How much does the Royal Family cost ?A breakdown of the key figures

[Social Media]

£1.6m of the Sovereign Grant was spent on the late Queen’s funeral and housekeeping and hospitality rose £1.1m to £2.4m

The Prince of Wales received a private income from the Duchy of Cornwall of nearly £6 million this year, but was criticised for not publishing an annual report in his first year as heir to the throne.

William inherited the Duchy landed estate after the death of his grandmother the late Queen and the accession of his father the King, and is now entitled to its surplus profits every year.

 

More on this story

 

 

[billd766]

A very badly written report which completely omits how much was brought into the accounts and where the surplus went to>

 

Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, called on William to report his income and expenditure in full, and for his Duchy income to be given to local communities across the country instead.

 

 

 

Who really cares what they think?

 

They certainly do NOT speak for me, or possibly millions of other UK citizens IMHO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(pressure_group)

 

In 2016, it had over 5,000 paying members and about 35,000 online supporters.[9][7].

 

Wow, so many people.

 

All they need to do is to organise a referendum, AND accept the result.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66018052

 

Prince William is launching a project to help tackle homelessness in the UK.

The five-year plan, called Homewards, will see six towns and cities work together with local organisations to help find places to live for homeless people.

Each night around 300,000 people in the UK are homelessness, half of whom are children.

"It's a big task" said Prince William "but I firmly believe that by working together it is possible to make homelessness rare, brief, and unrepeated and I am very much looking forward to working with our six locations to make our ambition a reality."

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7712678.stm

 

Prince William has met young homeless people who were spared life on the streets by a charity both he and his mother have worked with.

He chatted and joked at a drinks reception with 10 young people helped by homeless charity Centrepoint.

It works with people in the 16 to 25 age group, providing them with accommodation and other support.

Princess Diana was the charity's patron at the time of her death, and Prince William has since assumed the mantle.

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

Those who can, do or at least try to do.

 

Those others don't even try, but talk a lot without knowing what they are on about.

 

Nothing like a good bit of bias by the BBC.

[josephbloggs]

52 minutes ago, billd766 said:

A very badly written report which completely omits how much was brought into the accounts and where the surplus went to>

 

Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, called on William to report his income and expenditure in full, and for his Duchy income to be given to local communities across the country instead.

 

 

 

Who really cares what they think?

 

They certainly do NOT speak for me, or possibly millions of other UK citizens IMHO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(pressure_group)

 

In 2016, it had over 5,000 paying members and about 35,000 online supporters.[9][7].

 

Wow, so many people.

 

All they need to do is to organise a referendum, AND accept the result.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66018052

 

Prince William is launching a project to help tackle homelessness in the UK.

The five-year plan, called Homewards, will see six towns and cities work together with local organisations to help find places to live for homeless people.

Each night around 300,000 people in the UK are homelessness, half of whom are children.

"It's a big task" said Prince William "but I firmly believe that by working together it is possible to make homelessness rare, brief, and unrepeated and I am very much looking forward to working with our six locations to make our ambition a reality."

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7712678.stm

 

Prince William has met young homeless people who were spared life on the streets by a charity both he and his mother have worked with.

He chatted and joked at a drinks reception with 10 young people helped by homeless charity Centrepoint.

It works with people in the 16 to 25 age group, providing them with accommodation and other support.

Princess Diana was the charity's patron at the time of her death, and Prince William has since assumed the mantle.

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

Those who can, do or at least try to do.

 

Those others don't even try, but talk a lot without knowing what they are on about.

 

Nothing like a good bit of bias by the BBC.

Nice rant, but what on earth has the BBC got to do with this?

[Chomper Higgot]

Whatever the cost is, it’s about to go up:

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers

[RayC]

On 6/29/2023 at 2:53 PM, billd766 said:

A very badly written report which completely omits how much was brought into the accounts and where the surplus went to>

 

Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, called on William to report his income and expenditure in full, and for his Duchy income to be given to local communities across the country instead.

 

 

 

Who really cares what they think?

 

They certainly do NOT speak for me, or possibly millions of other UK citizens IMHO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(pressure_group)

 

In 2016, it had over 5,000 paying members and about 35,000 online supporters.[9][7].

 

Wow, so many people.

 

All they need to do is to organise a referendum, AND accept the result.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66018052

 

Prince William is launching a project to help tackle homelessness in the UK.

The five-year plan, called Homewards, will see six towns and cities work together with local organisations to help find places to live for homeless people.

