Royal Finances Campaign | Republic (http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/current-campaigns/royal-finances-campaign)
QuoteThe monarchy is expensive, very expensive. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were free; the cost to our democracy would still be too high.
But when the palace tells you the royals are "value-for-money", don't believe it - we could get much better for far less.
Our royal finances campaign raises awareness of the true cost of the monarchy, monitoring royal spending and providing accurate figures to the media.
Republic's Royal Finances Reform Charter proposes the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.
- Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.
- All security costs to be made transparent and accountable. All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.
- The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.
- The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be fully investigated by parliament with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury.
- The monarchy's finances to be scrutinised by the National Audit Office like any other public body.
- The Crown Estate to be renamed 'the National Estate' and its status clarified through amendment of the Crown Estate Act.
- These demands include the scrapping of the Sovereign Support Grant, a new funding arrangement introduced by the coalition government. The new grant is set in line with the revenue of the Crown Estate - it can go up when that revenue goes up, but it can never go down, even when Crown Estate income drops.
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on May 15, 2014, 07:17:10 PM
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
A very explanation of royal finances
When was that video made? It would be interesting to know which sources the man who creates the Youtube CGP Grey channel uses to compile his video content.
I'll quote this from the Republic organisation for the time being. I'll add broader research and comments later as some aspects need to be better qualified and will benefit from further explication as reported from different sources. But for now, I'd be interested to hear responses to the counter argument presented here. It essentially refutes the £40 million annual cost, the crown estate ownership (and by extension the rebate to the taxpayer), and also extends the latent costs associated with the met police and local authorities which I don't believe are ever incorporated into the "monarchy cost" figures. If these figures are included I'd be very interested to see a source which accounts for them.
QuoteHow is the monarchy funded?
The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.
Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.
All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the "sovereign support grant". This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014.
However, the sovereign support grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.
Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.
When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £200m annually.
- See more at: http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances#sthash.kVeyt3Bk.dpuf
Quote from: Limabeany on May 15, 2014, 07:22:02 PM
Truth goes hand in hand with transparency... :hmm:
A keen point, Limabeany.
It's very difficult for the cost of the Firm to be accurately reported/understood when a lack of transparency prohibits full accountability. What do those who support the monarchy / accept the ball-park costs, think of this point?
I think the monarchy definitely needs to be restructured so the separation between private and public money is very clear. Right now, I'm not sure there is any real accountability and consequences. We keep hearing accusations of miss management of funds and creative book keeping when it comes to taxes but does anyone really know who pays for what? For instance, William and Kate receive security and a fee from the government for their public engagements. Prince Charles is said to pay the rest. The tricky part is that the expenses he pays count as business expenses and can be written off the taxes he owes. So technically, government money is used to pay for William and Kate to do public work even though on paper private money is used.
The more I read up on this issue the more confused I get.
Here is a list of FAQ on the funding of the BRF through the Sovereign Grant.
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Sovereign Grant Act: frequently asked questions relating to the Act and on general issues - HM Treasury (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant_faq.htm#Sovereign_Grant)
There is much transparency and the parliament over-site.
I do agree people seem to almost stubbornly insist they are paying for things they are clearly not paying for. Given how much info is out there about financing the monarch that is surprising to me - the basic DM comment usually includes tirades about how "I am paying for that" - articles on Kate's hats prompt comments about how the taxpayer is funding her hats.
Obviously - things that once were funded aren't anymore - good to see all the relatives at KP paying market rents as an example. There clearly is a lot more transparency - short of the Queen handing in receipts for everything I am not sure how much more oversight would make sense.
Transparency and a clear sense that the money is being spent wisely is the best approach.
QuoteThe annual Sovereign Grant report – the report on the Monarchy's public finances in the last year – was published today, showing in Monarchy's expenditure was £35.7 million for the year 2013-2014.
The Sovereign Grant, which covers everything from the cost of staff to the cost of maintaining the royal residences, was introduced by Parliament in 2011 to replace the Civil List and other grants to The Queen in order to simplify royal expenses and make them easier to track. Since then, the Monarchy's annual finances have been audited by Parliament.
