Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

What the Royals cost us

Mark Adams
by Lovemoney Staff Mark Adams on 13 July 2010  |  Comments 41 comments

Like her subjects, the Queen has announced that she'll have to make do and mend as the Royal finances are squeezed by the UK budget crisis - but how much do the Royal Family actually cost us each year? And what do we get in return? Find out

What the Royals cost us

We’re all feeling the pinch as the credit crunch gives way to the new age of austerity - and even the Queen isn’t immune to the economic downturn. In last month’s Budget Chancellor George Osborne announced that the Civil List - the Government’s financial package that funds the Queen’s official duties - would be frozen at £7.9m for the current financial year.

Yet that doesn’t tell the whole story - the amount provided by the Civil List has actually remained unchanged since 1990. In real terms, the value of the payment has fallen by 76% over the past 20 years - yet the Royals haven’t been forced to send their crowns to “cash for gold” services or ditch the Daimlers for public transport.

So how much are they setting us back every year? And where’s the rest of the money coming from?

How the Royals receive it

Accounts published this month in the Royal Household’s annual report go some way to answering the questions. In the year ending March 31 the Royals cost us a total of £38.2m - which equates to 62p per person in the UK. In addition to the £7.9m from the Civil List, the Queen drew an extra £6.5m from a reserve fund built up over the years by saving portions of her allocated budget.

That adds up to £14.4m - so where did the remaining £23.8m come from? The report shows that the Queen received £19.7m in additional Government grants, including a £15.4m payment towards the upkeep of the Royal residences, £3.9m in travel expenses and a further £3.9m for related costs met by Government departments. The remainder comes from annuity funds.

It should be noted that these grants and taxation funds are supplemented by the Royals’ own money-making activities. The Royal purse received £3.6m last year in management charges and rent from properties let out commercially on Crown estates, while revenue from admissions to the Royal palaces and estates raised a further £1m.

The report also notes that the Queen and Prince Charles fund part of their official duties with income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall (i.e. real estate) respectively - but no figures are disclosed.

How the Royals spend it

The annual report shows that the Royal Family has actually been cutting its cloth to meet the straightened times. Total expenditure was down more than £3m from the previous year with significant savings made to the Royal travel bill (down 40% from £6.5m to £3.9m) and to the sum set aside for maintenance projects, which was cut by £500,000.

The report shows that the Royals have gone some way to embracing the new mood of austerity - but it also contains evidence of some lavish outlays that will enrage republicans.

Donna Werbner explains who are the winners and losers in this week’s Budget!

The breakdown of Civil List spending presents a more measured picture. Over the past year, the biggest expenditure for the Royals was staff costs for the Royals’ 1,200 employees at £10.4m, followed by the £3.9m in travel costs outlined above. Some £1.3m was spent on catering and hospitality - including £700,000 on the Queen’s summer garden parties - while housekeeping costs came in at £600,000.    

Perhaps the greatest extravagance can be found in the Royals’ £3.9m travel bill. In addition to the eye-watering £1.2m spent by Princes Charles and Andrew on private jets and chartered flights, accounts show that the Queen spent £374,000 on a private jet to the West Indies: Charles and Camilla’s trip to the Vatican last spring cost £85,700: and the £32,000 spent on the Queen’s visit to the Heinz factory in Wigan.

What we get in return

It’s hard to put a specific figure on the return we get from the Royals. Supporters of the Monarchy point to the unquantifiable, but enormous, boost to UK tourist revenue the Royals generate. It’s also claimed that state costs for the Monarchy are lower than those for Republics like France and the US - but because the Royals have no administrative function, this makes for an “apples and oranges” comparison.

What we do know - but again, can’t ascribe a monetary value to - are the civic duties the Royals perform every year.  The annual report shows that the Queen performed 359 official engagements last year (including 75 with the Duke of Edinburgh), including 27 Royal Investitures and seven large-scale garden parties. Prince Andrew also works as an official trade envoy to the Middle East - and his efforts are said to bring in contracts worth significant sums.

Finally, there is the revenue from the Crown Estates to factor in - last year saw the Royal property portfolio return £226.5m to the Treasury in the form of an income surplus. And that means tabloid suggestions that the Queen may go bankrupt when her reserve fund runs out in 2012 are more than a little wide of the mark...

And remember – if you’re spending like a minor Royal you can regain control of your finances with our online banking tool and make major savings by making it your goal to manage on a small budget.  

