How much does the monarchy cost the English?

[CC]

I presume that there are certain aspects of British government that are devoted to the royals. There must be a degree of security, of course, when they are out and about, and certainly, when the queen travels as head of state her costs are borne by the people. I’m wondering what fraction of the British budget can be described as being spent on the monarchy.

[newcrasher]

I don’t know the answer, but I bet it is a small fraction of the income they generate.

[CC]

No doubt that’s true as well. Garbage in, garbage out.

[History_Mystery_and_the_Wolf]

You also need to remember that the members of the royal family have substantial personal incomes.

[GorillaMan]

It’s impossible to put a total figure on it. Preposterously low numbers are sometimes turned out by the palace press office, but these only account for the most obvious expenditure. Things like security are impossible to quantify, because there’s not always a clear line between security for the royal family and that of the general public. Also, there’s vast income from land owned by royal estates.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

For a start…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try

http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_762512435/the_future_of_the_british_monarchy.html
Share your opinion here: http://dailysplice.com/The-Royal-Report-podcast/episode-170402
And an anti-monarchy site: Britain's republican future - The Centre for Citizenship

[Dr.Drake]

Plus, remember that the English are one of the peoples of the U.K., all of whom pay for the monarchy to some degree, so you’d have to factor in the different costs for England, Scotland, etc.

(Yes, I know you probably meant “people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” but it’s a touchy subject in Wales, f’r instance.)

[alphaboi867]

@GorillaMan

…Also, there’s vast income from land owned by royal estates.

Doesn’t the Queen turn over that income to the government in exchange for the Civil List?

[Winnipeg]

The Monarchy (some time ago) allowed the government to have the income from the Royal Lands, those lands that have devolved over the years to the ownership of the Monarchy. The rents on those lands are over #200 million GBP per year.

This more than pays for the Monarchy, the Queen also has a substantial personal fortune that is not connected with the Monarchy, which is a creature unto it self, like a corporation.

[dangermom]

And the tourist money that the royals bring in just by existing far outstrips what they cost. I saw some numbers a few years back (I believe in a book analyzing royalty, not sure), and if there’s one thing British anti-monarchists can’t complain about, it’s that the royals are money-sucking parasites.

(Not, mind you, that I’m for royalty–I ain’t. But monetarily speaking they’re a national asset.)

[The_Second_Stone]

@Dr.Drake

Plus, remember that the English are one of the peoples of the U.K., all of whom pay for the monarchy to some degree, so you’d have to factor in the different costs for England, Scotland, etc.

(Yes, I know you probably meant “people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” but it’s a touchy subject in Wales, f’r instance.)

Nothing as gruesome as a touch Welshman.

[Northern_Piper]

another factor to consider is that any head of state costs money to maintain and protect. suppose the UK switches to a weak-presidential parliamentary system, similar to Germany’s arrangement. That new UK president may be just as much a figurehead as the Queen is, but would still need a salary, a place to live, a supporting bureaucracy, and security to protect them as they go about their duties. So in assessing what the Queen costs the British people, you have to discount all of those types of necessary expenses.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Good point. I remember an article, late in the Chirac years, revealing that the French presidency actually cost more annually than the British monarchy.

[Northern_Piper]

yes, but the French system is a strong presidency, with the President having significant political powers, so I would assume that the French President would need significantly more staff than the Queen: political advisors, researchers, policy wonks, and so on. A better comparison would be the Presidents of Italy or Germany, since those presidents do not have significant political power.

[GorillaMan]

@alphaboi867

Doesn’t the Queen turn over that income to the government in exchange for the Civil List?

I had the Duchy of Cornwall in mind, which only hands over a portion of its income.

[Kobal2]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Good point. I remember an article, late in the Chirac years, revealing that the French presidency actually cost more annually than the British monarchy.

