I wholeheartedly agree with this, (and I thought it already it was, tbh)
> But after the cost of refurbishment ramped up this year ahead of the platinum jubilee – building work paid for by the taxpayer – questions have been raised about who should pay the price.
…
> But something must change especially now that the Queen is spending more time at Windsor
…
> “MPs for years have been saying you need to open up the palace to tourists all year round.
…
> “We have arguments about public sector pay being kept down and all the while we’re pouring millions and millions of pounds into fixing this one building.
…
> Explaining how palace officials have been under pressure for years to change the funding status, he added: “It was pointed out that the Vatican was open all year round, the home of the Catholic Church.
>
> “It was pointed out the White House is open to tourists most of the year, the home of the President of the United States.
>
> “So at any point Buckingham Palace should be open all year round, but it is now largely a ghost building, people don’t live there.
Open it up and put a gift shop in it selling tea towels and ashtrays, you’ll make a fortune.
Could we open a Pizza Express in the palace?
If the public are paying for it, it should be open and free to the public. If they want to keep it private they can pay for it out of their own pocket. Simple as that.
Royalists like to bleat on about tourism money the Queen brings in, well here’s a prime opportunity.
Of course, the palace of Versailles does a pretty good trade in tourism, so maybe we still don’t need some old lady and her inbred family to really pull in the money.
It should be straightforward enough to work around investitures/functions/visits etc.
Work out availability, tickets can be pre-booked for specific days, and ring-fence the money for upkeep/repairs.
You mean all those tourists who come to see the Royals only do so for a few months a year?
It’s almost like this justification for the Royal’s existence is complete codswallop.
Honestly, if the monarchy was abolished they’d make an absolute fortune by opening Buckingham palace as a museum/tourist attraction. On fact you wouldn’t even have to abolish them. just move them to one of their many other enormous homes.
Put red rope around the things people can’t touch and charge people a fortune to go for a look around.
Not that I’d personally have any interest in seeing it but given how many people congregate outside there every day for some reason I’d bet millions would buy a ticket.
Make the royals pay for it, its their fucking house.
I think they owe us a night’s stay in one of the rooms for free, once every 2 years
Of course this feels obvious *now* but the Queen has mentioned permanently moving out soon so it shouldn’t be a security risk to have it open all year round if she isn’t there.
Have you seen the price of a single bed box flat these days? Keeping it open all year still wouldnt make a dent and thats just one of her properties / staff / food / heating / animals / security / 20 mil jubelee / 22 mil pedo ~~convictions~~ nonce bill / 250 mil royal yacht / etc etc so forth.
Ok Cheapo-Git.
The monarchy should be abolished, it’s archaic. And in this day and age of austerity/cost of living crisis, it’s galling to see the royals living a life of luxury, some of it funded by the taxpayer.
The land the monarchy owns should be handed back to the state and used to develop housing, schools and hospitals, whilst keeping as much of the green space as possibly viable.
OK, apart from the question whether the palace should be open all the times to pay for the jubilee costs: Keep in mind that the jubilee draw more than a million tourists who spent quite a bit of money in London and the UK in general, as well as other businesses profiting from this. We are talking about billions of pounds of business here.
For that, the UK taxpayer spent a total of 68p each, IIRC.
I would be up for abolishing the live monarchy and opening up all of the houses and residences to tourists (eg Windsor, Buckingham Palace) year round. Offer tours, gift shops etc.
Would be fascinating and much more useful than what they’re currently used for. They’re basically museums with all of the art etc inside them.
If we ended it with the Queen I think that legacy could be spun into something big and lasting.
I was under the impression that the Royal estates already bought in way more money than the Royal allowance. Did this change?
Unless there’s some special event, I don’t see how it would be too difficult to keep it open. As such a historic structure, it would be maintained with public money one way or the other and tourists will pay a fortune to go inside for longer than just the annual summer season. It could be a nice way to supplement funding.
Additionally, the Queen has made Windsor Castle her main residence at the end of last year and the private chambers in Buckingham Palace aren’t open to the public during palace openings anyway.
The recent refurbishment works included the installation of lifts for improved accessibility. This would make it an accessible attraction too and male frequent use of such quite expensive equipment. Good value for money.
Buckingham Palace is looking a bit run down now and it’s odd to me that no royalty actually lives there. The Royals have these palaces but choose to live in the countryside far far away from all of us
Man, I love this sub but it seems like the neutral facade has dropped a bit on this thread.
It should be used for the homeless.
I mean, yeah if it’s practical. But if we were a republic the whole palace would be used by the ‘president’ and we’d be paying for it without anyone batting an eyelid, and likely none of it open to the public.
There’s a simple solution. Make Windsor castle the HQ ( it’s literally 20 mins on the train from Paddington or plenty of airports for VIPs nearby) and open up Buckingham palace for dumb tourists with the occasional balcony wave to keep it in the press.
