The Royal Finances

[KathyMoore]

Why does the Queen need to carry cash?

She's got her own money. (literally!)

[Kezza]

When the public go on about people who the public deem as wasting taxpayers money?

I actually believe the British Royal family get very little amount of the money that the governmet gets from tax revenue.

When you consider the fact that the British Royal family probably help to generate millions of pounds into tourism for the country of Great Britain. The money that tourist spend in Great Britian more than likely goes to the government as tax revenue. Plus if you add the millions if not billions of pounds the British government probably make in tax revenue on such things as pokie or gaming machines, Alcohol and cigerettes each year.

I actually think the British Royal family actually use very little of the money that does go into tax revenue each year, and the Queen actually gives some of it back.

If they do at times look they are wasting tax payers money, then they are not the only ones. Because I know that people who are suppose to represent the local council, and get tax payer money to fix up the local roads. Waste the money for the purpose of fixing the roads on a overseas trip with their family.

What does anyone else think on the matter?

[tinkerbell1948]

I tend to agree with you the tourism $$$ ( or pounds LOL don't know where that symbol is on this keyboard although my daughter found the $ one on an English keyboard she is very unimpressed with the exchange rate) would be huge, I have a son and a daughter over there now ..........hubby is British they are visiting rellies but no doubt will do the tourist thing as well. Young Aussies go there in droves

We were there in 1982, I met my m-in-l for the first time at Heathrow after a 24 hour flight from Australia

I understand the Queen now pays income tax is that correct? Do all the RF?

Charles income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall doesn't it? And he has his Charitable Trusts

[Marengo]

I usually find the tourism-factor rather overrated. Do you think that tourists stop coming to London if there would be President Windsor living in Buckingham Palace rather than Queen Elizabeth II? Even if the UK would be a republic they will probably leave most of the changing the guards and such in tact. You only have to look across the channel to see that a republic can be as pompous as a monarchy (and I mean that in the very best meaning of the word ).

People just like to nag about others who earn more than them. If there would be a president in Buckingham palace they would probably nag about his salary, his expenditure (as some do in France for Sarko) etc. Of course these people forget that they have no reason to nag at the costs of a monarchy as republics usually cost more than a monarhy does (a recent study proved that; the Italian republic being the most expensive in relative terms), but that is another matter.

I don't think the benifits of monarchy has to be sought in terms of financial value btw, the main advantage that a monarch has over a president is that a monarch is a neutral head-of-state, above the parties and thus can be a symbol of the national identity and unity. A president usually only has the support of half of the country and are generally less known abroad too (most people in my country know who the King of the Belgians is for example, but they don't have a clue who the German president is).

[tinkerbell1948]

You make a very good point actually when we were over there we went to France even though their Kings and Queens are long gone although rather a bloody way to get rid of a monarchy.

I wonder what the cost would be of establishing a Republic then people would moan about the cost of upkeep of the President especially if he was installed in Buckingham Palace then what to do with the Royal Houses if a republic doesn't use them so people would moan if they were upkept with public money it would be never-ending

Given that Italy have an election every other week or so it seems I'm not surprised at the cost there

[GlitteringTiaras]

I usually find the tourism-factor rather overrated. Do you think that tourists stop coming to London if there would be President Windsor living in Buckingham Palace rather than Queen Elizabeth II?

For a majority of Americans the answer is simple: Yes.

Most people are drawn to and use their emotional senses when it comes to living public history. There is a strong connection knowing that "it" is still real.. alive...functioning. "It" connects with people. So if the monarchy ended, knowing that living piece of history is no longer there, many lose interest and cannot connect. Furthermore, there is that underlying British American connection... everyone knows the story by now.

Simply put: The monarchy is public history... which is different and difficult to explain at 1am.

[Kezza]

Nope no symbol on my computer for UK pounds.
According to wikipedia the Queen pays back the money from her Duchy funds.

[Kezza]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

You make a very good point actually when we were over there we went to France even though their Kings and Queens are long gone although rather a bloody way to get rid of a monarchy.

I wonder what the cost would be of establishing a Republic then people would moan about the cost of upkeep of the President especially if he was installed in Buckingham Palace then what to do with the Royal Houses if a republic doesn't use them so people would moan if they were upkept with public money it would be never-ending

Given that Italy have an election every other week or so it seems I'm not surprised at the cost there

So maybe Australia shouldn't become a republic then.

[Skydragon]

I can't find it at the moment but, a survey was done of tourists in London and over 80% said they would still have come here without the royal family and the Chinese were the only ones who said they were keen to see the Queen. If I get time, I will try to find the article.

So I think, not that not only are some of them overpaid but some are becoming seen as over privileged wasters by many more people, (then again so are politicians).

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I usually find the tourism-factor rather overrated.

Well, this topic has been on TV on and off but every time when the surveys and the statistics come about, this "royal" tourism is not really a great factor in the British tourism, so they report. I was told by a vicar of a parish in a very small non-tourist town that he was receiving quite few tourists from America who were tracing their ancestors back etc., wanting to see their parish registry for the baptism etc.