Well, Chirac did a lot of travelling, so there’s that. He’s an Africa buff, and loves primitive art in general, so while he was in power he never missed an opportunity to go and “bolster French relationships” with Fidji, or Papua etc…

[Northern_Piper]

@GorillaMan

@alphaboi867

Doesn’t the Queen turn over that income to the government in exchange for the Civil List?

I had the Duchy of Cornwall in mind, which only hands over a portion of its income.

There’s also the Duchy of Lancaster:

The Duchy of Lancaster is one of the two Royal Duchies in England, the other being the Duchy of Cornwall, and is the personal (inherited) property of the monarch. Despite the name, the duchy is effectively a property company (though it pays no corporation tax), and it consists of 46,200 acres (18,700 ha)[1], including key urban developments, historic buildings, and farm land in many parts of England and Wales, as well as large holdings in Lancashire. As of fiscal year 2007, the Duchy is valued at £397 million, with a net profit of £11.9 million, thus yielding 3% return.[2] All revenue profits from the Duchy of Lancaster distributed to the Sovereign are subject to income tax.[3]

[Billdo]

I recall on a TV series about the monarchy broadcast recently on PBS in the US, they showed a press conference that said that the monarchy cost 66 pence per person.

In fact, on a bit of searching, here’s that figure straight from the Queen’s own website. From there, you can see the detailed reports of the Keeper of the Privy Purse (one of the more appealing job titles, no doubt).

[Polycarp]

It’s important to distinguish a bunch of things:

1. The Crown Lands are property which belongs to the monarch as King or Queen. Its income – but not the property itself – is deeded over by the monarch on accession in exchange for the Civil List, which preserves the tradition of Parliamentary control over Royal finances. When Queen Elizabeth dies, Charles will need to decide whether to continue that tradeoff or live off the Crown Lands income and forego the Civil List. The Crown Lands can be looked on as a sort of entailed property that passes with the monarchy.

2. The Duchy of Lancaster (and for the heir to the throne, the Duchy of Cornwall) are properties that are held in a distinct capacity. Since 1399, the Duchy of Lancaster has been subsumed into the Crown, but its properties remain in existence as a separate legal entity. (It’s interesting to note that the Duchy of Cornwall is the classic example of an estate held during the lifetime of another, as the heir holds those lands only during the reign of his predecessor; when Charles becomes King, those properties will pass immediately and automatically to William.

3. Certain properties are conceived of by the Royal Family as being held by the Crown in trust for the British people – the Royal Art Collection, Windsor Castle, Buckingham, Kensington, and Holyrood Palaces being standard examples. Ther Queen cannot sell them or give them away – they are “hers” only in a custodial sense – or so the House of Windsor views them.

4. Distinct from this are certain things – Sandringham and Balmoral being the standard examples – that are the property of Elizabeth Windsor distinct from her role as Queen, which she can pass to others by will. Since Victoria, it’s been understood that they pass to the new monarch along with the Crown – but Elizabeth could in theory leave Princess Anne or the Earl of Wessex the title to Sandringham if she so chose.

5. Also worth remembering is that the Civil List is not specifically the income of the Queen: it is the support for the Royal Family in their public roles. As long as Britain chooses to have Prince Philip, Princess Anne, and the rest available as dignitaries dedicating the new hospital or post office, sitting as honorary chairman of civic groups, and so on, this is the income that supports the various Princes, Princesses, and such while they’re doing all that public appearance work. Overpaid? Arguably. But you couldn’t hire me to live in the Royal Goldfish Bowl for triple their salaries. (Charles is the exception – he supports himself off Duchy of Cornwall income, and pays tax on it, drawing nothing from the Civil List.)

[dangermom]

@Polycarp

Overpaid? Arguably. But you couldn’t hire me to live in the Royal Goldfish Bowl for triple their salaries.

Yeah, me too. Living like that is my idea of hell. Sure, you can say they’re overpaid for the actions of opening hospitals and whatnot, but there’s nothing on earth that can compensate for having the life of a royal, invaded and criticized at every moment.