palQ

only the queen doen't have to pay taxes. and recently she entered into an agreement to pay - which we then give back to her in the civil list.

don't expect her heirs to be paying inheritance tax though, unlike most of the rest of us - a sore point as house prices as up again, following the stock market problems.

regards, ann

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4680.asp

The Queen gets a sum of money to cover the official jobs done by her frp, which she may cover expenses for other members of the family who take these jobs on. In return, the government receives the income from various Crown estates.

Tax is paid on the commercial operations of the Crown estates, as well as on the income from those private finances which are not part of the Crown estates.

There's a separate sum to support the buildings, art collections and so on (but the only reason why Buckingham Palace opened at all was to raise money to pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle). And there's always room for argument about what level of state ceremonial we really want.

Thanks annhig and PL in enhancing my understanding of these matters. Obviously i'm no fan of royalty but heck if UK wants one, it's a democractic country!

I wonder if there is any clamor for Buckingham Palace to be open more on a year-round basis, as it's part of the national patrimony, and at least to me should be more accessible to average bloke who pays for its upkeep apparently.

Or may the six weeks in late summer, when the queen's in Scotland is enough.

I believe when the Windsor fire happened and palace was reluctantly opened to tourists to help pay for repairs it was supposed to be a one or two off deal. But it now seems annually. Maybe that's enough to sate public appetite to see it.

Palaces, schmalaces. We've got rather a lot to be going on with, one way and another. But at the moment, BP is a combination of home, office and official hospitality suite - no doubt there are all sorts of ways to re-balance the different interests involved, but I wouldn't anticipate dramatic change. That's not the point of the institution anyway; 80-year-old ladies aren't on the whole inclined to fancy the idea; and their fussy middle-aged sons tend to have their eye on the inheritance. But you never know.

Hi, palQ,

Don't imagine there'll be much clamour to open it for longer [it's already open during the time she's on hols in July/aug] from us brits. Only people interested are the over 80s and tourists!

regards, ann

"I wonder if there is any clamor for Buckingham Palace to be open more on a year-round basis"

If you go to a BP garden party - as tens of thousands do every year - one way of getting in is through the gates in the Mall, across the front courtyard, then through the palace for a while to the garden outside. What's interesting is to watch how Middle England (most garden party guests are county councillors, long-standing charity workers and the like) behave as they go through the palace.

With remarkably little interest. Buckingham Palace isn't, and never has been, any more spectacular than the big houses (Blenheim, Chatsworth, Castle Howard, etc, etc, etc) Britain's grandest landowners threw up: if anything indeed, the opposite. And Middle England, as Patrick hints, is pretty familiar with the interiors of big 18th century houses, since visiting them at weekends is one of the country's most popular pastimes.

Buckingham Palace isn't the equivalent of the White House: it's merely the official residence of the Head of State - a political impotent. Nothing of any significance ever happens there, and there's no shortage of similar buildings, or of other things to see in London. So there's no real interest in seeing it.

Now eavesdropping on what happens in the official residence of the Head of Government. That would sell a few tickets.