Each night around 300,000 people in the UK are homelessness, half of whom are children.

"It's a big task" said Prince William "but I firmly believe that by working together it is possible to make homelessness rare, brief, and unrepeated and I am very much looking forward to working with our six locations to make our ambition a reality."

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7712678.stm

 

Prince William has met young homeless people who were spared life on the streets by a charity both he and his mother have worked with.

He chatted and joked at a drinks reception with 10 young people helped by homeless charity Centrepoint.

It works with people in the 16 to 25 age group, providing them with accommodation and other support.

Princess Diana was the charity's patron at the time of her death, and Prince William has since assumed the mantle.

 

What is the Republic group doing to help?

 

Those who can, do or at least try to do.

 

Those others don't even try, but talk a lot without knowing what they are on about.

 

Nothing like a good bit of bias by the BBC.

Republic is a pressure group with one aim; the replacement of the UK monarchy with an elected head of state.

 

Why - as a group - should they be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless?

 

You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either.

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever the cost is, it’s about to go up:

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers

A 45% increase in funding would be outrageous at any time, but when we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, this does nothing but underline the total contempt that Charles Windsor has for the people of the UK. A man as shameless as he is useless.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Republic is a pressure group with one aim; the replacement of the UK monarchy with an elected head of state.

 

Why - as a group - should they be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless?

 

You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either.

Why should they NOT be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless?

 

The reason is called democracy.

 

IF/when Republic gains enough votes to establish a political party, win a general election and make the laws then things may change, 

 

Until that point they should obey the same rules as the rest of us do.

 

Taking your example, why should I have to pay income tax on my pensions in the UK when I left the UK in 1999?

 

The answer is those are the rules, whether I like it or not.

 

As for your comment 

 

quote "You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either."

 

The answer is that the RSPCA was not set up to aid the nomeless in the UK.

 

Any idiot can understand that by the title "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is a charity operating in England and Wales that promotes animal welfare. The RSPCA is funded primarily by voluntary donations. Founded in 1824, it is the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the world.

 

Nothing about helping the homeless in the UK about it at all.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Why should they NOT be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless?

I can only repeat what I posted previously. By that line of argument every pressure group in the UK should therefore be expected to do something to address homelessness. 

 

In any event, why just homelessness? There are, unfortunately, almost an endless number of other problems which need addressing e.g. substance abuse, food poverty, etc.

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

The reason is called democracy.

Democracy is not the reason. One criterion for democracy is freedom of choice. Individuals/ groups can choose not to participate in/ to a cause if they so choose. 

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

IF/when Republic gains enough votes to establish a political party, win a general election and make the laws then things may change, 

Once again, repeating myself, Republic is a pressure group. As the title suggests, groups such as Republic try to exert pressure to elicit change. This is usually - but not always - on a single issue and often - not always - their campaigns are aimed at getting the government to change the law.

 

Pressure groups are not political parties in their own right.

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Until that point they should obey the same rules as the rest of us do.

See previous paragraph.

 

What rules/ laws (as an organisation) have/ are Republic breaking? 

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Taking your example, why should I have to pay income tax on my pensions in the UK when I left the UK in 1999?

 

The answer is those are the rules, whether I like it or not.

Both the subject and the context are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

As for your comment 

 

quote "You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either."

 

The answer is that the RSPCA was not set up to aid the nomeless in the UK.

 

Any idiot can understand that by the title "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is a charity operating in England and Wales that promotes animal welfare. The RSPCA is funded primarily by voluntary donations. Founded in 1824, it is the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the world.

 

Nothing about helping the homeless in the UK about it at all.

Spot on. Just as any idiot should be able to understand the following:

 

"Republic is a membership-based pressure group campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with a directly elected head of state." (Source: Republic website).

 

The RSPCA and Republic have one thing in common: They are single issue pressure groups not political parties.

 

I disagree with your position on other things but, usually, your arguments are coherent. Unfortunately in this instance, you are letting your unswerving loyalty to the Crown cloud your ability to think rationally.

[StayinThailand2much]

I haven't been a big fan of the Royals for a while. However, those calling for a republic should not forget that a president as head of state would be costly too. Also, what powers would they give a president, and, possibly, take from the PM? Not to mention, that it probably, de facto, would also mean the end of the Commonwealth, as there, besides nostalgia perhaps, wouldn't be a reason for countries to be members in it.

Edited July 22, 2023 by StayinThailand2much

[youreavinalaff]

18 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever the cost is, it’s about to go up:

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers

The amount was due to increase as it is worked out as a percentage of the income received by the treasury from the Crown Estate. 