Although the money The Queen receives comes from the Treasury, the amount is determined by the profits of the Crown Estates – property portfolios that belong to the Sovereign in right of crown – with 15% of the value of the Crown Estate's profits being given to Her Majesty as funding.
More: Monarchy cost each person 56p last year | Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/thequeen/royal-family-costs-each-taxpayers-35-7million-33453)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 26, 2014, 12:14:27 AM
QuoteThe annual Sovereign Grant report – the report on the Monarchy's public finances in the last year – was published today, showing in Monarchy's expenditure was £35.7 million for the year 2013-2014.
The Sovereign Grant, which covers everything from the cost of staff to the cost of maintaining the royal residences, was introduced by Parliament in 2011 to replace the Civil List and other grants to The Queen in order to simplify royal expenses and make them easier to track. Since then, the Monarchy's annual finances have been audited by Parliament.
Although the money The Queen receives comes from the Treasury, the amount is determined by the profits of the Crown Estates – property portfolios that belong to the Sovereign in right of crown – with 15% of the value of the Crown Estate's profits being given to Her Majesty as funding.
More: Monarchy cost each person 56p last year | Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/thequeen/royal-family-costs-each-taxpayers-35-7million-33453)
How is it under budget when we tax payer pay the bill, the Queen only cover their chairs, tables, carpet. Everything else was paid for by US fool, I read a lot of their financial budgets on different London paper this Moring going to work. No wonder people are still piss off!
I get it you are Kate and William biggest fan please STOP Sugar clothing one side, this Mess have way too many issues, if Kate and William can stop add more B.S they don't need this 4millions will be 10millions by next year. Like two kitchen, 2 walk in closet why two when she always recycles. Game room for George the kids is barely One why game room and how much will it cost to fill the kid play ground.As I said before too many unnecessary things.
IF you read closely to other's London news time paper you will be able to see and understand more about this mess that the royal families is trying to cover.
Lastly will it kill these two lazy brats to do some more work instead of polo match and planning their next two weeks vacations. >( >(
I'm not sure why every thread here at RIF automatically becomes about William and Catherine but just to clarify, the Sovereign Grant is given to the Queen and no one else.
The Queen along with her senior advisors decide on the what the priorities are for the year and the money is applied. The amount of the Sovereign Grant is calculated at 15 percent of the profits of the Crown Estate. It has nothing at all to do with W&K or any other members of her family
If W&K didn't exist the Queen receives the exact same amount of money.
For her, through her aides, to cry out that 40M in urgent repairs are needed and then to spend 4.5M of what she is given on an apartment for a grandson that isn't even a working royal but an occasionally working royal, an apartment which, to make matters worse, he will not be living in because he has better things to do, seems a wildly fanciful and very public display of a lack of common sense or lack of control over William...
The 4 mil wasn't spent on their apartment alone it was spent for that wing of the palace to be refurbished , that whole area was closed for more than a year to carry out the repairs .
PDF available to view or download
QuoteThe Sovereign Grant Annual Report for 2013-14 states that net expenditure was £35.7m, an increase of 2.4m (7.2%) on the previous year.
The increase in Sovereign Grant funding received and in revenue generated was spent on additional property maintenance which rose by £4.2m.
Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said
"We continue to focus on value for money and performance monitoring which has enabled us to reduce Sovereign Grant expenditure, excluding property maintenance, in real terms and has allowed us to increase the funds allocated to bringing the property estate up to target condition by 47%."
More: http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2014/RoyalFinances201314.aspx
Quote from: georgiana996 on June 27, 2014, 06:55:58 AM
The 4 mil wasn't spent on their apartment alone it was spent for that wing of the palace to be refurbished , that whole area was closed for more than a year to carry out the repairs .
The 4.5M was spent on their Apt. alone, the four story wing is their Apt. :hug:
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Quote from: Limabeany on June 27, 2014, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: georgiana996 on June 27, 2014, 06:55:58 AM
The 4 mil wasn't spent on their apartment alone it was spent for that wing of the palace to be refurbished , that whole area was closed for more than a year to carry out the repairs .
