Harry and Meghan taxpayer-funded renovations cost £2.4m

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48746609

They're taking the mickey

Nice to see us taxpayers money goes to summat important...that's royal family for you...all of them

Long live the Queen.

Long live the lady but the monarchy really has reached it's sell by date.

As it’s a grade 1 listed building owned by the state then the state pick up the cost of refurbishment, very little has been done to this place in years and was slowly falling into disrepair. As a grade 1 listed building then this won’t come cheap.
The royal family are given £85million approx from the government for duties and upkeep of residences ( of which the 2.4 million for Frogmore was paid from). All monies made from royal land and buildings goes to the state, last year approx £328 million of profits was paid to the state, so the royal family getting £85 million means they don’t exactly get s massive return from what they put in.

I guess that is your view.

Works out at £1.24 per head for every person in the UK.
Then you have to work out what they and the properties bring in in tourism, and also to the trades that blindly benefit from the tourists for example hotels,taxi and bus companies the list is not exhaustive.
In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.
For me they are hands down worth it.

The teacher will be along soon to correct your spelling and grammar! Oh he has been and hasn't! One rule for one and one rule for others I guess.

I'm sorry did not realise grammer had anything to do with this topic of conversation? And yet you mock? Being as we are all in good moods thought i would chip in..all of the royal family are spongers and always have been

They do not deserve respect..I'm a commoner finished school 16 years ago and worked every damn year and saved up what I have on my own with no handouts thank you.and yet what do we get for working? ...please enlighten me? And what do royal family do exactly? Queen gives a gay wave and take our taxes for there own benefit ....so go take your thought and mockery to someoene who cares..

Iwas not mocking you it was aimed at somebody else, my grammar and spelling can be bad so I wouldnt pull anybody up on it.
You have views on the Royal Family others have similar or differing views its the way of the world! You clearly care as you have disliked my post if you didnt care you would let it pass you by.
With regard to what the Royal Family contribute and the argument of Royalists versus Republicans Google is your friend
On a different note did you get to Baguio on your last trip to the Philippines?

There seems to be a lot of grammar edits from the moderators for no reason but their own personal reasons, I think @Mattecube remark was aimed at them not you.
We have all worked for what we have, and have varying thoughts of the importance of royal family. I for one support them but I also think there is some hangers on who really need to have allowances cut.

I just have the hots for Sophie!

The Queen does not get one penny-piece of your tax money. The government permit her to retain around 10 percent of the income generated by the Family's various commercial undertakings. That money pays for upkeep of property (other than Buckingham Palace), pays salaries, buys clothes, food etc., and most of the travel expenses. Given the amount of revenue they generate and is deposited at the Treasury they are good value and your taxes would be higher without them.

Everybody deserves respect, even you!

The Royal family has lost all relevance today. Back in the day, you could be assured that only the elites would have the (mis)fortune of becoming head of state. The most powerful and wealthy families. Chosen by God.

Today, the grandson of a British Airways stewardess is destined to be Head of State in about 50 years for no other reason than it is his supposed birthright.

If something terrible were to happen to the Cambridges, then the grandson of a drunk American living in Mexico becomes Head of State instead.

Nothing wrong with being a stewardess. But their offspring having these God given rights is nonsense.

Let them stand for election. I'd vote for the Queen in a heartbeat. She's represented Britain, the empire and commonwealth superbly (a few hiccups aside). I don't think I'd vote for Charles but I still think he'd win a landslide in the next few years. It would legitimise an archaic process that, along with child labour and slavery, belongs in the 19th century.

I doubt the 3000 or so charities that benefit from Royal patronage would agree that the Royal family has lost its relevence or those businesses that carry the Royal warrant and the benefits that brings, nor so those business that benefit from the huge tourism revenues bought in by interest in the family
I think the Royal family are busy stream lining themselves and it is popular knowledge that Charles is a key driver of this process. This is a good thing!
It is also a given that Her Majesty helps balance the political stabilisation in this country without having or demonstrating political viewpoints.
Further I believe this to be true of our multi faith society.
It is unfortunate that the American side has to say the least had a colourful past but it is equally unfortunate that people want to use his drink problems to support their argument.
We could of course have a Republic!
God save the Queen

As you may imagine, I disagree with much of what you wrote but unlike KeithAngel who simply signals his disapproval, I will explain why.

As far as I am concerned, Diana's sons should swap wives. William is dour, lazy and far too demanding whilst his lowborn wife is down to earth, sophisticated and has become a model royal. Harry is by far the more popular of the two, being far more a man of the people and the Royal Family survives or not based on public perceptions. Meghan is a disaster, Wallis Simpson Mark 2, and owes her position to her ability to identify and latch onto an emotionally vulnerable young man, just as Wallis did. Unlike Simpson sooner or later she will tire of her royal duties and demand that Harry also revolt - he won't of course, he is his mother's son, and will join his father in the royal divorcee club. It will be messy, she will see to that.

Our present Queen has done much to streamline the Family and make it more relevant: the Windsor Castle fire and Diana's murder made great levellers. Changes to how the Family is financed means that, by and large, they are not the drain on public funds that they once were - indeed they are all honest to goodness tax payers as are the Royal Estates.

Elect our monarch? No, its not a beauty contest or a mind-numbingly boring TV game show. If you elect them then they have to have some type of work - and be paid handsomely. An elected monarchy would end up costing you and me much more money - look at the vast sums of money the US Presidency costs and its Russian counterpart isn't any cheaper (though possibly cheaper in comparative terms to the costs in Soviet times). The mere thought of a doddery and confused Corbyn padding around the Palace in his holed socks and polyester shellsuit is deeply unattractive.

So long as the Royal Family remain relevant and continue to be the huge tourism draw, we should keep and nurture them.

Diana's murder care to explain ?

We receive fewer tourists than the French. Does Italy rank above us also? Not sure.

Anyway, not sure I'm happy with selling away our national dignity just so some Japanese will come and take selfies at Buckingham Palace.