Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment

Recommended Posts

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

Tony Johnstone-Burt, Master of the Queen's Household, said phased works offered the "best value for money" while keeping the palace running.

The works will be funded by a temporary increase in the Sovereign Grant, as recommended by the Royal Trustees, who include the prime minister and chancellor.

This funding change will require MPs' approval.

Mr Johnstone-Burt added: "We take the responsibility that comes with receiving these public funds extremely seriously indeed; equally, we are convinced that by making this investment in Buckingham Palace now we can avert a much more costly and potentially catastrophic building failure in the years to come."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beliall said:

So we can't afford to put planes on our aircraft carriers but we can sort out the queens plumbing.

Well she is getting on a bit and it comes to use all eventually, the money should go to the NHS to alleviate the general public's plumbing problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Can't see how "Ageing cables, lead pipes, wiring and boilers" can cost 300 million quid.

 

Tell her to put a jumper on if she's cold.

Don't forget your going to have a team of plumbers on site for the next ten years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm no royalist but preserving these landmark buildings is sadly money well spent in the long run for me.

It is given the amount it must bring into the country in tourism and the like. 

 

Can understand why people would feel it's  a bit of a kick in the knackers though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a lovely message to send to the tax paying society.

 

There are people who will never be able to be part of the housing market, there are educated professionals in tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt JUST TO GET A JOB, society as a whole is in a period of austerity....but there's enough in the pot to fund a £300+m renovation of an already excessively decadent home. A home that belongs to someone with a portfolio of mansions. What a gobfull of spit in the face of the public. To re-do the leccy and gas in a house of that size would be pricey, but not megabucks. Why doesn't she go through the same sacrifice 'her public' have to. Get the cheapo boiler. And why not decorate your house with the same low-cost, flat pack bullshit everyone else does because there's no money in the pot.

 

The monarchy is an absolute disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the amount of money the amount of tourism the monarchy and the landmarks bring to the country is a substantial amount. If I remember correctly, these sort of repairs are funded by the Sovreign Grant which is allocated to the Monarchy every year. And whilst it is Government funded, if they save money, it goes back in to the grant to be carried over or back to the Government. I believe a proportion of money raised via rental of Royal property goes back in to it too, so there is some give and take.

 

Besides,  the updating of the mechanical and electrical systems within the property, alongside the implementation of low carbon technologies, which is due to take place, will reduce the amount of expenditure with immediate effect as well as reducing their Carbon footprint, which was reduced by 20% last year due to better travel arrangements alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

As mentioned above, the amount of money the amount of tourism the monarchy and the landmarks bring to the country is a substantial amount. If I remember correctly, these sort of repairs are funded by the Sovreign Grant which is allocated to the Monarchy every year. And whilst it is Government funded, if they save money, it goes back in to the grant to be carried over or back to the Government. I believe a proportion of money raised via rental of Royal property goes back in to it too, so there is some give and take.

 

Besides,  the updating of the mechanical and electrical systems within the property, alongside the implementation of low carbon technologies, which is due to take place, will reduce the amount of expenditure with immediate effect as well as reducing their Carbon footprint, which was reduced by 20% last year due to better travel arrangements alone.

The same carbon footprint they have by taking private jets all over the world, all the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beliall said:

The same carbon footprint they have by taking private jets all over the world, all the time?

 

Which was reduced by 20% last year by taking measures to curtail things like that when possible. Travel has the least effect on their footprint anyway, as highlighted by the one overseas trip the Queen made last year, to Frankfurt. Prince William has made 6 overseas trips this year, almost always as a guest of heads of state.

Besides, it's heating via gas which is has the biggest impact, hence the need for an upgrade to new, more efficient systems, zoning, presence detection to reduce electrical costs, and they could even opt to go full wireless for switches and air conditioning sensors etc, which, on a property that size, would reduce the amount of electrical cabling needed by up to 50 miles which then reduces the cost, which I'm sure you'd be happy to hear.

 

But yea, planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

As mentioned above, the amount of money the amount of tourism the monarchy and the landmarks bring to the country is a substantial amount. 

The landmarks bring in tourists, not the monarchy. I believe Versailles gets more visitors. 

I'm not particularly anti royal family , there are plenty of countries that replaced theirs with something even worse, but I can't see how the idea of a monarchy is anything other than outdated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bovril said:

The landmarks bring in tourists, not the monarchy. I believe Versailles gets more visitors. 

I'm not particularly anti royal family , there are plenty of countries that replaced theirs with something even worse, but I can't see how the idea of a monarchy is anything other than outdated. 

 

True-ish, but can you imagine people coming from all over the world to look at Buckingham Palace if it wasn't related to them? I'd argue that it's the relationship to the Royal family which makes them such tourist locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

True-ish, but can you imagine people coming from all over the world to look at Buckingham Palace if it wasn't related to them? I'd argue that it's the relationship to the Royal family which makes them such tourist locations.

It would be related to them historically just like the Versailles is related to the French aristocracy, it could become a national museum which people could pay to visit and then maybe pay for it's own refurbishments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

The landmarks bring in tourists, not the monarchy. I believe Versailles gets more visitors. 

I'm not particularly anti royal family , there are plenty of countries that replaced theirs with something even worse, but I can't see how the idea of a monarchy is anything other than outdated. 

As I've pointed out many times, they killed their lot and I still went to see the Palace of Versailles.

 

Anyway, I've heard that it's all because they've got electric storage heaters throughout and now the kids have grown up and f**ked off it's leading to rows because the place is being heated up when it doesn't need to be.  The Queen goes out to pay the papers on a Wednesday morning (which takes her ages now because she's dead old) and Prince Phillip also goes out then to play Bridge with some war criminals at the same time, and he says they might as well turn the heating off for a few hours then but the butler bloke has said no they don't work like that, they store up heat overnight and then release it throughout the following day regardless of need and that's why you should factor this into your negotiations when buying a flat that has them and old Phil has kicked right off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davieG said:

It would be related to them historically just like the Versailles is related to the French aristocracy, it could become a national museum which people could pay to visit and then maybe pay for it's own refurbishments

 

The point stays the same then. Anyway, this will soon just descend in to a typical Monarchy thread...Queen good/bad etc, I can feel it going on a tangent already. The overall thing here is that it's being funded in the same way as usual, which no-one usually moans about and the benefits of the refurbishment far outweigh the cons of not doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

The point stays the same then. Anyway, this will soon just descend in to a typical Monarchy thread...Queen good/bad etc, I can feel it going on a tangent already. The overall thing here is that it's being funded in the same way as usual, which no-one usually moans about and the benefits of the refurbishment far outweigh the cons of not doing it.

I'm not fussed either way I was just responding to your 'living there' comment that didn't in itself justify the tourist argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm not fussed either way I was just responding to your 'living there' comment that didn't in itself justify the tourist argument.

 

Sorry Davie, I'll just address that a little more clearly, quickly then. Yes historically there would still be an attachment which would provide interest to some and would indeed generate money and tourism. However, my opinion is that the current set of Royals (QE2 onwards) are the ones which have created the most worldwide interest and especially now in times when it's much easier to travel the globe than ever before They're current, continuing attachment to the building provides more a pull than if they weren't there or never were. With the Queens coronation being televised, it allowed people all over the world to get a better look at the monarchy, and has done since, which I think then helps to garner interest and helps to fuel the tourism. People feel closer to them by seeing them on TV etc and so possibly feel more inclined to visit the Queens residence. Just my opinion though.

 

EDIT: Sorry if that doesn't read particularly well, I was going back and forth between typing and working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...