The 4.5M was spent on their Apt. alone, the four story wing is their Apt. :hug:
I had posted an article that went over the costs and what they were for , full facts its in the KP thread .
The royal household is openly abusing public money | Left Foot Forward (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/06/the-royal-household-is-openly-abusing-public-money/)
QuoteThe total annual cost of the monarchy is estimated by Republic to be around £300m – nine times higher than the official figure
Royal Family ncrjOne of the more disreputable traditions associated with the monarchy is the annual farce of the royal finance report. This is when the royal household gets to report on its own spending of taxpayers' money on its own terms – tightly managing the release of information and ensuring it's carefully couched in so much spin real abuse of public money gets glossed over..
http://t.co/4qYbaX6KqU
How much is the Queen costing us? Don't be fooled by the headline figures - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-queen-costing-us-3767302)
QuoteRepublic @RepublicStaff · Jun 26
If an MP spent £4k public money on their own home they'd be in serious trouble. Queen spends £4m on home of grandson and we get excuses
I couldn't agree more!
As with all of republics numbers, they pull them out of thin air. The other thing is the royal household doesn't report the spending of the Sovereign Grant on its own terms.
The information is there for those who are interested but Graham Smith isn't interested
I think Mr Smith has done his homework.... :nod:
I'd love a breakdown of just how exactly £4.5M was spent on William's flat. Do you have one?
If he did his homework he would show his work... but he can't because his numbers are pure flight of fantasy. Smith doesn't provide sources because he doesn't have any.
I suggest they get a new Privy of the Purse - or whatever he is called. All these well paid people and W&K are still running amok!
Quote
Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
Prince Charles's flights for his and Camilla's visit to India & Sri Lanka for CHOGM cost £350,413.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
Royal travel cost the taxpayer £4.2million, official accounts have revealed.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
The Duke of Gloucester visited South Korea last July and charged taxpayers £25,575 for his flights.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
Prince Charles's aide Alastair Martin was paid £192,318 royal accounts showed.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
Prince Charles' aide Sir Robert Ross, who retired last June, earned £267,414 including pension contributions up by 6% royal accounts show.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
The Queen's best-paid staff Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt & Keeper of the Privy Purse Sir Alan Reid got at least £10,000 rises.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
The Queen and Prince Charles employ 4 people earning more than the UK PM's £142,000-a-year salary, royal accounts show.
QuoteRobert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 8h
Top royal aides earned more than UK Prime Minister last year – but still got pay rises, according to the Royal Family's accounts.
The royal family's accounts are open to public scrutiny. Graham Smith on the other hand just pulls numbers out of thin air to feed his own ideology.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Wishful thinking and Harry has nothing to do with the matter at hand as it is quite doubtful he will receive 6M pounds to decorate and repair his future home, 4.5M from HM and 1.5M from Charles) William and Catherine were in no need to have the Queen spend 4.5M on a house they were not going to live in for the foreseeable future and for a future role they would not be assuming in the foreseeable future at this time on a whim of William, other truly urgent repairs could have been performed if they were not even planning to live there, that space was used as storage for an office and could have remained so until they finally decided they could lower themselves to the status of working royals...
They are wasting money. Why do they need all these Advisors? I thought the Monarchy was well and truly embedded into the hearts of the Nation?
Imagine what that money could do for the people of this country instead of one family. And they have the cheek to do Charity....(well some of them).
Quote from: Limabeany on June 27, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Wishful thinking and Harry has nothing to do with the matter at hand as it is quite doubtful he will receive 6M pounds to decorate and repair his future home, 4.5M from HM and 1.5M from Charles) William and Catherine were in no need to have the Queen spend 4.5M on a house they were not going to live in for the foreseeable future and for a future role they would not be assuming in the foreseeable future at this time on a whim of William, other truly urgent repairs could have been performed if they were not even planning to live there, that space was used as storage for an office and could have remained so until they finally decided they could lower themselves to the status of working royals...
If you have such an issue with how the Queen spends the Sovereign Grant than why not focus on her?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
If he did his homework he would show his work... but he can't because his numbers are pure flight of fantasy. Smith doesn't provide sources because he doesn't have any.