 

Income has surged so the amount of sovereign grant was to increase. 

 

That was until it was agreed the %%% would reduce from 25% to 12%. Keeping the amount constant at around £86m. 

 

I've looked for an article from the Guardian explaining their error but can't find one.

 

This is one that explains all.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sovereign-grant-changed-after-crown-estate-sees-profits-surge-12924156

Edited July 22, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[FruitPudding]

Right, just throw the country to the dogs.

 

Wait they already are .

[Denim]

If there were no Royal Family how much money would be saved and how much of it would end up in the average Joe's pocket. I would think , not enough to go out on a single good bender. 

 

I think it's pathetic to prattle on about the cost of the Royal family when there are bigger and more useless drains on the governments finances.

 

The Prince of Wales received a private income from the Duchy of Cornwall of nearly £6 million this year,

 

The Home Affairs Committee has heard that the UK is thought to be spending £7m per day on hotels to house asylum seekers.

 

https://iasservices.org.uk/united-kingdom-is-spending-7m-a-day-on-hotels-for-asylum-seekers/#:~:text=United Kingdom is spending £,their home country to safety.

 

If it is  only the money that matters , get your priorities right.

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Denim said:

If there were no Royal Family how much money would be saved and how much of it would end up in the average Joe's pocket. I would think , not enough to go out on a single good bender. 

 

I think it's pathetic to prattle on about the cost of the Royal family when there are bigger and more useless drains on the governments finances.

 

The Prince of Wales received a private income from the Duchy of Cornwall of nearly £6 million this year,

 

The Home Affairs Committee has heard that the UK is thought to be spending £7m per day on hotels to house asylum seekers.

 

https://iasservices.org.uk/united-kingdom-is-spending-7m-a-day-on-hotels-for-asylum-seekers/#:~:text=United Kingdom is spending £,their home country to safety.

 

If it is  only the money that matters , get your priorities right.

 

It should be possible for the government of the day to tackle the (cost of the) refugee crisis and have a debate on constitutional reform simultaneously.

 

According to Republic, the monarchy costs £345 m/ year. That should knock +/-10% off the current cost of processing refugees.

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Denim said:

If there were no Royal Family how much money would be saved and how much of it would end up in the average Joe's pocket. I would think , not enough to go out on a single good bender. 

 

I think it's pathetic to prattle on about the cost of the Royal family when there are bigger and more useless drains on the governments finances.

 

The Prince of Wales received a private income from the Duchy of Cornwall of nearly £6 million this year,

 

The Home Affairs Committee has heard that the UK is thought to be spending £7m per day on hotels to house asylum seekers.

 

https://iasservices.org.uk/united-kingdom-is-spending-7m-a-day-on-hotels-for-asylum-seekers/#:~:text=United Kingdom is spending £,their home country to safety.

 

If it is  only the money that matters , get your priorities right.

 

Personally, it is not only about the cost but the lack of democracy in the UK. Charles Windsor is not the pinnacle of ability, leadership, masculinity - he has done nothing to earn his spot at the top.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

I haven't been a big fan of the Royals for a while. However, those calling for a republic should not forget that a president as head of state would be costly too.

If the Irish experience is anything to go by then it will be a lot cheaper

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html

 

2 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Also, what powers would they give a president, and, possibly, take from the PM?

That would depend and need to be agreed, but imo it should be largely limited to protecting the constitution and shaking hands at sporting events and diplomatic functions.

 

2 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Not to mention, that it probably, de facto, would also mean the end of the Commonwealth, as there, besides nostalgia perhaps, wouldn't be a reason for countries to be members in it.

There are many Commonwealth countries e.g. India who do not have the King as HoS.

 

I struggle to see what purpose the Commonwealth serves today. It just seems to be something that's there.

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

If the Irish experience is anything to go by then it will be a lot cheaper

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html

 

That would depend and need to be agreed, but imo it should be largely limited to protecting the constitution and shaking hands at sporting events and diplomatic functions.

 

There are many Commonwealth countries e.g. India who do not have the King as HoS.

 

I struggle to see what purpose the Commonwealth serves today. It just seems to be something that's there.

An other important thing to bear in mind - any powers given to a president by the people can be taken away again by the people.

[scottiejohn]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

An other important thing to bear in mind - any powers given to a president by the people can be taken away again by the people.

Do you mean just like the presidents in Russia and China for example!

Just to mention only two!