More: 10 great British brands sold off to foreigners

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (41)

  • republic1
    Love rating 1
    republic1 said

    Interesting. Quite a few errnoneous errors and assumptions there.

    Let's be clear, while the annual top-up payment to the Civil List fund has been the same for 20 years, spending of Civil List money has risen from around £4m to over £14m a year, a real terms increase of around 90%.

    The £38m of spending that is admitted to does not include costs to other public bodies such as councils and police, or the security budget which is estimated to be over £100m a year. Total cost is more likely to be in the region of £180m a year.

    The Crown Estate is not, and never has been, the royals' property. The palaces are also not their own property, so it is incorrect to claim that "these grants and taxation funds are supplemented by the Royals’ own money-making activities" or that "there is the revenue from the Crown Estates to factor in". Neither is true. The palace does bring in revenue from ticket sales, but when parliament asked them to expand this by allowing tourists in all year round, rather than for just two months of the year, the palace refused. Hardly an example of trying to "do their bit". The Crown Estate revenue cannot be used to offset the cost because it would continue to flow to the Treasury if we abolished the monarchy or simply scrapped the Civil List.

    The report may "note" that the Queen and Prince Charles fund part of their official duties with income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall (i.e. real estate) respectively, but as you point out: no figures are disclosed. As these figures are not audited by the National Audit Office or openned to proper scrutiny we can't just take their word for it or assume this part funding has any value or worth. The royals have a history of demanding all they can get from the taxpayer, so it is unlikely their own revenue would pay for much. Charles received £1.6m last year in return for around 750 hours of official engagements between him and his wife - at around £2000 an hour that's pretty poor value.

    You say: "It’s hard to put a specific figure on the return we get from the Royals", but zero is about as specific as you can get.

    Supporters do indeed make the bizarre claim of some "unquantifiable, but enormous, boost to UK tourist revenue the Royals generate", but alas for them there is not one shred of evidence to support this assertion. If tourism were an appropriate issue in a debate about constitutional reform it could easily be argued that it would benefit from abolition of the monarchy - the palaces and castles would then be fully open all year round.

    You say: "It’s also claimed that state costs for the Monarchy are lower than those for Republics like France and the US - but because the Royals have no administrative function, this makes for an “apples and oranges” comparison." Well indeed, there's no comparison there. Where there is a comparison is with the presidents of Germany, Ireland and Austria. They range from as little as £2m to at most £26m a year.

    You add: "The annual report shows that the Queen performed 359 official engagements last year (including 75 with the Duke of Edinburgh), including 27 Royal Investitures and seven large-scale garden parties." Yet most engagements last around one hour, for which the Queen has to do absolutely no preparation and for which she is never held to account. So at an average of 7 hours a week that's not much of a return.

    There is no evidence that Prince Andrew's 'efforts' have any value for British trade whatsoever, aside from bland and unsupported assertions from UKTI and the palace. Andrew commissioned his own audit of his role, carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, promising to make the findings public. The report was written but then kept secret. I wonder why.

    Report on 13 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Der Krobsen
    Love rating 1
    Der Krobsen said

    The usual fawning article about the royal family. We really can't afford this antiquated institution.

    The travel bill is beyond belief. Weren't the young princes in South Africa shortly before jetting off for a polo match in the States? Austere times indeed.

    Bearing in mind how much the press dote on them, isn't this an ideal PFI opportunity for the Daily Express and other to sponsor them?

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Peter Adams
    Love rating 3
    Peter Adams said

    For all the moans by the republicans about the cost of the monarchy it is very little compared to the cost of EU membership at £45million PER DAY

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • GEN
    Love rating 3
    GEN said

    I don't suppose that republic1 could back up his assertion that the Crown Estate does not belong to the Royals with facts? The usual sour grapes and misinformation from 2 republicans (republic 1 & Der Krobsen) - thank God they continue to be in a minority. 

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Cleisthenes
    Love rating 5
    Cleisthenes said

    Both the article & Republic1 make mistakes regarding Crown Estates.

     

    The crown estates were indeed originally the "private" property of the royal Family - and they used them to fund all government & personal activity.

    Up until the seventeenth centaury there was no formal distinction between royal & government spending.

    It was the inability Crown Estates to entirely fund Royal/Government spending that lead to Parliaments being called.

