Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing £369m, the Royal Household announces. - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing £369m, the Royal Household announces.

£0.00 @
I can't understand why people are in uproar about this, but I wouldn't expect anything less. People who make comments on the money that is needed to repair Buckingham Palace saying they should get … Read More
MrScotchBonnet Avatar
banned7m, 2d agoPosted 7 months, 2 days ago
I can't understand why people are in uproar about this, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

People who make comments on the money that is needed to repair Buckingham Palace saying they should get 'rid' of the Monarchy, how about you go educate yourself on what the British Monarchy actually do for the British Economy.

On the bright side, it's only about one third the cost of an Astute Class nuclear submarine (one of seven) which will never, ever be used.
MrScotchBonnet Avatar
banned7m, 2d agoPosted 7 months, 2 days ago
Options

Top Comments

(4)
16 Likes
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
9 Likes
It's only 2 months membership fee to the EU *runs away and hides*
8 Likes
Channel 5 should do a new show called "Balcony Benefit Scroungers"
http://orig13.deviantart.net/1000/f/2016/008/8/1/britain_s_biggest_benefit_scroungers_exposed_by_cpgb_ml-d9n7n6i.jpg
8 Likes
Error440
ceres
Error440
She's german
She's not.
Her family is

No it isn't.

She was born in the UK to British parents, lives in the UK, married in the UK, brought her children up in the UK, contributed to the UK economy. Ditto her parents. Ditto her parents' parents. Ditto her grandparents' parents. You have to go back to Albert, her great great grandfather's generation before you find German ancestry. That doesn't make her German.

Do you apply the same standards in determining someone's nationality if they're not the Queen? You've probably got some rascally furriner blood in you if you go back far enough. Does that make you not British?

All Comments

(109) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
9 Likes #2
It's only 2 months membership fee to the EU *runs away and hides*
3 Likes #3
not really interested in them, but financially it makes sense to keep them.
16 Likes #4
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
#5
No great fan of them but they're a net benefit to the economy (as is being a member of the EU seeing as the person above mentioned it, and so is freedom of movement) so it makes economic sense.

There's probably too many hangers on benefitting and the amount of land they own needs looking at, but they're a quirky anachronism of being British and a good tourist attraction.
#6
Buckingham Palace belongs to the state not the monarch so its no different to maintenance on any government building, it has to be done.
1 Like #7
As they are a net benefit, how come we don't have more of them, King/Queen of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland too and erect 3 more residential palaces and have more official functions?!
8 Likes #9
Channel 5 should do a new show called "Balcony Benefit Scroungers"
http://orig13.deviantart.net/1000/f/2016/008/8/1/britain_s_biggest_benefit_scroungers_exposed_by_cpgb_ml-d9n7n6i.jpg
1 Like #10
good. Its an old building which needs expensive maintenance from time to time.
1 Like #11
369 million is an expensive upgrade....probably usual government process give the work to your friends rather than most competitive reliable one..
2 Likes #12
It's not that different to what we paid to house West Ham Utd for which we see no return so tbh seems like a good deal considering the revenue they generate.
#13
coys67
Buckingham Palace belongs to the state not the monarch so its no different to maintenance on any government building, it has to be done.

That's true but selling it to tourists as a government building rather then a royal building makes a difference.
2 Likes #14
themachman
Channel 5 should do a new show called "Balcony Benefit Scroungers"
http://orig13.deviantart.net/1000/f/2016/008/8/1/britain_s_biggest_benefit_scroungers_exposed_by_cpgb_ml-d9n7n6i.jpg


they've added the title benefits to every other walk of life in Britain.
1 Like #15
if it's run down & falling apart it would make a great Travelodge :D
2 Likes #16
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
No great fan of them but they're a net benefit to the economy (as is being a member of the EU seeing as the person above mentioned it, and so is freedom of movement) so it makes economic sense.

There's probably too many hangers on benefitting and the amount of land they own needs looking at, but they're a quirky anachronism of being British and a good tourist attraction.


why have YOU got to bring freedom of movement into this?
#17
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.