The Queen's people don't provide full details because they don't want people to know any if they had nothing to hide they would be more detailed...
Quote from: Limabeany on June 27, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
If he did his homework he would show his work... but he can't because his numbers are pure flight of fantasy. Smith doesn't provide sources because he doesn't have any.
The Queen's people don't provide full details because they don't want people to know any if they had nothing to hide they would be more detailed...
Exactly! Million here, million there....
The exact details were published two days ago. Have a look at the threads regarding Charles and the Queen.
I have looked - the fine detail is not there. Exactly how they want it to be.
The fine detail is there and it will get even more granular after the Queen's people give evidence before Parliament.
No it won't. Never does. It will be smugded over as per.
Where is the fine detail into monies spent on William's home? That what I want to see. I'd love to read how they managed to spend north of £4M.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
The exact details were published two days ago. Have a look at the threads regarding Charles and the Queen.
You know very well there are no exact details and if you don't, you should definitely read it before you continue to say there are...
Spending money like there is no tomorrow :
QuoteRepublic @RepublicStaff · Jun 26
Charles spent £16,000 on a train trip from London to Stoke. That's an annual salary for a lot of people in the real world #royalfinances
QuoteThe Telegraph
Prince of Wales's attendance at Nelson Mandela's funeral cost...
Prince of Wales's trip to South Africa for the state funeral of Nelson Mandela was taken on a private jet and cost £246,160, new figures show
Acceptable?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Oh yes lets talk about this ^ and that will be refurbished and renovated for him and his whole fam :P will he be given a free pass ?
QuoteCharles's principal private secretary William Nye conceded that his boss would have to look carefully at how much he could continue to fund the activities of the three younger royals in addition to his and Camilla's duties if the balance of work changed.
That may come to a head if William decides in September to quit his job as an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and become a fulltime working royal. "Whatever the Duke of Cambridge's plans, the Prince of Wales would have to look carefully at how he continues to fund the official activities of the staff and support for the five senior members of the Royal Family whom he is paying for," said Mr Nye.
At the moment, Buckingham Palace receives the bulk of £36 million in taxpayer funding for the Royal Family but Charles pays for much of the work involving himself, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry, who are increasingly becoming the focus of the future of the monarchy.
Prince Charles paid £1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/411034/Prince-Charles-paid-1m-a-year-to-support-Prince-William-and-Harry-in-official-duties)
Quote
Prince Charles paid £1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/411034/Prince-Charles-paid-1m-a-year-to-support-Prince-William-and-Harry-in-official-duties)
The three younger royals' income for their official duties is supplemented by taxpayers' money in the Sovereign Grant used to fund their travel by train and air and the refurbishment of their new apartment and offices at Kensington Palace. The apartment refurbishment has cost £1.1 million after six months of a year-long project. Aides will not say how much the office refurbishment costs.
I am opposed to extravagance on the part of the monarchy - but there are legit expenses and since the Queen is HoS it is necessary for her to project the wealth and power of the UK - yup - I said it - wealth and power. It is not just public perception - it is international - and it is a necessary feature of the life of the state (or crown in the UK). That is the reason HM appears in all those jewels - she is demonstrating the wealth and power of the UK.
That gives benefits that are not always so easy to measure - but there are benefits. This is why I very much doubt that elimination of the monarchy would result in any great savings - and if it did result in any great savings - I would not count on that being dedicated towards the poor the homeless schools etc. All of the paraphernalia surrounding the monarchy would still be on display - to demonstrate wealth and power. Why do you think Cameron brings heads of state of small commonwealth countries to trooping the color - to impress. Of course - all of that paraphernalia will have little meaning without the monarch - but it would still go on.
I do not have a problem with preserving historic buildings - they are part of a nation's heritage and it is important to preserve that. Of course - one should not place buildings above people. But a nation as rich as the UK should be able to do both - value her heritage and value her people. My concern is about transparency and competence - tell us the whole story - what needed repairing and why. Don't have that info dribble out with explanations coming not from the palace officials but from the tabloids.
