£369,000,000 to refurbish Buckingham Palace

Fleawuss

One's gaff needs a makeover. Children in Need on BBC tonight. Brit Twitter in meltdown.

I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

Summer wind

Off with their heads!

Atlantic Dawn

They better hurry or they won't be able to avail of the cheap European labour.

Have they not heard of IKEA and Done Deal?

Ted111

Are they going with carpet or timber floors.
If it's wood I know a guy.

BsBox

Initial reaction is disbelief, but when you think about it, it's really not that bad.
The main section was built in 1703, and it now has ~775 rooms. Updating a building that large with a 310 year old core is hardly going to be cheap, and being so importantly both culturally and historically, it can hardly be left to degrade.
It's a tourist attraction, art gallery, office space, residence, etc. all rolled into one. £370 million over 10 years doesn't seem completely outrageous to me.

cocoman

Ted111 wrote: »

Are they going with carpet or timber floors.
If it's wood I know a guy.

If it's carpet I know a few guys !!

That Irish fellow who was caught in the Queens bedroom in the 80s will be around in a flash when he hears they've got new DVD players and tellies to steal.

Edit...apparently not born here...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fagan_incident

murpho999

I never get why anybody would care about anything whatsoever to do with foreign monarchies.

bodhrandude

Why the phuck don't they pay it themselves.

tomwaterford

bodhrandude wrote: »

Why the phuck don't they pay it themselves.

Fukkin scroungers that's why

Sue Pa Key Pa

British Monarchy bring in far more in tourism then they will ever cost.

I wonder if there is anything to be said if we were to..............best not, I suppose

buried

They should sell the west wing to Trump in order to raise the cash. Trump Buckingham Golf resort and Spa.

Venom

BsBox wrote: »

Initial reaction is disbelief, but when you think about it, it's really not that bad.
The main section was built in 1703, and it now has ~775 rooms. Updating a building that large with a 310 year old core is hardly going to be cheap, and being so importantly both culturally and historically, it can hardly be left to degrade.
It's a tourist attraction, art gallery, office space, residence, etc. all rolled into one. £370 million over 10 years doesn't seem completely outrageous to me.

We can't mock as this country spent €43 million with nothing to show for it on the "Bertie bowl" :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/department-faces-grilling-on-43m-bertie-bowl-spend-26820640.html

Fratton Fred

I don't think it is their house, it belongs to the Royal Estates, which is state owned.

It's a bit like Micky D's gaff, they just get to live in it a lot longer.

Jimoslimos

Fleawuss wrote: »

I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

British Monarchy bring in far more in tourism then they will ever cost.

Palace of Versailles brings in a lot of tourism (and more visitors than Buckingham Palace). Do they need a heir of Louis XVI to keep things going?

Suckit

They could get these guys a lot cheaper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFuYIi5-igc

Red Kev

Some Hiace vans will be around tomorrow offering to do any tarmacadam or gutters.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Palace of Versailles brings in a lot of tourism (and more visitors than Buckingham Palace). Do they need a heir of Louis XVI to keep things going?

Ahh but it's the Royal family in England that draws the tourists, it's a lot more than just Buckingham palace!

tomwaterford

bubblypop wrote: »

Ahh but it's the Royal family in England that draws the tourists, it's a lot more than just Buckingham palace!

Kinda like animals on a zoo????


Seems kinda cruel to keep people as an attraction?

nullzero

"I say Charles don't you ever crave, to appear on the front of the daily mail, dressed in your mother's bridal veil"

The British monarchy, a great bunch of lads.

SEPT 23 1989

They generate more income for the country than they cost

BsBox

Venom wrote: »

We can't mock as this country spent €43 with nothing to show for it on the "Bertie bowl" :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/department-faces-grilling-on-43m-bertie-bowl-spend-26820640.html

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
At least he's gone now and we've a brand new set of lovely, honest, hard-working politicians with nothing but the people of this country's best interest at heart.
You could almost think of it as if Bertie was a necessary setback to bring out the cream of the crop that we have in Irish politics now.
God bless.

Oafley Jones

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Palace of Versailles brings in a lot of tourism (and more visitors than Buckingham Palace). Do they need a heir of Louis XVI to keep things going?