     

    In the eighteenth century the Royal Family was virtually bankrupt and were selling off crown estates. This lead to Parliamentary intervention- George III surrendered most of the Crown Estates (except those of the Duchies of Lancaster & Cornwall) to parliament in return for the Civil list.

     

    Since then some of the more frugal royals (Like Queen Victoria) saved up and bought new land (like Balmoral & Sandringham). The Queen currently has £35.3 million "reserve" - made up savings/unspent Civil list income.

     

    While the Crown Estates under Parliamentary control have prospered and are now worth £6 billion from which that the Government gets (as you say) £226.5 million a year in revenue. As you say Civil list is £7.9 million a year - plus those extras.

     

    Personally I think that Parliament should hand back either all or most of the Crown Estates and Royals should give up the Civil list & the extras - then the Royals should then themselves entirely from the Crown Estate income and pay tax.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • horsburghn
    Love rating 0
    horsburghn said

    Explanation of the "who owns the Crown Estates" from the Crown Estates website FAQ - http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

    "Who owns The Crown Estate?

    The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign.

    The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

    To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use."

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Fairy
    Love rating 17
    Fairy said

    I think people have forgotten about dimplomatic advantage the Royal Family give us. Their influence has paid a large part in improving relations with various oil rich countries such as Qatar and Brunei.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • martin9325
    Love rating 0
    martin9325 said

    The country has to have a head of state and the cost of offering protection and supplying security to that head of state will not change whether it is The Queen or a superannuated politician so the security cost is a red herring.

    The head of state also has to entertain foreign guests, make state visits to other countries and host garden parties for public spirited citizens who do charitable things. All heads of state do that sort of thing, not just the Queen, and so that is a bit of a red herring too.

    The real question is would you rather have an elected ceremonial head of state (think retired politician or national treasure), a presidential head of government (Sarkozy or Mugabe types?) or keep what we have. The cost would almost certainly be much the same for each.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • carrotmaster
    Love rating 3
    carrotmaster said

    Republicans also typically ignore the fact that the Queen does in fact pay tax, despite there being no obligation for her to do so - and at approximately £6m per year, this is a not insubstantial sum. I would also say that most of the other republican arguments follow the same logic - if you can't put a fiscal number to something, it must be worthless. If you think that way, you're guilty of the accountants' error - people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    Let's be straight here. This country is a democracy and a monarchy. Most of the world envies us as a result.  Indeed, we owe pretty much all of our residual status - and influence - in the world to the fact that we have a monarchy. If we had a bad monarch I could understand some of the criticism, but we don't - we have probably the best in the world. Time to appreciate the royals.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rpb
    Love rating 26
    rpb said

    republic1: 'You say: "It’s hard to put a specific figure on the return we get from

    the Royals", but zero is about as specific as you can get.'

    Anyone care to do some research on this? I would have thought Buckingham Palace, the Changing of the Guard and the chance to see the Queen are all high on the list of many tourists from a number of countries around the world, and sales of all the mugs and pencils with royal stuff on them must also be huge. Certainly if the royalty were done away with the tourist revenue would continue for a while, but one of the big tourist attractions is our *current* monarchy - loads of other countries have ex-monarchies.

    I would be extremely surprised if the indirect income from having a monarchy doesn't cover the associated costs, including the security bill, several times over, and saying it is "zero" is certainly very wide of the mark.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mistyeyed
    Love rating 8
    mistyeyed said

    since the tax paid to the government from the income from the Duchy of Lancaster and

    Duchy of Cornwall far exceeds what the government pays to the royal purse, the Queen and her family actually cost us (the taxpayer) nothing. Most of the money paid to the Queen covers the wages of employees, the royal garden parties are held to say thank you and to show recognitation to hundreds of ordinary people who serve the community. How many of your Grand-parents are still working in their 80's and how many of them when they scratch their noses get their pictures plastered over the world's papers? i am sure if asked most of the young royals would say that they wish they had been born into ordinary households I don't think any of us have a choice as to what level of existence we get born into. I would like to ask the anti-royal bashers what they have contributed to society, how many of them are collecting unemployment benefit, how many have ever even had a job. it is always the "great unwashed" and idle of society coining in taxpayers money who seem to have the most to say about things they know nothing about and who don't mind spending other people's money on themselves.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 76
    eLJay said

    Lets get down to basics - we are paying to support one of the richest women in the world who wrapped Churchill around her little finger so that she could get an agreement not to pay any tax, so the Royals actually owe us a fortune in back taxes. If anyone else did that they would have been in jail for years.

