THE time of year is fast approaching when the country’s pensioners will receive their winter fuel and cold weather payments, something for them to look forward to as temperatures plunge below freezing. But spare a thought for one poor OAP - Elizabeth Windsor, otherwise known as The Queen.
Her draughty old detached house - that's Buckingham Palace, just one of her properties - has not been decorated since the 1950s and is so run down that its refurbishment – including the replacement of 78 bathrooms, 500 toilets and sinks and 1,500 doors – will cost the taxpayer £369 million and take ten years to complete. And that's only if the builders keep to their estimates and deadlines, of course.
Now, here’s the rub – as we live through one of the toughest periods of austerity the country has ever been forced to endure, it's taxpayers who are expected to pay for the renovation of Her Majesty's grace and favour home.
Mismanagement is nothing new in the royal household. MPs on the public accounts committee have previously criticised the Royals for not carrying out adequate maintenance on the properties in their care, but this criticism appears to have been ignored. Royal flunkeys say the renovation plan is an attempt to “future-proof” Buck House against potential future mishaps.
Not only is the spend sick-making in a nation where foodbanks are the norm, but the royals could easily raise revenue by opening the palace to the public all-year round. Mrs Windsor only spends around a third of her working year in the place, but the royals have so far refused to extend its public opening.
If any other owner of several properties had to carry out repairs to one of them, they would be expected to pay for it themselves by digging into their savings, borrowing against the value of their assets or selling assets to foot the bill, so why should the Windsors be any different to the rest of us? If the royal household cannot properly look after their palaces and castles - like titled nuisance neighbours - perhaps they should be taken off their hands.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel