Queen and royals good value for money at 65p per Briton, Buckingham Palace says

[webfact]

Queen and royals good value for money at 65p per Briton, Buckingham Palace says

By Michael Holden

 

FILE PHOTO: Members of Britain's royal familly stand on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after Trooping the Colour in London, Britain, June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British royal aides said on Tuesday that Queen Elizabeth and her family provide excellent value for money as accounts showed the amount of taxpayer funds they will get this year will almost double to cover essential repairs to Buckingham Palace.

 

Official figures show that the royals received 42.8 million pounds ($54.5 million) in 2016-17 from the "Sovereign Grant", the government handout that covers the running costs of the queen's household and travel expenses.

 

That figure is set to rise to 76.1 million pounds after the government agreed an increase to pay for a 369-million-pound, 10-year refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, whose ageing electrical wiring, water pipes and heating system are in urgent need of repair.

 

Alan Reid, the queen's treasurer known as Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the cost of the monarchy to every Briton last year amounted to 65 pence - the cost of a first-class postage stamp. When you consider that against what the queen does and represents for this country, I believe it represents excellent value for money," Reid told reporters.

 

The royal family carried out more than 3,000 official engagements last year, with the 91-year-old queen attending 162 and her husband Prince Philip performing 196, Reid said.

 

Philip, 96, who needed hospital treatment for an infection last week, announced in May he would retire from public life later this year.

 

Opinion polls show the 91-year-old queen remains hugely popular with Britons and at least two-thirds indicate they want the monarchy, which traces its royal line back to a Norman invasion in 1066, to continue.

 

Anti-monarchy republicans in Britain say the true annual cost of the royals to taxpayers is hundreds of millions of pounds because security expenditure is not included, while newspapers have often been critical of the amount spent on minor royals and travel expenses.

 

The Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15 percent of surplus revenue from the Crown Estate - a property portfolio belonging to the monarchy - two years previously and has grown rapidly since the system was introduced five years ago, with the royals receiving 31 million pounds in 2013.

 

The money covers staffing costs and upkeep of royal palaces like 1.2 million pounds spent on replacing the Orangery Doors at Windsor Castle that had become inoperable due to rot and decay.

 

Last November, the government agreed to raise the grant to 25 percent of Crown Estate surplus to pay for the overhaul of Buckingham Palace while allowing it to remain occupied.

 

The bill for travel in 2016-17 amounted to 4.5 million pounds, with heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles's visit to Italy, Romania and Austria at the end of March the most expensive at 154,000 pounds. Meanwhile the royal train, which was used about 14 times last year, cost some 900,000 pounds.

 

(Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-29

[LannaGuy]

Do any Brits have a choice?

[JoePai]

Worth far more - round it up to a quid per person

[pugwash1]

They dont do badly from the taxpayer,for a family of German/Greek immigrants.

[Thaiwrath]

 

Seems they are not affected by the Government's strict austerity measures. 

[chickenslegs]

26 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Do any Brits have a choice?

I know it's a rhetorical question but I'll answer anyway - No, individual citizens are not permitted to withhold their 65p a year.

 

Unlike in some countries, Brits are allowed to criticize the royal family, demonstrate against them, form a political party with an agenda to make the country a republic, and persuade the populace to kick them out.

 

Some have tried, but all have failed to find popular support.

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

Be interesting to see how opinions change when the old girl drops off the perch.

[LannaGuy]

18 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

I know it's a rhetorical question but I'll answer anyway - No, individual citizens are not permitted to withhold their 65p a year.

 

Unlike in some countries, Brits are allowed to criticize the royal family, demonstrate against them, form a political party with an agenda to make the country a republic, and persuade the populace to kick them out.

 

Some have tried, but all have failed to find popular support.

 

 

That is true, maybe unfathomable, but true that they have the majorities sentimental support and that being the case I shall pay my 65p without further demur 

[williamgeorgeallen]

sure the english royals add enough to the economy and national pride to warrant 65p per person. they are doing it in a fairly dignified manner unlike royals in other countries. like someone else said it is a great thing to be able to talk about your monarchs openly. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by williamgeorgeallen

[tomwct]

How much does Australia send to the Royals? Just interested.

[yardrunner]

Did any one expect the Royals to say that they were not good value for money, but i would like to see some impartial information about how good value for money the royals really are and if the UK are to have another referendum lets have one on getting rid of the royals 

[7by7]

Whatever the cost of the monarchy, does anyone really believe that a republic would work out any cheaper?

 

Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again! comes from a pro monarchy site. Although the figures include things like the pension for life paid to some ex presidents, they don't include the cost of holding regular presidential elections. Note the article was published in 2014, so all figures are now, obviously, higher due to inflation etc.

 

The article only compares the monarchy with countries which have non executive presidents, who have a very similar ceremonial role to a constitutional monarch; therefore the USA is not included, except in passing.

 

Interestingly, I could find no similar comparisons on a pro republic site; I wonder why!

 

 

[hhinhh]

I would do the job for less, what about 25% discount

[peterb17]

55 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

Did any one expect the Royals to say that they were not good value for money, but i would like to see some impartial information about how good value for money the royals really are and if the UK are to have another referendum lets have one on getting rid of the royals 

 

What nationalty are you? The chances of a referendum happening on becoming a republic are zero- the Queen herself is held in the highest regard in the UK - the monarchy is more popular than ever. It will be interesting to see how Charles gets on- but the younger royals are also very popular.

 

if you read the article- the money does not really come from taxpayers- it is a % of income from the Crown Estates belonging to the Monarch- the rest goes to the exchequer.