    If this is meant to be a democracy so we should all have equal rights so I should be able to have the same deal the Queen had, so no taxes and free public services for me as well please!

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Grayham
    Love rating 9
    Grayham said

    With a royal family (rather than a Presidnet) we get several people (The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Chiles, his sones, etc.) that can undertake important duties, so even if they cost a bit more then they are still good value.

    For example you just need to think back to the Blair years where he was wanting "Blair Forse One" whilst the royals were still having no increase in the civil list. If you can't remember back that far only need to remember the outragous expenses that our MP's were claiming to see that a President may not be such good value for money.

    A lot of people may wonder what we get from the just less than £500 million a year (about £8/person or 13 times as much as the royal family) that it costs us to run Parliament, yet very few people would suggest we got rid of it because we could do something else that may or may not cost us a less.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • propertyspiv
    Love rating 4
    propertyspiv said

    Twom quick thouoghts:

    1:value for money from public funds;

    1: benefits for tourism, trade and national pride from all of the Royals 38M

       prattling wally Jonathan Ross on TV once a week 6M

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • propertyspiv
    Love rating 4
    propertyspiv said

    Twom quick thouoghts:

    1:value for money from public funds;

    1: benefits for tourism, trade and national pride from all of the Royals 38M

       prattling wally Jonathan Ross on TV once a week 6M

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • propertyspiv
    Love rating 4
    propertyspiv said

    Next thought.

    cost of President Blair & Cherie (as republican head of state) probably 25 M

    cost of all Royals 38M

    I know which I think is better value dont you

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MrsTrellisOfNorthWales
    Love rating 18
    MrsTrellisOfNorthWales said

    "If this is meant to be a democracy so we should all have equal rights so I should be able to have the same deal the Queen had, so no taxes and free public services for me as well please!"

    To that, may I also add: No Inheritance Tax. The Sovereign, for some reason, is exempt from having to pay it.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Andy-S
    Love rating 0
    Andy-S said

    I think Monarchy of the country are one of the biggest tourist attractions that we have to offer. Without them the buildings they occupy just become one more ancient monument that still need kept up and we have enough of them round the country.

    I don't come from a privileged background but was very lucky when I was younger to go to one of the queens garden parties. It was quite humbling to see the members of the armed forces, voluntary workers and lots of others who in some way had done there bit for the country. It's such a unique and special way of rewarding the people and one that I would hate to see removed.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • clutters
    Love rating 1
    clutters said

    One thing that does not seem to have been addressed is whether the head of state should or should not have a powerful intellect.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • unsworthsteve
    Love rating 22
    unsworthsteve said

    Seems to be a popular subject judging by the responses. Personally speaking I don't read love.money for subjects like these and haven't therefore read it. If you are going to become a news/magazine thread I'll unsubscribe.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DavePea
    Love rating 0
    DavePea said

    Put aside any preferences between a political nominee or someone above politics, and how much either would cost.

    Think where the money goes... Salaries for people who work for the royals are spent in the UK. = maid, groom, secretary, cleaner, flunkey. Maintenance on buildings is spent in the UK, = plumber, decorator, drain unblocker. Travel is a problem, but that's partly not their fault - They use British airlines, but we haven't got a British car company, and heaven knows who now owns the rail companies.....

    However you calculate how much they get, most goes back into our economy, and personally I'ld rather have Prince Charles than Prince Mandelson.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LateDeveloper
    Love rating 22
    LateDeveloper said

    I don't know why people bleat about paying for the monarchy so much. Historically we have had much peece through thei monarchs diplomatic solutions and had a lot of trade with coutries that would much rather have invaded and conqured such a small country. Even in the modern age, the Queen still acts as an ambassoder for this country and helps bolster trade through her visits and diplomatic skills to other countries.

    Then we have a well kept stately homes where we generate a hell of a lot more money in revenue from tourists, than we actually pay out to the queen, counts in terms of billions, not millions in foreign currency.

    Lets face it, the people who whine about this, are the same ones who will whine about anyone with over a few million pounds in the bank, saying they should have the same job or the same homes.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • whurr
    Love rating 0
    whurr said

    A couple of quick home truths that the pro-royalists should get real on:

    1) We'll probably never know how much the Windsors cost because they have never disclosed everything to public scrutiny. What they do say comes out only begrudgingly and so probably never will.

