PDA

View Full Version : Are the royal family worth 61p a yr?



DimPrawn
22nd June 2005, 13:59
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm)

The Royal Family cost Britons £36.7m last year, equivalent to 61p per taxpayer, new figures show.
Buckingham Palace said the figure, which excludes security costs, was at it lowest since 2001 and had fallen 2.3% in real terms since 2003-4.

Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royals gave "value for money".


So, are they worth it?

Lucifer Box
22nd June 2005, 14:02
Tell you what, I'll round my contribution up to a quid and they can buy something nice with the change.

shaunbhoy
22nd June 2005, 14:03
Yes, provided of course we only have to give the 61p between us. Otherwise NO, they are an expensive and outdated quirky anachronism.

cooperinliverp00l
22nd June 2005, 14:04
Prince harry hash doesn't come cheap. I'm more than happy to give me tax towards them. Glad i pay the TV license so i can watch the queens speech at christmas. (just before wallace and gromit normally)

planetit
22nd June 2005, 14:05
Yes. I think the entertainment they provide is well worth 61p. Just one of Phil's one liners is worth that on it's own.

NumptyCorner
22nd June 2005, 14:07
I'm outraged, I thought I was paying 59p the bloody barstewards!

BobTheCrate
22nd June 2005, 14:08
The answer to the question is simple.

If you're a republican - NO. they are not worth 61p a year. If you're a republican they're not worth even 1p a year.

If you want a monarchy - YES they are definitely worth 61p a year, probably 100p a year.

WageSlave1
22nd June 2005, 14:08
So, are they worth it?

No, they don't even do 'It's a royal knockout' anymore.

Now Monaco had a good royal family, and has produced some fair totty over the years. There was a point during the late 80s/early 90s when Princess Stephanie had her charlies out every week. Can't see Princess Anne having the same appeal :x

PRC1964
22nd June 2005, 15:03
I wonder how much a President would cost us?

I'll support the Royals for now, but I'd be happier if I could choose how my 61p was spent.

I want mine to go on buying Turkey Twizzlers for the Queen.

wendigo100
22nd June 2005, 15:21
Look at it this way - how much do our MPs cost, and do they give value for money?

The number of official government residences has shot up - Blair's sacked ministers are now allowed to keep theirs.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 15:32
Apart from the fact that this thread contains opinions that are one step from treason that is punisheable by death, it appears to me that the Royals attract enough tourists who spend way way more money on all sort of stuff, tax revenues from that go to Her Majesty's Threasury, and had there been no such revenues you will have to make up for it.

Therefore taxpayer's funding of the Royal family saves money to taxpayers -- if only all taxes were like that!

BigJohnE
22nd June 2005, 16:13
<<Therefore taxpayer's funding of the Royal family saves money to taxpayers -- if only all taxes were like that!>>


Do Tourists visit the Palace of Versailles because the French have a royal family or St Petersburg because Russia has a Royal family?

No, the Royal Family does not attract tourists, they would still turn up anyway.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 16:53
BigJohnE -- you'd better be an MP speaking in the Houses of Common which I believe is the only place where such treasonnous talks are allowed :rolleyes

snaw
22nd June 2005, 17:22
Apart from the fact that this thread contains opinions that are one step from treason that is punisheable by death, it appears to me that the Royals attract enough tourists who spend way way more money on all sort of stuff, tax revenues from that go to Her Majesty's Threasury, and had there been no such revenues you will have to make up for it.

Been done already but basically they cost us more than they generate, so no it doesn't make financial sense.

DimPrawn
22nd June 2005, 17:23
I'd pay 62p that's how good I think they are. Does that get me off the treason charge?

AtW
22nd June 2005, 17:31
> Does that get me off the treason charge?