I do understand that our royal family is one of the most costly houses in the world to run (as in the Western sense) when we compare with the Spanish royal family, and the Swedish or the Japanese one. However, the Queen now pays her tax for her private incomes and she paid for the rent of the apartments at the Kensignton Palace that are occupied by the Prince and Princess Michael (as a part of the Grace and Favour) and also the Prince & Princess sold their lovely country house in Gloucestershire to keep up with their mounting cost etc. I think that the Queen is trying as much as she can within her ability to minimise the cost within her own family. However, even people who are not on the civil list have their life styles pretty much secured by the State indirectly because of the Queen whereas others inc. people who are titled and still living in their stately homes have to earn their money to keep all the buildings etc (as in the case of those beautiful houses such as the Woburn Abbey, the Chatsworth House, the Ragley Hall etc), many people feel that our younger royals are not so desirable etc. How come those Norwegain, Belgian prince or whatever can have such a quieter life like our queen does but just get on with his or her "public" roles etc, they tell to the media that they are only "humans" etc when they themselves have their lives so protected by the state etc etc.

I do so wish to preserve our Crown (though if anybody asks me if the crown which I wish to preserve has to be sat on by the House of Windsor or not is a question) that I do truly hope that all the members of the Royal Family become more aware of their roles and positions so that any republican sort of ideology won't affect our country.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by Kezza

Nope no symbol on my computer for UK pounds.

According to wikipedia the Queen pays back the money from her Duchy funds.

Oh, there was another programme on TV which was to do with her incomes generated from the Duchy of Lancaster (I understand that Her Majesty's Chapel of Savoy belongs to her via this duchy - they have such a lovely choral traditions - Golly, they sing the National Anthem before the Eucharistic Service every Sunday) which is not the property of the Crown but the monarch's private possession. I think this generates some £300m or something but it's a tax free account or whatever.

[PrinceOfCanada]

People who blame the Queen (& by extension the Royal Family) for 'eating up' tax dollars betray a basic lack of understanding of how the Queen's official activities ar financed.

[tommy1716]

The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the monarch - not the Queen herself but is given to her to use personally as the monarch, it automatically passes to whomever is mornarch.
The estate is worth around £300milllion and earned a net profit of about £11million which the Queen has as private income. Although the duchy is not the property of the state the queen can not profit from the sale of its land - i.e. she couldn't say -"let's sell off hte whole lot and make £300million!!" She only has the income.
I think its from this that she pays back the civil list.
Below is its website with finances etc.

The Duchy of Lancaster - Home

[tommy1716]

Oh P.S - i think in a way they are scapegoats, i mean - someone has to do the job and im sure a presdient and his/her staff, advisors etc would cost nearly the same - the buildings such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace would still have toi be mainatained somehow and i can';t see a president (such as Gorson Brown or David Cameron) staying at Number 10. I think a president and a monarchy probably at the end of the day cost abour the same.
Then of course there's the politics factor - i for one love having a head of state who is out of the political arena and above party politics. the thought of President and first Lady Blair makes me shudder.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Um, she actually doesn't 'pay back' the Civil List. The Civil List is income from the Crown Estate, the gross income of which is surrendered by the Monarch to the Government at the beginning of each reign. From those revenues, the government pays roughly 5% (at current figures) to the Queen for official duties--upkeep of the Occupied Palaces, State Visits, etc. Some money from the Civil List is paid to Pss Alexandra and a couple of others. HM repays those amounts only to the government from her private funds--income from the Duchy of Lancaster, of course, and one can only assume that HM has other property and financial interests.

[tommy1716]

Sorry i meant to say she pays back the Parliamentary Annuities paid to members of the royal family apart from herself and Prince Philip. The Duke recived £359,000 a year. Princes Andrew and Edward, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, the Kents and the Gloucesters all recieve annuitites that are repaid by the Queen.
Money from the Duchy goes into the Privy Purse

[MARG]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

. . . Then of course there's the politics factor - i for one love having a head of state who is out of the political arena and above party politics. the thought of President and first Lady Blair makes me shudder.

As does mine when I think of some lame politician as El Presidente! They don't have the nous, pizzazz, class, call it what you will but imagine President and Lady Blair entertaining at the last State Banquet, ugh!!! Yes, definitely apolitical, or extra-political for that matter, is best.

The UK has an incredible edge, why on earth are the media, and some notable republicans trying to kill the golden goose?

As to being a tourist, well "Changing Guards at Buckingham Palace" just wouldn't be the same. A living, breathing institution is something to celebrate. There are are more than enough museums to go around without adding the Palaces!

[Kezza]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

People who blame the Queen (& by extension the Royal Family) for 'eating up' tax dollars betray a basic lack of understanding of how the Queen's official activities ar financed.

Yes I think so sometimes.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Sorry i meant to say she pays back the Parliamentary Annuities paid to members of the royal family apart from herself and Prince Philip. The Duke recived £359,000 a year. Princes Andrew and Edward, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, the Kents and the Gloucesters all recieve annuitites that are repaid by the Queen.
Money from the Duchy goes into the Privy Purse

Uh, no. money from the Duchy is the Privy Purse.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Kezza

Nope no symbol on my computer for UK pounds.

Hold down ALT and key 156: £