    2) The argument they bring in tourism is rubbish - not only is there no evidence to support this contention people still go to Versailles in France for example not to mention former 'royal' palaces in places such as Prague and Romania. C'mon guys, can you really imagine someone flying from New York JUST BECAUSE he might succeed in the zillionth chance and see Brenda or Brian? No - they'd still come anyway.

    3) One point not thus far argued is every week the PM has to report to Brenda and explain what's going on in the government. Apparently she gives the benefit of her counsel. Why? Does she know how much our gas bills are and advise accordingly? If this isn't a waste of time and resources then I don't know what is.

    4) Flowing from this is the sad but true fact that actually the Windsors are a pretty dim-witted lot. Doubtless this has followed years of inbreeding and a closetted lifestyle that is not exactly open to new ideas. Brenda never went to school let alone uni (ok, not her fault) and had what can only be described as a primary education by her nanny. At the other end Brian was traumatised at boarding school thanks to his dad's sadistic desire to 'make a man of him', and later flopped despite the best university education anyone could offer. Poor man, no wonder he seems most at home with deprived kids. Nonetheless his tirades against architects and modern design (something that we Brits are rather good at, actually) has caused much damage, and his philistine views would be a joke if he weren't able to put them into practice.

    5) The 'alternative' cost of a President is another red herring. As Johann Hari for one has argued, we could make the Speaker of the House of Commons our head of state for little extra cost. Democracy, good value, educated people, no unashamed pampered luxury (do the Windsors really need 1,200 staff?) ... seems a pretty brain-dead question to me.

    Tell you what, if republicans really are in a minority let's have a full debate then a referendum. What have royalists got to lose?

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • NatFeerick
    Love rating 16
    NatFeerick said

    What 'yah-boo-sucks' comments some people have posted here!

    I like that we have a royal family - not all countries do and those that don't envy us ours - in fact some that do, envy us ours! They're a huge tourist draw, contribute a lot to our relationships with other countries, especially when some junior government minister cocks it up. How many people the Queen's age fulfill 359 work engagements every year? At one a day that would be less than a week off! She's renowned for her frugality - ok, it isn't on the same scale as most of us, but neither are her responsibiliities. She routinely recycles her clothes into fresh outfits instead of having brand new ones made, she has volunteered not to renew aging royal boats & trains in recent years and I believe there are some staterooms in BH that haven't been decorated since she came to the throne. She got on a public train to Sandringham this year - but when it comes to cars, she can hardly trade in the Daimler for a Fiesta - they need specially fitting out with security & reinforced doors, as do government cars.

    I could go on all day. I won't - but I just wish the anti-monarchists would do their homework properly before they throw out the family silverware.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • NatFeerick
    Love rating 16
    NatFeerick said

    To 'whurr' - re: point 5 of your tirade, where you suggest a parliament led by the Speaker of the House as Head of State would be DEMOCRATIC - the last Government railroaded us into an unjustified war by lying to us, that's not Democratic - GOOD VALUE - yeah right, have a look at the huge waste of public money in the civil service - with EDUCATED PEOPLE - sadly under Labour's drive to put 'ordinary folk' in parliament at any cost, we now have some of the least well-educated people in parliament for a generation - and (sorry this last bit made me laugh) NO UNASHAMED PAMPERED LUXURY....two words...Expenses Scandal!

    Don't work for the government do you - only almost all of the jobs the last Labour government 'created' were in the Civil Service or government quangos...which we pay for...

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • whurr
    Love rating 0
    whurr said

    Hi NatFeerick, no I don't work for the government (not sure what that's got to do with anything).

    But thank you for endorsing my point about democracy - if you hadn't noticed we no longer have a Labour government. We can choose our Prime Minister, so why not our head of state as well? If you don't like your MP's expenses then you can vote him or her out - why not our head of state as well?

    And as far as I know no MP claimed for a butler to put toothpaste on his brush or dress him or her every morning - Brian and Brenda do!

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    I'm sympathetic towards anyone on state benefits. My friend is on Job seekers allowance and never has any money; I reassure him that the Queen doesn't carry any cash either...

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • NatFeerick
    Love rating 16
    NatFeerick said

    whurr - you know full well you are choosing to miss the point completely. I didn't endorse your point about democracy, I highlighted the fact it is not necessarily the panacea you dream of, even with a new coalition government (yes, I'm fully up to speed thank you).

