As for the whether the Queen can vote, I found something here:
" “Although not prohibited by law,” the U.K. parliament website says, “it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.” "
So it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote.
Yet you said ‘…that they should have the right to vote’ - to which I replied they already have that right to vote, which they do - so the Queen can vote - whether constitutional or not, or considered constitutional or not.
I said that before I knew that it wasn’t prohibited by law. Now however, I am confused. If it is not Constitutional for her to vote, then she doesn’t really have the right to vote. Also if it is not constitutional for her to vote, doesn’t that mean it is unlawful for her to vote? Maybe it is different in your country, but in mine, the Constitutional is the highest level of law in our country. If something in our country is unconstitutional, it is but definition unlawful.
Well what do you think will happen eventually if they go unrepaired for long enough?
The Royals would have eventually pay the repairs themselves? - as they are on the ones living in them, and are responsible for the upkeep of them - as has been repeatedly said before, no?
What if they truly can not afford the needed repairs themselves?
I think this ends the conversation on the subject as it seems we’re going in ever-decreasing circles here.
perhaps we shall see.