If you fall on your sword :)

wendigo100
22nd June 2005, 17:46
Been done already but basically they cost us more than they generate, so no it doesn't make financial sense.
Financial sense? If you want to go down that road, nor does giving money to x million unemployed, or to people on incapacity benefits.

threaded
22nd June 2005, 17:51
I bet they are cheaper than that Paymaster Generally Useless Dawn Slapperillo.

And have to wholeheartedly agree that any one liner from Prince Philip is well worth 61p. Such perfect entertainment value.

snaw
22nd June 2005, 18:04
Financial sense? If you want to go down that road, nor does giving money to x million unemployed, or to people on incapacity benefits.

Well let's go down that road. They've got tonnes of money already - 100's of millions. WTF should we be subsidising them to the tune of another 30+ mill per year, not too mention all the bloody palaces they live in - at our expense and owned by us.

Not as if they're english anyway (Or british), they're almost 100% German. A family who until this century (Ok Start of the last century, still getting used to the new millenium stuff) spoke German as their first language, and before that French for a few hundred years. Until a couple of decades ago not one 'British' monarch had married a British spouse.

Republican - you betchya. I'll take my hat off to the Queen (Look the other way Shaun) cause she has a bit of dignity but the rest of them can fack right off as far as I'm concerned for the sad, sorry, soap opera spectacle they've become.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 18:08
> WTF should we be subsidising them to the tune of another
> 30+ mill per year, not too mention all the bloody palaces they
> live in - at our expense and owned by us.

How would you like the Royals selling their famous real estates and gems to finance themselves? How about the Queen putting her Crown on the Ebay? How would that reflect on the UK?

The Royals waste bugger all money comparing to pretty much anything -- 30 mln is a drop in the ocean of Govt's waste.

snaw
22nd June 2005, 18:14
How would you like the Royals selling their famous real estates and gems to finance themselves? How about the Queen putting her Crown on the Ebay? How would that reflect on the UK?

Actually they're out famous real 'estates'. They just hold them in trust for us. Our crown, and care factor zero if they did anyway.

There's a huge mansion near where I grew up, owned by the local Earl - pretty much always empty but it contains one of the finest collections of 18th Century furniture anywhere in the world. Thing is - it has never been open to the public so we never get to see any of it.

Same with the royal families famous estates. Only reason they opened Buckingham palace was to fund renovations after the Windsor Castle fire.

Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

xoggoth
22nd June 2005, 18:30
I used to be a rabid republican as I dislike the hereditary principle, but became a lukewarm one after the Australian referendum when I really wondered for the first time what the alternative might be.

Assuming we really need a head of state to butter up foreign presidents etc. then I have to say the queen does a pretty good job and certainly is a lot more palatable than a nominee of our political rulers. Just imagine, President Kinnock or President Mandelson.

Also, as the queen is not a political appointee, more able potentially to act as a rallying point against a possible dictatorship,

snaw
22nd June 2005, 18:40
Just imagine, President Kinnock or President Mandelson.

King Charles ...

AtW
22nd June 2005, 18:43
> Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to
> account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

snaw, I understand that you as network admin have no idea about optimisations, so here is a quick hint: optimise something whether effect from optimisation will be greatest.

£30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste, if you assume cost of one civil servant being £20k (salary, pension, office etc), then 30 mln is just 1,500 civil servants! I am sure that the Royal family does more good to the UK than 1,500 civil servants, don't you agree?

snaw
22nd June 2005, 18:48
I am sure that the Royal family does more good to the UK than 1,500 civil servants, don't you agree?

Nope.


BTW


snaw, I understand that you as network admin have no idea about optimisations

Wassat supposed to mean? While we're on it get my job right - if you're gonna insult me call me a tape monkey or something properly insulting, being calling me a network admin is like being damned by faint praise ...

AtW
22nd June 2005, 19:05
If your proposal to cut taxpayers expense starting from the Royal family is based on desire to "optimise", ie save taxpayers money then you starting in the wrong place, or in other words you are optimising something that is unlikely to yield high benefits.