Versailles is at least a nice building. Buckingham Palace has all the charm of a 1970s office block.

machiavellianme

Venom wrote: »

We can't mock as this country spent €43 with nothing to show for it on the "Bertie bowl" :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/department-faces-grilling-on-43m-bertie-bowl-spend-26820640.html

Only €43?

tomwaterford

machiavellianme wrote: »

Only €43?

A hideous waste...couldve got 10 bottles of Smithwicks and change for chips outta it

nhunter100

BsBox wrote:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. At least he's gone now and we've a brand new set of lovely, honest, hard-working politicians with nothing but the people of this country's best interest at heart. You could almost think of it as if Bertie was a necessary setback to bring out the cream of the crop that we have in Irish politics now. God bless.

I salute your eloquent sarcasm.

murpho999

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

British Monarchy bring in far more in tourism then they will ever cost.

I wonder if there is anything to be said if we were to..............best not, I suppose

Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

How do republics attract tourists then?

murpho999

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They generate more income for the country than they cost

How? What income? How can you say this?

BsBox

nhunter100 wrote: »

I salute your eloquent sarcasm.

A necessary coping mechanism.

The Backwards Man

murpho999 wrote: »

How? What income? How can you say this?

Would ye ever wheesht?

Lots of Irish firms will do very well out of this.

Jimoslimos

bubblypop wrote: »

Ahh but it's the Royal family in England that draws the tourists, it's a lot more than just Buckingham palace!

Sure then they don't need the palaces, castles and numerous estates if that's the case!

lawred2

Fleawuss wrote: »

One's gaff needs a makeover. Children in Need on BBC tonight. Brit Twitter in meltdown.

I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

What have children in need got to do with this?

BsBox

murpho999 wrote: »

How? What income? How can you say this?

"The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained" - CGP Grey

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

How do republics attract tourists then?

They may attract tourists to their country.
The Royal family means they attract even more

Sue Pa Key Pa

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

How do republics attract tourists then?

Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners

lawred2

Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

Can they not pay for it themselves?

Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

Can they not pay for it themselves?

Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.

Why do you care?
Unless your an English tax payer?

murpho999

bubblypop wrote: »

They may attract tourists to their country.
The Royal family means they attract even more

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners

If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.

lawred2

bubblypop wrote: »

Why do you care?
Unless your an English tax payer?

you're

I don't care. What makes you think I do?

Is it not reasonable to ask why a Monarch couldn't afford the upkeep of their house?

Why are you so defensive?

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.

So tourists visit other countries?
Wow,
Never....
The point is that the Royal family do attract tourists. I don't see why you would try to deny that?

Fratton Fred

lawred2 wrote: »

Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

Can they not pay for it themselves?

Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.

Because it isn't their house.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

you're

I don't care. What makes you think I do?

Is it not reasonable to ask why a Monarch couldn't afford the upkeep of their house?

Why are you so defensive?

I'm not defensive at all!
I couldn't care less how much it costs to refurb the palace, I won't be paying for it. And I don't care if the Royal family or the British tax payer pay for it.
Who cares who pays

Jimoslimos

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners

Are you saying tourists would choose NOT to go to Britain (in significant numbers) if there wasn't a monarchy?

Sue Pa Key Pa

murpho999 wrote: »

If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.

So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??

Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions

murpho999

bubblypop wrote: »

So tourists visit other countries?
Wow,
Never....
The point is that the Royal family do attract tourists. I don't see why you would try to deny that?

Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Are you saying tourists would choose NOT to go to Britain (in significant numbers) if there wasn't a monarchy?

Yes

murpho999

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??

Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions

No. I'm saying not having a monarchy has not reduced it's tourism numbers.

I don't see it as correct the queen is a billionaire but it's ok as she apparently attracts tourists but this is not really provable.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.

I don't believe that's true, there's many many tourists that visit England because Of The monarchy.
Those tourists wouldn't visit if the Royals didn't exist

Sue Pa Key Pa

murpho999 wrote: »

Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.

He does. People don't go to the White House because of the architecture & landscaping. They go because it is where the president of USA is based it's where he makes decisions which have an effect on most of the free world.

Sue Pa Key Pa

murpho999 wrote: »

No. I'm saying not having a monarchy has not reduced it's tourism numbers.
.

But you don't know if a current monarchy occupying the royal buildings in France wouldn't double their tourist numbers.

The vast numbers of people who attend the changing of the guard, Edinburgh Tattoo, royal weddings, queens birthday etc speak for themselves. Windsor Inc. is a thriving business