Open it up 247. Turn it into a hotel. If we have to have a royal family bleed every pound coin from it.
It’s publically funded and certainly makes a decent amount in tourism, and the staff are going to be there regardless, so why not?
Buckingham Palace is rather unloved by the Royal Family. It’s mostly used for occasions of state and it is owned by the nation, not the monarch.
It is a United Nations World Heritage site, so letting it go to ruin is not an option, so renovating it, and opening it to the public year round shouldn’t be a problem.
Windsor should be the home of the monarch, Buckingham Palace used for state events and Clarance house used as a London residence.
Get rid of the royals, open it up entirely for the public.
I’d pay a fiver to ride a rollercoaster through the queens bedroom
They probably will eventually because what else are they going to do with that stupid eyesore. It is not like anyone is actually going to live there after the Queen departs.
She doesn’t even like the place, preferring Windsor. Charles isn’t keen on it either. We should let the National Trust have it for the tourists. Plenty of Queenie lookalikes could sit on a throne all day, no problem – and much cheaper!
I thought the government gave the Royal Family some yearly stipend in exchange for use of lands owned by the Royal Family, but that the exchange was like 10-1 in the government’s favor. I’m fairly sure my numbers here are wrong but I thought it was like they give the Royals £60m but earn £600m in revenue from the Royal property income
The cost to run the royal family per year is £40m, the revenue from crown land (which is legally their property) and is surrendered to the government is £200m per year. You pay less taxes because of the royal family, and that is before the tourists.
Why not?
The palace is just a museum, complete with a Royal Family Exhibit.
What a waste of money, how people defend having a monarchy I will never know
considering that the monarchy is the attraction and not the site they live on this wouldn’t work…. BUT they’re not the attraction and so we can assume people arent coming to see them and dont see them . abolish!
Yet another article that doesn’t understand how the royal properties work. The money earned by the royal properties goes first to the government, before being paid out to the palace. This compromise is massively in the government’s favour since they keep anything extra beyond the previously agreed royal pay out. And man do they pay out. In a normal year, the royal properties generate almost double their expenses in income. The massive refurbishment that started of Buckingham a couple of years ago represented less than ten years of just the additional income, making it a more than worth it cost for the government.
Being anti-royal makes absolutely zero sense financially. This arrangement is ideal for all parties, it allows the royals to be royal but keeps the money flowing to the government. It’s the sort of deal we could be cutting with billionaires to get at their wealth.
34 comments
I wholeheartedly agree with this, (and I thought it already it was, tbh)
> But after the cost of refurbishment ramped up this year ahead of the platinum jubilee – building work paid for by the taxpayer – questions have been raised about who should pay the price.
…
> But something must change especially now that the Queen is spending more time at Windsor
…
> “MPs for years have been saying you need to open up the palace to tourists all year round.
…
> “We have arguments about public sector pay being kept down and all the while we’re pouring millions and millions of pounds into fixing this one building.
…
> Explaining how palace officials have been under pressure for years to change the funding status, he added: “It was pointed out that the Vatican was open all year round, the home of the Catholic Church.
>
> “It was pointed out the White House is open to tourists most of the year, the home of the President of the United States.
>
> “So at any point Buckingham Palace should be open all year round, but it is now largely a ghost building, people don’t live there.
Open it up and put a gift shop in it selling tea towels and ashtrays, you’ll make a fortune.
Could we open a Pizza Express in the palace?
If the public are paying for it, it should be open and free to the public. If they want to keep it private they can pay for it out of their own pocket. Simple as that.
Royalists like to bleat on about tourism money the Queen brings in, well here’s a prime opportunity.
Of course, the palace of Versailles does a pretty good trade in tourism, so maybe we still don’t need some old lady and her inbred family to really pull in the money.
It should be straightforward enough to work around investitures/functions/visits etc.
Work out availability, tickets can be pre-booked for specific days, and ring-fence the money for upkeep/repairs.
You mean all those tourists who come to see the Royals only do so for a few months a year?
It’s almost like this justification for the Royal’s existence is complete codswallop.
Honestly, if the monarchy was abolished they’d make an absolute fortune by opening Buckingham palace as a museum/tourist attraction. On fact you wouldn’t even have to abolish them. just move them to one of their many other enormous homes.
Put red rope around the things people can’t touch and charge people a fortune to go for a look around.
Not that I’d personally have any interest in seeing it but given how many people congregate outside there every day for some reason I’d bet millions would buy a ticket.
Make the royals pay for it, its their fucking house.
I think they owe us a night’s stay in one of the rooms for free, once every 2 years
Of course this feels obvious *now* but the Queen has mentioned permanently moving out soon so it shouldn’t be a security risk to have it open all year round if she isn’t there.