The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
#18
DarkEnergy2012
if it's run down & falling apart it would make a great Travelodge :D


why not relocate it to the ''"northern powerhouse"
saddleworth moor on the m62, between Yorkshire and Lancashire,
it will makes HS2 worth putting in so king Charles/William can go back down south for stuff in that there London.
#19
Seems like they want to get the maintenance done before Her Maj carks it

I don't mind the spend if Her Maj will benefit or Prince William but I have a disdain for Prince Charles (he should abdicate to spend the latter years with his old nag somewhere far away)
#20
I wonder why other big countries are missing out on the big windfall of having a 'royal' family, I guess they're financially backwards.

Btw, It's not my fault it was named 'buckingham palace', I didn't name it, and it's meaning clear for all to see, apart from the royals who seem not able to work it out.
1 Like #21
The palace that draws in the most tourists/revenue is in France, no royal has lived in it for a long time.

I say we follow their example, well we did once and then chickened out of going full republic and put immigrants on the throne instead, typical British mentality that.
#22
I'm no monarchist but I have no desire to change the status quo. someone has to be at the top and would rather something culturally significant like a queen or empress over a president...
3 Likes #23
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.

If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.

https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false
3 Likes #24
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
I'm not against The Queen per say but £37 million a year and all them hangers on?
In these times when we have food banks,people on the streets and a crumbling NHS its an absolute disgrace!
#25
£369 million is a bit steep imo, but over 10 years a lot more will be brought in through tourism alone. Like them or not, the majority of tourists love our Royal family and they are one of the main reasons they visit the UK. It's not like they come over here for the weather or sandy beaches now is it? Take away the Queen/Palace etc and people will realise just how much of a difference they make to our economy.
2 Likes #26
themachman
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
I'm not against The Queen per say but £37 million a year and all them hangers on?
In these times when we have food banks,people on the streets and a crumbling NHS its an absolute disgrace!


Good point turn it into a hospital its well situated in the heart of london, ample space for ambulance parking and it even has a helipad for the air ambulance.
#27
The building is of historical significance and warrants the repairs/refurbishments/preservation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace
#28
It would cost a whole lot more than this if an electrical fault caused a major fire.

Edited By: Predikuesi on Nov 19, 2016 13:03
#29
Good this is our Heritage and I want my extended family to be able to see this beautiful building for years to come. its not their faults there born into royals and have to live in these magnificent palaces and castles... Our status is slowly been taken off us due to EU and the rest of the so called I'm In charge and try to tell GB how to run our own country.........S** off the lot of ye Leave us alone Long live our Queen. and BUCKINGHAM PALACE
2 Likes #30
tryer
Good this is our Heritage and I want my extended family to be able to see this beautiful building for years to come. its not their faults there born into royals and have to live in these magnificent palaces and castles... Our status is slowly been taken off us due to EU and the rest of the so called I'm In charge and try to tell GB how to run our own country.........S** off the lot of ye Leave us alone Long live our Queen. and BUCKINGHAM PALACE

She's german
#31
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.

?????????? The money is not "taxpayers money"; it is revenue from the Crown Estates and is being used to repair a building which is part of the Crown Estates.
2 Likes #32
Makes a mockery of the goodwill of the people that raised £46 million last night for those that truly need it.
#33
Error440
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.

If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.

https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false


not a binary decision...we dont only have 56p each to spend...we can spend both... however we spend far more than that on benefits for the poor.
2 Likes #34
Error440
tryer
Good this is our Heritage and I want my extended family to be able to see this beautiful building for years to come. its not their faults there born into royals and have to live in these magnificent palaces and castles... Our status is slowly been taken off us due to EU and the rest of the so called I'm In charge and try to tell GB how to run our own country.........S** off the lot of ye Leave us alone Long live our Queen. and BUCKINGHAM PALACE
She's german

And the palace was built by black slaves stolen from Africa but they never really mention that.