Edited July 22, 2023 by scottiejohn

[billd766]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

It should be possible for the government of the day to tackle the (cost of the) refugee crisis and have a debate on constitutional reform simultaneously.

 

According to Republic, the monarchy costs £345 m/ year. That should knock +/-10% off the current cost of processing refugees.

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

What the Republic group omit to mention is that the £345 m/ year is only a proportion of the revenue raised and the other huge portion goes to the Treasury and into the general spending area.

 

However I would not expect anything better from them.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220546/crown-estate-revenue-uk/#:~:text=In 2022%2F22 the revenue,by an independent public body.

 

Net revenue profit of the Crown Estate in the UK 2013-2023
Published by D. Clark, Jun 29, 2023
 In 2022/22 the revenue profit of the Crown Estate was 442.6 million British pounds, compared with 312.7 million pounds in the previous reporting year. The Crown Estate is a collection of properties nominally belonging to the British monarch, but managed by an independent public body.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Do you mean just like the presidents in Russia and China for example!

Just to mention only two!

Do you think so little of the British people that we are incapable of implementing democracy? Maybe you are only happy when you are kowtowing, but I think I can handle the responsibly of electing a credible head of state - as they do in most other countries.

[RuamRudy]

38 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What the Republic group omit to mention is that the £345 m/ year is only a proportion of the revenue raised and the other huge portion goes to the Treasury and into the general spending area.

 

However I would not expect anything better from them.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220546/crown-estate-revenue-uk/#:~:text=In 2022%2F22 the revenue,by an independent public body.

 

Net revenue profit of the Crown Estate in the UK 2013-2023
Published by D. Clark, Jun 29, 2023
 In 2022/22 the revenue profit of the Crown Estate was 442.6 million British pounds, compared with 312.7 million pounds in the previous reporting year. The Crown Estate is a collection of properties nominally belonging to the British monarch, but managed by an independent public body.

 

 

As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the crown estates belong to the people. Charles Windsor certainly did nothing to earn them, although he managed to avoid paying inheritance tax on them.

[scottiejohn]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

but I think I can handle the responsibly of electing a credible head of state

Maybe YOU can but once the despot is in power what do YOU do?

[RuamRudy]

Just now, scottiejohn said:

Maybe YOU can but once the despot is in power what do YOU do?

You chose examples of two autocratic regimes rather than multiple examples of democratic mandates being effectively exercised. If totalitarianism is the inevitable result of democracy then it's certainly playing the long game in most cases.

[scottiejohn]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

You chose examples of two autocratic regimes rather than multiple examples of democratic mandates being effectively exercised. If totalitarianism is the inevitable result of democracy then it's certainly playing the long game in most cases.

Can you rewrite the above cr@p out in plain English please!

It is total left wing gobbledygook from what I think you might be trying to spout forth!

[jak2002003]

Send the immigration bus around tomorrow to load up the lot and send them off to Rwanda. 

 

They are not even British. They are German immigrants who sneakily changed their family name to hide the fact after the war. 

 

Entitled usuelsss idiots most of them....

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

Can you rewrite the above cr@p out in plain English please!

It is total left wing gobbledygook from what I think you might be trying to spout forth!

To be perfectly honest, I doubt that I could help you understand what I wrote.

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Send the immigration bus around tomorrow to load up the lot and send them off to Rwanda. 

 

They are not even British. They are German immigrants who sneakily changed their family name to hide the fact after the war. 

 

Entitled usuelsss idiots most of them....

Sounds like you need some history lessons.

[youreavinalaff]

32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the crown estates belong to the people. Charles Windsor certainly did nothing to earn them, although he managed to avoid paying inheritance tax on them.

So, the estate belongs to the prople but Charles must pay inheritance tax. You can't have it both ways.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Maybe YOU can but once the despot is in power what do YOU do?

The monarchy is no protection against despots.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

So, the estate belongs to the prople but Charles must pay inheritance tax. You can't have it both ways.

That's true,I can't. Unlike Charles Windsor

[billd766]

13 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Send the immigration bus around tomorrow to load up the lot and send them off to Rwanda. 

 

They are not even British. They are German immigrants who sneakily changed their family name to hide the fact after the war. 

 

Entitled usuelsss idiots most of them....

Have you checked where they were all born?

 

Are you prepared to send ALL the immigrants and their families,for the last 100 years, born in the UK or nit, off to Rwanda?

 

Or only the ones that you are biased against?

 

Now I can trace my ancestry back to the early 1700s in the UK. Can you?