 

You may argue- why does the crown own so much of prime London property - however much of real estate is still owned by 'old money' - the weath of the Duke of Westminster and his Grosvenor estates makes the Queen seem like a pauper! 

 

Many of these estates go back hundreds of years- my family was given a vast estate and house - confiscated from one of the guys who signed Charles 1 death warrant - sadly sold in the twenties. 

 

So actually considering the money the Government gets - not bad value really . 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. 

 

[ukrules]

The money comes from the Crown Estate which makes quite a profit for the British government every year.

 

It's an old arrangement (mid 1700's), look it up.. https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/faqs/

 

Should the government break the deal what would happen to the Crown Estate ? It's part of the deal...

[Basil B]

Has anybody ever worked out how much the Tory and Labour parties get indirectly from the British Public?

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Basil B

[Kiwiken]

16 hours ago, tomwct said:

How much does Australia send to the Royals? Just interested.

A boomerang, A Koala and a cockatoo

[Kiwiken]

13 hours ago, peterb17 said:

 

What nationalty are you? The chances of a referendum happening on becoming a republic are zero- the Queen herself is held in the highest regard in the UK - the monarchy is more popular than ever. It will be interesting to see how Charles gets on- but the younger royals are also very popular.

 

if you read the article- the money does not really come from taxpayers- it is a % of income from the Crown Estates belonging to the Monarch- the rest goes to the exchequer.

 

You may argue- why does the crown own so much of prime London property - however much of real estate is still owned by 'old money' - the weath of the Duke of Westminster and his Grosvenor estates makes the Queen seem like a pauper! 

 

Many of these estates go back hundreds of years- my family was given a vast estate and house - confiscated from one of the guys who signed Charles 1 death warrant - sadly sold in the twenties. 

 

So actually considering the money the Government gets - not bad value really . 

I would think the earnings from Royal related Tourism would be more than 2 billion pounds. Not withstanding the prestige. I am not sure whether any Commonwealth Country contributes to the Royals. But i for One would begrudge the Royals if We did. Cheaper System than Republicanism.

[yardrunner]

20 hours ago, peterb17 said:

 

What nationalty are you? The chances of a referendum happening on becoming a republic are zero- the Queen herself is held in the highest regard in the UK - the monarchy is more popular than ever. It will be interesting to see how Charles gets on- but the younger royals are also very popular.

 

if you read the article- the money does not really come from taxpayers- it is a % of income from the Crown Estates belonging to the Monarch- the rest goes to the exchequer.

 

You may argue- why does the crown own so much of prime London property - however much of real estate is still owned by 'old money' - the weath of the Duke of Westminster and his Grosvenor estates makes the Queen seem like a pauper! 

 

Many of these estates go back hundreds of years- my family was given a vast estate and house - confiscated from one of the guys who signed Charles 1 death warrant - sadly sold in the twenties. 

 

So actually considering the money the Government gets - not bad value really . 

I am English, and yes the Queen is held in some regard in the UK but not all of the other hangers on are respected or liked, and their may not be any chance of a referendum but i can hope.

and why does the crown or crown estates hold so much of the land, you have answered that question yourself, because it was stolen from the original landowners in the past and as the monarch is now a constitutional monarch the crown estates should belong to the country and not the monarchy 

[colinneil]

4 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

I am English, and yes the Queen is held in some regard in the UK but not all of the other hangers on are respected or liked, and their may not be any chance of a referendum but i can hope.

and why does the crown or crown estates hold so much of the land, you have answered that question yourself, because it was stolen from the original landowners in the past and as the monarch is now a constitutional monarch the crown estates should belong to the country and not the monarchy 

Very well put yardrunner, the Queen yes respect, her eldest son w....ker, Dianas 2 sons respect, the rest of them spongers.

[impulse]

3 hours ago, yardrunner said:

I am English, and yes the Queen is held in some regard in the UK but not all of the other hangers on are respected or liked, and their may not be any chance of a referendum but i can hope.

and why does the crown or crown estates hold so much of the land, you have answered that question yourself, because it was stolen from the original landowners in the past and as the monarch is now a constitutional monarch the crown estates should belong to the country and not the monarchy 

 

True.  What's the lost opportunity cost of having $$ billions in assets locked up in the hands of one family?  (Probably not paying any property taxes on it, either- but that's just a guess on my part.)  That probably dwarfs the cash outlays.  Add in the cost of security and it's probably a much heftier chunk than 0.65 per capita.

 

Not saying they aren't worth it (or that they are).  Just that the financial picture is incomplete.

 

 

[peterb17]

I am English, and yes the Queen is held in some regard in the UK but not all of the other hangers on are respected or liked, and their may not be any chance of a referendum but i can hope.
and why does the crown or crown estates hold so much of the land, you have answered that question yourself, because it was stolen from the original landowners in the past and as the monarch is now a constitutional monarch the crown estates should belong to the country and not the monarchy 

Come on- it's was a hell of a long time ago.
In a way the Crown Estates do belong to the country- she can't sell them- but they are well managed and as I keep pointing out give many millions to the Government.

Anyway not going to win an argument against a republican- we can agree to disagree

( will agree however that 'air miles Prince Andrew is not liked very much )

[roo860]

A boomerang, A Koala and a cockatoo

And unfortunately Rolf Harris.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[yardrunner]

5 hours ago, peterb17 said:

 

 

Come on- it's was a hell of a long time ago.
In a way the Crown Estates do belong to the country- she can't sell them- but they are well managed and as I keep pointing out give many millions to the Government.

Anyway not going to win an argument against a republican- we can agree to disagree

( will agree however that 'air miles Prince Andrew is not liked very much )

 

 

yes we can agree to disagree