I just discovered that our Governor's mansion has two kitchens also - one is a catering kitchen for large receptions etc the other is the family kitchen. That makes sense to me now - and I am guessing that is the situation in Apt 1A - but it would have helped if they had explained that from the very beginning.
I also do not need so much detail - how much they spend on stamps or office supplies is not our concern - we need not micromanage their budget. But certain amounts should be broken down - if travel is a high number - explain that.
It seems to me that PC's use of elaborate and expensive transportation while Harry travels on cheap flights is a function of generational attitudes. PC is used to the old ways - Harry is not from a generation that had the privileges and luxuries that the RF had in the past. PC needs to get with the times!
I have seen pics of the offices at BP - nothing very fancy IMHO.
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
The royal household is openly abusing public money | Left Foot Forward (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/06/the-royal-household-is-openly-abusing-public-money/)
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
http://t.co/4qYbaX6KqU
How much is the Queen costing us? Don't be fooled by the headline figures - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-queen-costing-us-3767302)
These are excellent articles for this thread. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that people use the 'it only costs each person a mere 56p per year' as a justification for the cost of the monarchy. In 2012, a report came out in the US that stated the cost of President Obama and his family was 1.4 billion. Many in the UK point to that and talk about having a monarch being a bargain over having a president. But if we follow the UK rule of dividing the cost over every citizen(currently 317,000,000 in the US), then the actual cost of President Obama and his family is $4.42 per person/per year. Looking at it that way, it is 20 times cheaper to have an elected president than a hereditary head of state. Before anyone gets upset, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to break down government costs per the number of citizens rather than focusing on the actual cost itself. I don't find 1.4 billion an acceptable amount for any president, no matter what the amount breaks down too. And I feel the same way about the monarchy. The article that estimates the cost to be closer to 300 million is far more accurate, in my opinion, than the official claim of less than 40 million plus security.
Quote from: cinrit on June 28, 2014, 12:09:51 PM
QuoteWhen Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the Royal Family's security two years ago, no one had any idea just how far reaching it would be. Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.
Buried away in the Monarch's annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.
Four police officers guarding Kensington Palace, home to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and St James's Palace, made way for lower-paid security guards last year, it can be revealed.
Officers protecting the Royal Mews, where the Royal Family's travel arrangements are made, will soon be replaced, too.
More: SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671626/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-pay-security-bill.html)
Cindy
Quote from: Graceanne on June 28, 2014, 11:04:03 AM
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
The royal household is openly abusing public money | Left Foot Forward (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/06/the-royal-household-is-openly-abusing-public-money/)
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
http://t.co/4qYbaX6KqU
How much is the Queen costing us? Don't be fooled by the headline figures - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-queen-costing-us-3767302)
These are excellent articles for this thread. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that people use the 'it only costs each person a mere 56p per year' as a justification for the cost of the monarchy. In 2012, a report came out in the US that stated the cost of President Obama and his family was 1.4 billion. Many in the UK point to that and talk about having a monarch being a bargain over having a president. But if we follow the UK rule of dividing the cost over every citizen(currently 317,000,000 in the US), then the actual cost of President Obama and his family is $4.42 per person/per year. Looking at it that way, it is 20 times cheaper to have an elected president than a hereditary head of state. Before anyone gets upset, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to break down government costs per the number of citizens rather than focusing on the actual cost itself. I don't find 1.4 billion an acceptable amount for any president, no matter what the amount breaks down too. And I feel the same way about the monarchy. The article that estimates the cost to be closer to 300 million is far more accurate, in my opinion, than the official claim of less than 40 million plus security.
Thanks, Graceanne. However, I've notice the lack of explanation for the ridiculous amounts being spent. :
Challenging Royal Finances: A Place To Discuss The Costs of Monarchy (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69768.msg1287507#msg1287507)
Challenging Royal Finances: A Place To Discuss The Costs of Monarchy (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69768.msg1287536#msg1287536)
:shrug:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:00:05 PM
-Graham Smith on the other hand just pulls numbers out of thin air to feed his own ideology.
Can you substantiate that claim, PrincessofPeace?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:00:05 PMThe royal family's accounts are open to public scrutiny.
