Jesus, what is it with everyone, its still 40 million pounds!!! More like over 100 million pounds! A huge amount of money
NO ONE CAN ANSWER WHY IT IS WORTH PAYING!!!
It is worth paying because it keeps a lot of people in employment. If we scrapped the royal family do you really think that all of the royal buildings and estates would suddenly run themselves for free? That 40 million doesn't just sit in big piles of cash under the queens bed, it pays for staff who work for the royal household andmaintenance on the estates so builders, plumbers, electricians, etc, plus security staff many of which are probably ex army and police.
If you got rid of the queen and put the royal estates under direct government control most of those people would still be needed to maintain the estates but you would also add on top extra layers of government bureaucracy and waste which would increase the costs to a lot higher than 40 million a year.
Because it is simply another government department with another budget.
The Royal family, or more likely The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles do what is asked of them by government.
One might as well ask what good do pensioners, the unemployed and disabled do for society?
Its a head of state that we don't need, not a government department. We need all our other government departments, and if you find one we don't need then start a new thread.
Pensioners have paid their taxes and deserve a pension, some disabled people can't work but deserve a right to live a decent life. The unemployed is a subject for another thread lol
From what I've read, The Crown Estate brought in £250m this year, the Sovereign Grant saw £37.9m given to the Queen out of that. We could just give her the £250m instead couldn't we?
The crown estate was given to the government in 1760 by George III
It is worth paying because it keeps a lot of people in employment. If we scrapped the royal family do you really think that all of the royal buildings and estates would suddenly run themselves for free? That 40 million doesn't just sit in big piles of cash under the queens bed, it pays for staff who work for the royal household andmaintenance on the estates so builders, plumbers, electricians, etc, plus security staff many of which are probably ex army and police.
If you got rid of the queen and put the royal estates under direct government control most of those people would still be needed to maintain the estates but you would also add on top extra layers of government bureaucracy and waste which would increase the costs to a lot higher than 40 million a year.
Im pretty sure if Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace and all the others opened up they'd be making a nice profit. We already have departments in place to control national heritage sights so I disagree with your bureaucrat argument.
From what I've read, The Crown Estate brought in £250m this year, the Sovereign Grant saw £37.9m given to the Queen out of that. We could just give her the £250m instead couldn't we?
Could Betty cover the running of the country out of that? Excellent if yes. Let's do it!
Im pretty sure if Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace and all the others opened up they'd be making a nice profit. We already have departments in place to control national heritage sights so I disagree with your bureaucrat argument.
The royal estates already do make us a nice profit. As you said we already have a department for controlling our national heritage, it costs us £1.4 billion a year, 35 times more than the royal estates cost us, and it doesn't make any profit.
The royal estates already do make us a nice profit. As you said we already have a department for controlling our national heritage, it costs us £1.4 billion a year, 35 times more than the royal estates cost us, and it doesn't make any profit.
I underestimated their budget, it is actually £1,534,674,000 for 2013/14.
If you look at the breakdown for costs in that department you will notice that they spend more each year on administration and paperwork than the government spend on the royal household.
You mean like the 46m and 26m figures that you claimed in your OP without any actual evidence?
Check the sources at the top, the £40m is from the first bbc source which highlights next years cost. The 26m comes from the channel 4 fact file which states the cost to local council through royal visits.
I underestimated their budget, it is actually £1,534,674,000 for 2013/14.
If you look at the breakdown for costs in that department you will notice that they spend more each year on administration and paperwork than the government spend on the royal household.
Lol one of the two events this covers is the preparations for the Diamond Jubiliee, even more costs directly incurred to us from her maj!
You can not compare the whole budget for this department against the cost of royalty, this £1.5b includes the cost of hosting the olymipcs, the continual need to upkeep our infrastructure, sports in our education and even the environment. The department justifies its hefty cost as every penny is used for the good of society. You can not say the same about the Royal family!
As a head of state that makes the Queen pretty good value. The Sovereign Grant out of which the Queen's income comes is paid annually at a value calculated as a percentage of the Government's revenues from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues in the financial year two years earlier. The initial percentage was set at 15%.