    The rest of your drivel I'm afraid I just find incredibly ill-mannered.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • whurr
    Love rating 0
    whurr said

    For the record NatFeerick I also support proportional representation as the present system we have is indeed less than perfect and therefore not a panacea. I never said it was. My point is anyone who claims to believe in democracy of whatever system is or is not in use has much explaining to do if s/he also supports a head of state chosen by accident of birth and not the people.

    Questions of expense and the Windsors' palpable lack of intelligence etc are certainly interesting and relevant but ultimately peripheral.

    And the fact that you now resort to unguarded language suggests that you know deep down that the facts I stated are correct, and that ultimately you are trying to defend the indefensible. I wish you luck.

    PS As this is a money page why has no-one pointed out that most of the world's wealthiest countries (USA, Japan, Germany, France etc) got rid of their monarchies yonks ago?

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • NatFeerick
    Love rating 16
    NatFeerick said

    whurr, I would imagine you've driven any sensible posters away - certainly I can't be bothered with trying to get you to see sense as I suspect it just isn't possible. Enjoy your ill-informed views.

    Mark Adams - excellent article, and despite what others have said highly relevant to a money forum.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • propertyspiv
    Love rating 4
    propertyspiv said

    I am amused that none of the anti monarchists have responded to my point about value for money.

    I get the feeling that it is jealousy and the rather unattractive modern British need driven by most of our media to reduce everything to the very lowest common denominator which fuel the antis(whether it be anti monarchists or anti-foxhunting) rather than anything more profound.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sdav1es
    Love rating 0
    sdav1es said

    Get rid of the lot; they are a total liability and a huge burden to the tax payers. While everyone is cutting down on their life style and losing jobs, these idiots are jet setting and spending huge amout of the tax payer's money. They should all have to go to work and earn their keep as everyone else.

    Can we also get rid of the good for nothing bankers please and recover the trillions in profit they have already made?

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • martin9325
    Love rating 0
    martin9325 said

    "we could make the Speaker of the House of Commons our head of state for little extra cost."

    Who are you kidding? You don't have to be pro or anti royalty to appreciate that being head of state of the 5th biggest economy in the world demands a lot of entertaining and travel which the speaker doesn't have to undertake. As head of state they would require a lot more security etc. Speakers House isn't large enough for state entertaining and as Buckingham Palace is a listed building and so has to be maintained anyway it would almost certainly become the home of the head of state, or they would use it for formal entertaining. Without the Queen its shabbiness might be seen as inappropriate and so my guess is we would all spend a fortune doing it up. All the other state owned residences are open to the public all the time and are unlikely to earn any additional income with or without a Royal family.

    This debate was about money, it is in Love Money - and so the question is would we save money if we had an elected head of state rather than an hereditary one. I don't think we would save anything, and I have a horrid suspicion it might cost us a lot more.

    Finally, as someone who worked in inbound travel for years, starting back in the 60's, let me confirm that the Royals are a big marketing plus in promoting the UK. Not because anyone expects to see any of them, but because the changing of the guard, Windsor Castle etc are spectacles, and have a meaning because we have a monarch who is being guarded and who lives there - that obviously isn't a reason to keep a monarchy, but is legitimately seen as part of the financial equation.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mistyeyed
    Love rating 8
    mistyeyed said

    The Queen and her family most certainly do pay taxes so i don't know who you are talking about when saying that you should be the same as the Queen paying no taxes. The anti-royals read bits and pieces of ill informed information about the royals and immediately jump on the bandwaggon to get rid of them. Not surprising really when the same idiots voted in Gordon Brown and cronies for 13 miserable years. I guess that just about sums up the mentality.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Itoldem
    Love rating 17
    Itoldem said

    I have no doubt that a republican system would cost us far more. It should be remembered that even after a president's term of office has ended the country would be paying his pension and for his protection for the rest of his life. Supposing the Queen had been a president and retired after 8 years in office - ie in 1961. We would have been paying for her pension and protection for 49 years to date. No doubt that period is well above average for a president but during those 49 years there could have been at least 6 more presidents who had retired and for whom pension and security has to be paid for. At least the Queen has put in 57 years service to date - and I suspect that is far longer than any of the republicans writing on here have worked.