Are they? I pose this question based on the fact that the royals' accounts are internally generated rather than by an independent/external body and what's more the accounts are not inclusive of all costs associated with their duties.
security costs are another reason why a slimmed down royal family is necessary. Providing security for all of them simply costs too much.
I think though that 128 mil for all the royal places and the RF is lower than I expected and lower than some estimates. Reality is though - they must be given security - if something happened - the costs would be far greater both financially and in a psychological way.
Pressure group, Republic, have published their review of the costs of a monarchy - available in this pdf: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf
£299.4 million is their calculated/estimated costs. The very fact that an organisation needs to *estimate* costs of a public body due to lack of total transparency is in itself an interesting and vital point for debate.
well - things are truly getting interesting and the republicans may find an opening for their agenda - Ed M wants a written constitution now - in the wake of all the changes that it seems will be forthcoming after the Scots vote.
This means major debate - likely to end the established Church and certainly promote at least a discussion about monarchy.
I don't think that Ed Miliband is exactly flavour of the month in Britain, considering the Scottish referendum and how his own position was called into question when panic arose in Westminster in the wake of that rogue YouGov poll. I really don't think Ed is in a position to be demanding anything, quite frankly.
Also, at the moment people have had enough of argument, conflict, turmoil, projected change. Let things settle for a bit. I certainly don't see any fervent yearning for republicanism coming out of the wash-up to all this.
I see that but it cannot be avoided - the scots want the promises made to them kept - Cameron is already facing a revolt - some of his ministers have already come out and said they won't support it without other concessions - and Labor is saying their support requires some commitment to a written constitution -
I think despite egg throwing and other isolated incidents - this was conducted well - it brought a lot of issues out into public discussion and that is good - so hopefully any further discussions will be positive and good for a democratic society.
I very much agree with your sentiment regarding the benefit of open discussion, cate1949. Whether a referendum on a given issue is won or not (as the case has been with Scotland), the process invited people to think about the manifold socio-political make-up of their country which can only ever be positive for the growth and development of a society.
Quote from: Curryong on September 20, 2014, 03:31:16 AM
Also, at the moment people have had enough of argument, conflict, turmoil, projected change. Let things settle for a bit. I certainly don't see any fervent yearning for republicanism coming out of the wash-up to all this.
There has always been debate, conflict and projected change in all aspects of politics and culture, so I'm not convinced that the Scottish referendum has given people a general distaste or need to rest from debate and projected change.
I do however agree that the Scottish referendum and Westminsters' emerging demands haven't given rise to any "fervent yearning for republicansim". I think that would have been a most unexpected symptom of the fight for independence.
QuoteThe estimated annual cost of the monarchy is £299.4m, around nine times the official figure
published by the royal household
http://t.co/yQEK43l1t4
of course that is a lot - but try having a US president - that amount looks like chicken feed compared to the billions spent on presidential and family and they do not have all kinds of fancy palaces - just the White House and Camp David. We need to audit those pres costs - LOL
Obviously - it is the security which costs the US so much - they take their own cars everywhere they go using military transports - I do not think the Queen does that.
This is why the RF/Government should be honest about these expenses - if you keep it secret - that makes people even more suspicious and resentful - be up front about it - explain what it is spent on - not every stamp of course - but broad categories - how much is security? how much is local constabularies? what is the rest spent on?
I don't know why people always compare the royals to the President, different jobs entirely. If anything the President should be compared to the Prime Minister.
I wholly agree
@snokitty :goodpost:
Monarchs are Heads of State in constitutional monarchies. As are Presidents in republics. That's why they're compared!
Presidents run a country and so do Prime Ministers and that is why they should not be compared to a Monarch. :shrug:
I agree
@snokitty comparing a constitutional monarch to a president is like comparing a painting to a house.
Have to agree with Snowkitty, there's a difference between an elected official in executive power and not an official appointed by hereditary means. It's the only reason I've never seen the the distinction of monarchy versus presidency, thought a PM has been set in place as the the executive power in other nations.
Quote from: snokitty on November 08, 2014, 03:03:53 AM
I don't know why people always compare the royals to the President, different jobs entirely. If anything the President should be compared to the Prime Minister.