(This is why it goes up, because the country is making more money out of the Royal Estates)
The Grant consolidates the following 4 payments under the old arrangement.
* The Civil List paid by the Exchequer
* The Grant-in-Aid for Royal Travel paid by the Department for Transport
* The Grant-in-Aid for Communications and Information paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
* The Grant-in-Aid for the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
As a head of state that makes the Queen pretty good value. The Sovereign Grant out of which the Queen's income comes is paid annually at a value calculated as a percentage of the Government's revenues from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues in the financial year two years earlier. The initial percentage was set at 15%.
(This is why it goes up, because the country is making more money out of the Royal Estates)
The Grant consolidates the following 4 payments under the old arrangement.
* The Civil List paid by the Exchequer
* The Grant-in-Aid for Royal Travel paid by the Department for Transport
* The Grant-in-Aid for Communications and Information paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
* The Grant-in-Aid for the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Oh please, please, PLEASE do not make me go round this roundabout again! All profits from the estate belong to the government, the royal family have no right to these! Thanks to George III who made a deal with the government, for more info scroll up!
We pay over £100m for our parliament which is part of the cost of living in society as these people set the laws of the land and run the country. This is what you should be comparing to the precedency costs of Mr Hollande. Meaning we would save £130m from the royals every year.
I read the other day that Beatrice & Eugenie are costing the taxpayer £35m per annum. If we must have 'royals', the state should pay for the one sitting on the throne only, imo.
I read the other day that Beatrice & Eugenie are costing the taxpayer £35m per annum. If we must have 'royals', the state should pay for the one sitting on the throne only, imo.
If you check your facts you will find that only the Queen (who is the one on the throne) and Prince Philip get taxpayers money.
Jesus, what is it with everyone, its still 40 million pounds!!! More like over 100 million pounds! A huge amount of money
NO ONE CAN ANSWER WHY IT IS WORTH PAYING!!!
Blimey. If you get this hysterical about something as trivial as the monarchy, what happens when you think about something that actually affects your life? Do you have to post in capitals in an even larger font?:D
If you check your facts you will find that only the Queen (who is the one on the throne) and Prince Philip get taxpayers money.
If we were to get rid of he royal family , we would still have to have a head of state , a president , and how much would that cost ? . Not as much , but they would contribute far less .
I agree with every penny spent on our NHS, schools, transport etc because they are vital to our society.
This is your mistake. Everything should be open to scrutiny and criticism. Everyone knows that things always cost vastly more than they should when it is someone else's money they are spending.
Think of the PFIs used to fund hospital buildings, or that £12bn on that failed IT project (you'd think that by £11bn, someone would have realised it wasn't going to work).
And yes spending on the royal family should be scrutinised too. But that is relatively small potatoes. Taking some drastic action such as turning the UK into a Republic, just to solve 0.001% of the problem, is not appropriate, not if your primary concern is the money (although I suspect it isn't, it's just a stick to have a go at them with).
I also suspect the cost of such a massive change will end up costing far more than the royal family does at present. That would be especially true if we end up still needing the hundreds of people forming the staff at the various palaces, and only get rid of the big names that everyone knows.
(Personally, I don't know why the lot of them don't abdicate anyway, they have enough fame and private means to live comfortably without having to do thousands of engagements into their dotage and being criticised and ridiculed at every turn.)
Comments
It is worth paying because it keeps a lot of people in employment. If we scrapped the royal family do you really think that all of the royal buildings and estates would suddenly run themselves for free? That 40 million doesn't just sit in big piles of cash under the queens bed, it pays for staff who work for the royal household andmaintenance on the estates so builders, plumbers, electricians, etc, plus security staff many of which are probably ex army and police.
If you got rid of the queen and put the royal estates under direct government control most of those people would still be needed to maintain the estates but you would also add on top extra layers of government bureaucracy and waste which would increase the costs to a lot higher than 40 million a year.
Its a head of state that we don't need, not a government department. We need all our other government departments, and if you find one we don't need then start a new thread.