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • twinkhughes
    Love rating 0
    twinkhughes said

    The Queen is the finest ambasiter this country could ever have. She speaks many languages fluently and knows more about diplomatic deplomacy than any politician. She keeps up with all the news of other heads of state and will converse with such heads about thier familes. As head of the commowealth she has calmed many situations that might have led to war. She is the most respected head of state in the world

    Report on 15 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • horsburghn
    Love rating 0
    horsburghn said

    Well, there seem to be a lot of "probablies" from the monarchists with very little actual investigation to back them up. All of the arguments above and a good deal more are already more than covered on this website http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/Win%20the%20argument/index.php so don't need repeating here.

    From a financial perspective, we could be getting much better value for money along with much better qualified people in the role who will actually do the job professionally (or we get to sack them). No more gaffes from Prince Philip. No more meddling from Prince Charles in homeopathy promotion and architectural design preferences. No more illicit trips in helicopters to show off by landing in their girlfriend's parents' garden. It is well past time we stopped being grateful, forelock-tugging subjects and started being democratically involved citizens.

    Report on 16 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Cleisthenes
    Love rating 5
    Cleisthenes said

    In a Republic:

    Would Old Etonians still run the country?

    Yes.

     

    What would we gain?

    A politician.

     

    What would we lose?

    Something quintessential

    Report on 16 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Savvy chic
    Love rating 20
    Savvy chic said

    Our Royal family is the most expensive in Europe. Prince Charles is independantly wealthy from his Duchy of Cornwall.

    I do not want a Republic - can you imagine someone like Tony Blair as our President? However, I do believe it is ridiculous that ordinary working people have to pay them huge amounts of money so that they can persist in their belief that they are better than the rest of us.

    Report on 16 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • livepeanuts
    Love rating 1
    livepeanuts said

    This Country has the best system of government, where the Head of State grows naturally alongside His or Her people as the Princes are doing now, getting proper formation for their future roll. This system protects us from unexpected heads of state as those who turn up in republics from time to time and who can't match the quality, inspiration and leadership we get from our Head of State, in our case the Queen.

    Ours is a most natural and logical form of government and which is an extension of a natural family concept to the whole of politics. We can make improvements here and there but it is much better than the more un-natural form of government which comes with a republic which means “public thing” of which just anybody within a powerful group can turn up and be in charge of.  Mostly all is done with very short term views.

    Generally republics end in oligarchies where a few are in the real government. So the image of the Head of State is lost with all its potential. The greatness of England seems to be more a function of the power of the Monarch and not of the House of Commons through out the ages. Just take a look at the little time the House of Commons has had sway over the House of Lords and how they have completely messed it up and ruined its image and its usefulness, perhaps we should start going the other way with the House of Commons. We would do better with a stronger Monarch supported by the short term views of the politicians in the Commons and the long term views of the best from different fields of activities of the Nation, by the way government of the best is also called aristocracy, sadly not what the Commons have turned the House of Lords in to.

    Report on 19 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    I thought that every base had been touched in this(mostly)good natured debate,with roughly a 50/50 split between pro & anti royalists

    Then WHAM! someone comes along & tries to defend the House of Lords--are you for real?

    I am very sceptical about many of the statistics given.

    IE if the cost of employing 1200 people is £10.4 million then these people are working for not much more than £150 per week,on average.As most of these workers are in the south of England,how is this feasible?

    One pro royalist said that one of the young Royals had been quoted as saying he/she wished they had been born into a "normal " home.This is all well & good but you may get a different quote if they had to dip in to their own pocket/purse for the next bottle of vintage champagne.

    It really is time that we put to bed this fiction about the monarchy attracting revenue from tourism.Do you really believe that Homer says to Marge"were not going there,theyve sacked their Queen,lets go to Hawaii"

    The tourists come to see the Tower of London,Blackpool Illuminations,the Highland Games,to eat fish & chips & to drink in an English pub,not fogetting Madame Tussauds(to see the monarchy!)

    In response to TWINKHUGHES perhaps you could elucidate on these situations which the Queen "calmed,which might have led to war.

    The only thing I can recall was a mild rebuff for the Scots when devolution was first mooted.

    Perhaps some of the older contributors may recall,as I do,that the Queen entertained Emperor Hirohito(twice) on state visits,and the hurt that this caused to so many brave veterans,who STILL wait for justice.She could,and should have said no.

    I know I am rambling on but would just like to add that I am with SAVVYCHICK.

    I dont want a president but the current set up is far too expensive & we should devise a system of "pay by performance"on terms more in keeping with these straightened times

    Report on 19 July 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1