated VIP fleet - surprisingly large at that - which probably whacks up costs

Mrs L felt that those whining about the disparagingly named Cam 1 were being petty an important minister often needs an aircraft - until I informed her that CAM 1 (along with the Royal Sqn fleet ) was not a dedicated VIP aircraft and was a general RAF service tanker as well.

Thoroughly impressed with the restraint and frugality of HMG and indeed HRH* in these matters so she was


As a Frog shes very republican but accepts we get a far better deal with HRH than they do with Presidents.
 

FailyScaley

War Hero
Anything to keep the dear old lady safe and sound.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The usual skip-lickers will chip in on social media. But ask how much Buck House helps to generate in tourist money alone.

Speculate to accumulate, and all that. It won't stop the usual types spouting the usual tripe, though.
 

1&12

LE
I'm all in favour of retaining the monarchy, if it only serves to prevent having a President Blair / Brown or whoever of whatever political flavour (who we would elevate to a form of royal status anyway) it'll be doing a damned good job.
And just think of some of those First Ladies.
Oh dear.
 
I'm all in favour of retaining the monarchy, if it only serves to prevent having a President Blair / Brown or whoever of whatever political flavour (who we would elevate to a form of royal status anyway) it'll be doing a damned good job.
And just think of some of those First Ladies.
Oh dear.
It is not the likes of Blair and Brown who would worry me as HOS they tend to find other employment, it is the second tier politicians who might be run for the job, such as Vaz, Prescott, Clegg etc just the sort we need to represent the country.
 
@Balleh Very interesting. Do you perchance have any sources or links? A question with positive intent as proven figures could shorten a few discussions I'm having with "instant opinion but uninformed rumour pedlars"!

As Buckingham Palace is a Grade 1 listed building, it is irrelevant who occupies it as it would still have to be upgraded/made or kept safe etc. at public expense.
Have a read through here as a starting point

Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again!

It's the links to sources for other nations costs that are probably the important bits
 
I'm a massive lefty. I'm also a massive fan of HMTQ, less so of the extended family but hey ho.

As such I do think it would be right and meet that the occupant of the house meet at least some of the cost. To show willing as it were. The percentage? I'm not sure, 20% or so?

But that's just to put the republicans back in their box. As has been said, others will whinge far more than I. But when you look at what the Palace of Westminster is costing it's a fraction to do up Buck House and I think we get far more added value from the head of the family........
 

Latest Threads

Top