HANG THE ROYALS AND MAKE THE PALACE HUKD HQ! Deek can live in the dungeons to scare the ghosts awaym
1 Like #35
Think I've got this straight the Queen owns various properties and lands via the crown estate which generates a profit which Is then returned to the treasury of which she keeps 15% under normal conditions. The chancellor and prime minster have signed off on giving her an extra so many millions per year towards the royal grant to pay for ALL the repairs to Buckingham Palace, so whereby a normal "property owner" would have to still pay their taxes as well as carrying out "essential" repairs out of their profits(maybe they'd get a rebate or cut in tax IDK) Queenie gets to have her home repaired yet still live the life she's become accustomed to? I suspect I'm wrong here because what a belter of a screw if I'm right. BTW I'm not a republican I don't mind the Queen got a bit of a soft spot for Charles, think the rest of them are parasites, who wouldn't know a hard days work if it kicked them up the backside. Plus in this day and age I think it's archaic and backwards looking to put one family on a pedestal for no other reason that they were born into it.
1 Like #36
davewave
Error440
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false
not a binary decision...we dont only have 56p each to spend...we can spend both... however we spend far more than that on benefits for the poor.


You attempted to belittle the cost of maintaining a pointless throwback to the dark ages, I pointed out far better uses for that money, ones that actually benefit people add the 56p to that already spent on the poor, hospitals, hell even street cleaners it will benefit us far more then a old miserable looking bat getting it, all she does is prove money dont buy happiness.
#37
That's £37 m per year., say half is due to labour at £80,000 cost per FTE. That's enough dosh for 230 people for 10 years.
#38
Error440
davewave
Error440
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false
not a binary decision...we dont only have 56p each to spend...we can spend both... however we spend far more than that on benefits for the poor.
You attempted to belittle the cost of maintaining a pointless throwback to the dark ages, I pointed out far better uses for that money, ones that actually benefit people add the 56p to that already spent on the poor, hospitals, hell even street cleaners it will benefit us far more then a old miserable looking bat getting it, all she does is prove money dont buy happiness.

You're ignoring the point that the royal family is a net benefit to the economy. Look at that money as an investment in British tourism, rather than focusing on your issues with the royal family.
1 Like #39
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Error440
davewave
Error440
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false
not a binary decision...we dont only have 56p each to spend...we can spend both... however we spend far more than that on benefits for the poor.
You attempted to belittle the cost of maintaining a pointless throwback to the dark ages, I pointed out far better uses for that money, ones that actually benefit people add the 56p to that already spent on the poor, hospitals, hell even street cleaners it will benefit us far more then a old miserable looking bat getting it, all she does is prove money dont buy happiness.
You're ignoring the point that the royal family is a net benefit to the economy. Look at that money as an investment in British tourism, rather than focusing on your issues with the royal family.


I refer you to comment 21
#40
Error440
davewave
Error440
davewave
Stevielar
Makes no sense for me, the monarchy could easily be abolished & their homes turned into museums etc. The tourists come for the history not the current royals. I also found it a bit crass that they announced this on the day of children in need, one family get 369million to refurbish one of their homes while at the same time millions of families with small children are without a home. As a taxpayer I know where I'd like my money to go.
We have museums, as do most countries but having such a globally popular is unique though, bringing in Tourist ££'s and is more effective than government in soft influence on matters of state.
The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. To all Buckingham Palace moaners: the Royal family bring in about £500m/year in tourist money.
If every person spent 56p on food for foodbanks we would go a long way to helping eliminate food poverty in this country. 56p can go a long way in the right hands.https://groceries.asda.com/search/asda%20smart%20price%20+%20food/1/price-asc/so-false
not a binary decision...we dont only have 56p each to spend...we can spend both... however we spend far more than that on benefits for the poor.
You attempted to belittle the cost of maintaining a pointless throwback to the dark ages, I pointed out far better uses for that money, ones that actually benefit people add the 56p to that already spent on the poor, hospitals, hell even street cleaners it will benefit us far more then a old miserable looking bat getting it, all she does is prove money dont buy happiness.
Your suggestion of a far better use of 56p each or £35 million/year cost going straight to food banks than generating a 1400% profit to the UK economy is poor economics!

The annual £35 million investment means more money can be spent on the free services which are supplied to those who need it, simply taking away the goose which lays the golden egg isn't a good idea!!

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!