30 mln ought to be less than top few Govt ministers spent on "consultants" from KPMG, Accenture and so on, and I am damn sure that the Royal Family gives more value than those, ummm "consultants".

OwlHoot
22nd June 2005, 19:24
> Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

AtW is right - It's money down the back of the sofa compared to the literally billions the Government wastes on overmanning, and orders of magnitude cheaper than a presidency would be.

Although a staunch monarchist now, I'd be one no more if it became reduced to a "Disney Monarchy" with no constitutional role.

In other words, the time I'd start seeing the 60p, or whatever it is, as a waste is if I believed the Sovereign would never under any circs pressure the Government, even behind the scenes, on any proposed constitutional change or breach, or in an extreme situation withhold consent.

In theory, the British Monarchy, as an institution ("the Crown"), is there to defend the people against Parliament acting undemocratically, e.g. by voting to extend its term and postpone or abolish national elections.

And Parliament is there to prevent the Crown (in particular its Ministers, TB and co) from imposing arbitrary undemocratic decisions on British subjects, such as levying taxes or seizing property unlawfully a-la "President" Mugabe.

The fact that Ministers are, by convention, mostly elected members of Parliament disguises this basic "twin pillar" picture slightly, but doesn't make it as complicated as a Swiss watch and has had the advantage of helping avoid civil
war and constitutional upheaval for several centuries, unlike most republics.

I reckon most opponents of the Monarchy, are one or more of the following:

* Muddle-heads who won't, or more likely can't, distinguish between the Royal Family as people and the Crown as an institution.

* Petty-minded "who do they think they are?" merchants who resent anyone being better off or luckier than themselves, and rejoice to see those people brought down a peg or two. Unfortunately, as envy is the British national disease, that accounts for about half of the population.

* Ignorant iconoclasts and novelty hounds who think they sound frightfully bold and ever so original to argue for change, because, well because it would be new and everything new must be better, right?

* Clapped-out politicians, who think they might be in the running for President or some sinecure at the President's disposal.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 19:44
I am not a monarchist, but I think this country achieved a very good balance, I particularly like the fact that the Armed Forces are sworn to the Queen rather than executive branch. It is important safeguard more so because the Royal Family ain't concerned about next elections and their actions are driven by much longer-term goals.

Having said that I think its wrong to rent out major palaces to royals for feck all money -- this is wrong and effectively reduces nominal taxpayer support figure due to lost opportunity to rent it out to someone else paying money.

If I was in the Royal Family I'd do everything I can do break even and stop taking money from taxpayers so that some overfly anti-monachy people STFU.

4Contractors
23rd June 2005, 07:53
Are the royal family worth 61p a yr?

When we eventually join the euro perhaps the royal family would be happy to accept 61 cents per person ?

wendigo100
23rd June 2005, 08:22
snaw, if you had tons of money already, should clients stop paying you?

wendigo100
23rd June 2005, 08:32
£30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste, if you assume cost of one civil servant being £20k (salary, pension, office etc), then 30 mln is just 1,500 civil servants!
I'd say £60K salary plus overheads per civil servant is nearer the mark. Remember that their pensions are gold plated.

£30 million is 500 civil servants. HMG have taken on more than 100,000 extra since 1997, and whose life is better as a result of that?

Lucifer Box
23rd June 2005, 08:37
£30 million is 500 civil servants
At current rates of public sector recruitment, that is 1.25 days worth. Anyone grumbling about the cost of the royal family needs to focus their worries elsewhere methinks.

snaw
24th June 2005, 13:58
Subsidising Prince Andrew's golf trips to the tune of a 1/2 mill per year?

One 13 day trip for Charles which cost us £300,000 ...

No problem paying for the queen, but it's paying for the rest that bugs me, since these people have 100's of millions of private money of their own but are quite happy to bill us for everything they possibly can.

I'd be quite happy getting rid of a few thousand civil servnats to if that makes the monarchists feel any better ;)