Pensioners have paid their taxes and deserve a pension, some disabled people can't work but deserve a right to live a decent life. The unemployed is a subject for another thread lol
The crown estate was given to the government in 1760 by George III
Im pretty sure if Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace and all the others opened up they'd be making a nice profit. We already have departments in place to control national heritage sights so I disagree with your bureaucrat argument.
Could Betty cover the running of the country out of that? Excellent if yes. Let's do it!
The royal estates already do make us a nice profit. As you said we already have a department for controlling our national heritage, it costs us £1.4 billion a year, 35 times more than the royal estates cost us, and it doesn't make any profit.
Evidence???
1,400,000,000 / 40,000,000 = 35
Yes, nice maths. But it means nothing when £1,4000,000,000 is plucked out of the air
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258651/DCMS_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2012-13_for_GOV.UK.pdf
I underestimated their budget, it is actually £1,534,674,000 for 2013/14.
If you look at the breakdown for costs in that department you will notice that they spend more each year on administration and paperwork than the government spend on the royal household.
You mean like the 46m and 26m figures that you claimed in your OP without any actual evidence?
Check the sources at the top, the £40m is from the first bbc source which highlights next years cost. The 26m comes from the channel 4 fact file which states the cost to local council through royal visits.
Lol one of the two events this covers is the preparations for the Diamond Jubiliee, even more costs directly incurred to us from her maj!
You can not compare the whole budget for this department against the cost of royalty, this £1.5b includes the cost of hosting the olymipcs, the continual need to upkeep our infrastructure, sports in our education and even the environment. The department justifies its hefty cost as every penny is used for the good of society. You can not say the same about the Royal family!
Well we could always have an elected head of state, after all Francois Hollande only costs £87.2 million
As a head of state that makes the Queen pretty good value. The Sovereign Grant out of which the Queen's income comes is paid annually at a value calculated as a percentage of the Government's revenues from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues in the financial year two years earlier. The initial percentage was set at 15%.
(This is why it goes up, because the country is making more money out of the Royal Estates)
The Grant consolidates the following 4 payments under the old arrangement.
* The Civil List paid by the Exchequer
* The Grant-in-Aid for Royal Travel paid by the Department for Transport
* The Grant-in-Aid for Communications and Information paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
* The Grant-in-Aid for the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Oh please, please, PLEASE do not make me go round this roundabout again! All profits from the estate belong to the government, the royal family have no right to these! Thanks to George III who made a deal with the government, for more info scroll up!
We pay over £100m for our parliament which is part of the cost of living in society as these people set the laws of the land and run the country. This is what you should be comparing to the precedency costs of Mr Hollande. Meaning we would save £130m from the royals every year.
What a bargain!
Got to laugh, all this "What about the tax payer."
In my experience many of the loudest complainers pay little or no tax.😃
Who pays Princesses Beatrice and Princess Eugenie’s costs?
If you check your facts you will find that only the Queen (who is the one on the throne) and Prince Philip get taxpayers money.
Blimey. If you get this hysterical about something as trivial as the monarchy, what happens when you think about something that actually affects your life? Do you have to post in capitals in an even larger font?:D
I read it in one of the newspapers online. I took it to mean security costs, etc.
If we were to get rid of he royal family , we would still have to have a head of state , a president , and how much would that cost ? . Not as much , but they would contribute far less .
I can... I don't fancy the alternative. I don't like the rest of the royal family but I think its vital to the country to have a monarchy
Think of the PFIs used to fund hospital buildings, or that £12bn on that failed IT project (you'd think that by £11bn, someone would have realised it wasn't going to work).
And yes spending on the royal family should be scrutinised too. But that is relatively small potatoes. Taking some drastic action such as turning the UK into a Republic, just to solve 0.001% of the problem, is not appropriate, not if your primary concern is the money (although I suspect it isn't, it's just a stick to have a go at them with).
I also suspect the cost of such a massive change will end up costing far more than the royal family does at present. That would be especially true if we end up still needing the hundreds of people forming the staff at the various palaces, and only get rid of the big names that everyone knows.
(Personally, I don't know why the lot of them don't abdicate anyway, they have enough fame and private means to live comfortably without having to do thousands of engagements into their dotage and being criticised and ridiculed at every turn.)