Minimising the impact of the grant on us all is the real red herring. It's the principle of the thing. He's one of the country's richest men yet we get to pay for his new roof "because it's a state asset." Really? It's actually a very average building and an "asset" to no-one except brainless tourists who go to gawp through the railings. And you'd have a tough time showing that its presence brings in any extra revenue, as (as has been mentioned several times before) hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country. We'd get by very nicely thank you in terms of tourism without their "assets." Pretending that it doesn't matter because it's only the price of a half-pint he's stealing from each and every one of us is like me justifying stealing a bunch of bananas from Sainsbury's because "they're only worth a quid." Yeah, right...