Actually - the pres should be compared to both the PM and the Queen cause the US pres combines both roles - he is Head of State like the Queen and Head of the Executive Branch sort of like the PM. I wonder what the cost of both the RF and the PM is combined ? Of course - the US is also bigger - more security issues etc so comparisons would never be exact.
I wonder if just the Monarch and their consort were the only ones financed by the Gov - what difference would that make? It seems expense is also related to supporting in some ways an entire family.
It is an entire extended family, but it is also the absurd expense of ribbon cutting royal duties for the entire family... That makes no sense.
Totally agree
@snokitty. Elected representatives have been elected fair and square. Unlike the unelected bunch we have to call the "royal family".... :hmm:
As for the Tourism agrument. Considering they all decamp to their palaces during the busy Summer months.... I'm of the opinion that any celebrity could and would draw the crowds. For a heck of a lot less money.
732 billion is the UK's total budget - if we accept the republican figures for cost of the monarchy - it is 500 million.
The UK spends more on interest payments than the monarchy - LOL - tell Osborne to stop borrowing money that will create some savings.
And of course right they are not elected but the still serve at the consent of the people - and like any politician or form of government - if the people are displeased - they can be made gone.
I think it is absurd to use tourism income as a support for monarchy - it is a trivial reason - and it just seems akin to the actors who play Disney characters at the Disney parks - not a reason to have a monarchy.
If one supports monarchy then a more persuasive argument needs to be made - I think there are more persuasive arguments and I think some of the republican arguments are unconvincing. But ultimately - in a democratic society - the only legitimate power is the consent of the people governed so as long as a majority of the British people give their consent - the monarchy is legitimate. Unless of course you do not accept democracy.
Democracy doesn't work anymore. No the people can not get rid of them because of the rules made up for them. It is the same way with trying to get rid of certain politicians.
That 500 million that you seem to think is nothing could help schools, hospitals, food banks, housing etc.. You know those little things that are more important for the survival of the people than the Monarchy is.
The Monarchy has no relevance to the survival of the people, they are simply fun to watch.
Exactly and when they are gone we will be watching a different Circus act.
Andrew Spooner @andrewspoooner
QuoteAccording to Republic the UK monarchy costs £300million a yr. That equals 12,000 families on the £25,000 welfare cap. http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf ...
Just how is the Royal Family funded? (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/just-how-is-the-royal-family-funded-44603)
QuoteThe question of how to fund the British Royal Family is a perennial muse for both republicans and monarchists alike. Some advocate a larger proportion of state funding while others encourage the Monarchy to become self sufficient in its funding.
One things for certain though, regardless of how the Monarchy is funded, there will always be people who – for one reason or another – oppose the status quo. But what is the status quo? It's well known that the funding for the Monarchy has never been straight forward, so just where does the money come from and more importantly, where does it go?
If you listen to the Republic campaign, they'll suggest to you that The Queen is personally paid through vast state funding worth a third of a billion pounds. This is of course nonsense, though. Not only is The Queen not paid a salary, but the real figure (as in the one that actually exists) is ten times less at around £36m a year.
Before 2011, the Monarchy was funded through a complex system consisting of three main sources: the civil list (funding most of the Monarchy's work); grants-in-aid (funding mostly travel) and parliamentary annuities (which The Queen would receive from the Treasury for funding other royals).
In 2010, it was announced that funding for the Monarchy would be rolled into one easier, more accountable system called the Sovereign Grant, and in 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act was passed. For the first time, it pegged the amount of The Queen's funding to the Crown Estates, a property portfolio owned by the Sovereign which since George III has been surrendered to the Treasury in exchange for dependable funding each year in return.
The funding for the Monarchy now goes like this... Each year, The Queen receives an amount from the Treasury that's equivalent to 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate 'two financial years' before. The key there is equivalent. The money doesn't come directly from the Crown Estate as is widely believed, but rather from the Treasury. This distinction is important because even if the Crown Estates were to generate no profit, the Treasury still has an obligation to fund the Monarchy under the Sovereign Grant act.
For 2014-15, the Sovereign Grant worked out as £37.9 million.