Have you seen the price of a single bed box flat these days? Keeping it open all year still wouldnt make a dent and thats just one of her properties / staff / food / heating / animals / security / 20 mil jubelee / 22 mil pedo ~~convictions~~ nonce bill / 250 mil royal yacht / etc etc so forth.
Ok Cheapo-Git.
The monarchy should be abolished, it’s archaic. And in this day and age of austerity/cost of living crisis, it’s galling to see the royals living a life of luxury, some of it funded by the taxpayer.
The land the monarchy owns should be handed back to the state and used to develop housing, schools and hospitals, whilst keeping as much of the green space as possibly viable.
OK, apart from the question whether the palace should be open all the times to pay for the jubilee costs: Keep in mind that the jubilee draw more than a million tourists who spent quite a bit of money in London and the UK in general, as well as other businesses profiting from this. We are talking about billions of pounds of business here.
For that, the UK taxpayer spent a total of 68p each, IIRC.
I would be up for abolishing the live monarchy and opening up all of the houses and residences to tourists (eg Windsor, Buckingham Palace) year round. Offer tours, gift shops etc.
Would be fascinating and much more useful than what they’re currently used for. They’re basically museums with all of the art etc inside them.
If we ended it with the Queen I think that legacy could be spun into something big and lasting.
I was under the impression that the Royal estates already bought in way more money than the Royal allowance. Did this change?
Unless there’s some special event, I don’t see how it would be too difficult to keep it open. As such a historic structure, it would be maintained with public money one way or the other and tourists will pay a fortune to go inside for longer than just the annual summer season. It could be a nice way to supplement funding.
Additionally, the Queen has made Windsor Castle her main residence at the end of last year and the private chambers in Buckingham Palace aren’t open to the public during palace openings anyway.
The recent refurbishment works included the installation of lifts for improved accessibility. This would make it an accessible attraction too and male frequent use of such quite expensive equipment. Good value for money.
Buckingham Palace is looking a bit run down now and it’s odd to me that no royalty actually lives there. The Royals have these palaces but choose to live in the countryside far far away from all of us
Man, I love this sub but it seems like the neutral facade has dropped a bit on this thread.
It should be used for the homeless.
I mean, yeah if it’s practical. But if we were a republic the whole palace would be used by the ‘president’ and we’d be paying for it without anyone batting an eyelid, and likely none of it open to the public.
There’s a simple solution. Make Windsor castle the HQ ( it’s literally 20 mins on the train from Paddington or plenty of airports for VIPs nearby) and open up Buckingham palace for dumb tourists with the occasional balcony wave to keep it in the press.
Open it up 247. Turn it into a hotel. If we have to have a royal family bleed every pound coin from it.
It’s publically funded and certainly makes a decent amount in tourism, and the staff are going to be there regardless, so why not?
Buckingham Palace is rather unloved by the Royal Family. It’s mostly used for occasions of state and it is owned by the nation, not the monarch.
It is a United Nations World Heritage site, so letting it go to ruin is not an option, so renovating it, and opening it to the public year round shouldn’t be a problem.
Windsor should be the home of the monarch, Buckingham Palace used for state events and Clarance house used as a London residence.
Get rid of the royals, open it up entirely for the public.
I’d pay a fiver to ride a rollercoaster through the queens bedroom
They probably will eventually because what else are they going to do with that stupid eyesore. It is not like anyone is actually going to live there after the Queen departs.
She doesn’t even like the place, preferring Windsor. Charles isn’t keen on it either. We should let the National Trust have it for the tourists. Plenty of Queenie lookalikes could sit on a throne all day, no problem – and much cheaper!
I thought the government gave the Royal Family some yearly stipend in exchange for use of lands owned by the Royal Family, but that the exchange was like 10-1 in the government’s favor. I’m fairly sure my numbers here are wrong but I thought it was like they give the Royals £60m but earn £600m in revenue from the Royal property income
The cost to run the royal family per year is £40m, the revenue from crown land (which is legally their property) and is surrendered to the government is £200m per year. You pay less taxes because of the royal family, and that is before the tourists.
Why not?
The palace is just a museum, complete with a Royal Family Exhibit.
What a waste of money, how people defend having a monarchy I will never know
considering that the monarchy is the attraction and not the site they live on this wouldn’t work…. BUT they’re not the attraction and so we can assume people arent coming to see them and dont see them . abolish!
Yet another article that doesn’t understand how the royal properties work. The money earned by the royal properties goes first to the government, before being paid out to the palace. This compromise is massively in the government’s favour since they keep anything extra beyond the previously agreed royal pay out. And man do they pay out. In a normal year, the royal properties generate almost double their expenses in income. The massive refurbishment that started of Buckingham a couple of years ago represented less than ten years of just the additional income, making it a more than worth it cost for the government.
Being anti-royal makes absolutely zero sense financially. This arrangement is ideal for all parties, it allows the royals to be royal but keeps the money flowing to the government. It’s the sort of deal we could be cutting with billionaires to get at their wealth.