THE release of the Royal Family’s annual accounts yesterday provoked the usual outrage from those with republican tendencies.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. There is a sizeable minority of people in this country who are anti-monarchy and they have valid views which should be heard.

What republicans tend to forget is the way in which the monarchy is funded was changed in 2011.

Since then, the Queen has received a grant taken from the profits made by the Crown Estate, which owns property on behalf of the monarch.

Last year the Crown Estate made a profit of £285 million – money that goes directly into the government’s coffers. Back to the taxpayer, in other words.

Some 15 per cent of the Crown Estate’s profits are returned to the Queen by the government as a grant. These days, that is how public funds are spent on the monarchy.

Republicans will say this is still too much of our money being given to the richest woman in the world.

They might be right, but it is clear the monarchy – via the Crown Estate – is delivering more money into the public purse than it is taking out.

One issue included in yesterday’s accounts that made a few headlines was the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

It is estimated the palace needs £150 million spent on it, largely to remove asbestos, and it has been suggested the Queen may have to move out while this work takes place.

Let’s not get too emotional about this – she’ll probably find somewhere else to stay.

But what did strike me about this bit of news was that a small number of MPs suggested the refurbishment should be paid for by the Queen and not the taxpayer.

Again, it is not an argument without merit.

The refurbishment cost for Buck House, however, pales into insignificance when compared to the estimated repair bill for the Palace of Westminster – the place where MPs do their work.

To bring Westminster up to scratch will cost at least £3 billion – and if it happens it will be you and me paying for it.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has warned that MPs and peers might have to move out of Westminster if the refurbishment and repairs are not carried out.

The 19th century building – rebuilt after a huge fire in 1834 – suffers from flooding, has crumbling stone work and contains asbestos.

A study in 2012 suggested the damage to the Palace of Westminster would be irreversible without renovation.

In these days of austerity, £150 million for Buckingham Palace and £3 billion for the Palace of Westminster seem like costs that simply cannot be justified.

But what would be the cost of not carrying out these works?

Both buildings are enormous tourist attractions and bring tens of millions into the UK economy every year. Is saving money now the right course of action if it ends up losing the nation money in the long-run?

I don’t know the answer, but the government will have to come up with one soon.

Quite how it will justify such public expenditure at a time when the welfare budget is being slashed is anyone’s guess.

But I do wonder whether not spending the money that is needed is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Anything that has a value also has a cost.

The question is: what value do we place on our heritage?