Well, to get to the root of the matter; just about everything the Queen has is property of the State. You really can’t draw a line between her personal property and that of the state because 90% of her personal property she has inherited because she is the Queen, which is a position within the state.
The Queen also made use of her position within the State to avoid paying “Death Tax” after the death of the Queen Mother. So once again, augmenting her “personal” fortune on the basis of her privileged position.
However, if you accept that the Queen’s posessions are the States then you can hardly say that the Queen “costs” the State. All she can represent is a unfair distribution of the State’s wealth, but that is issue for the State to either accept or resolve. The Queen herself as a person can’t cost any more than what she personally consumes and all other costs are the responsibility of the State that puts her there.
But I do take issue with the much popular royalist argument that the Queen attracts tourists. While it may be true, it is greatly exaggerated. The tourist come for the historical context. Whether there is a existing Queen or not hardly matters. You can also make a fair argument that a constitution based on its tourisim potential is evidence of a nation with disturbing priorities.
Well, if you’re talking about Bush, and starting a war we don’t have a budget allowance to pay for, then… sorry, this could be considered a political potshot I suppose.
The American head of state is also the head of government (he wears two hats, in Yes Prime Ministerspeak), so you can’t really count him as a financial liability in the head of State role.
However, if you’re asking whether he (or in some possible future scenario, she) is a tax burden, then yes, because he draws a salary, and White House commissary and hospitality staff are paid via the Treasury. The upkeep of the White House is paid for by taxpayers, although the President pays (minimal) rent like the UK Prime Minister.
The cost of keeping (at least) two Secret Service agents on guard around each President for the duration of their natural lives once out of office is huge, also.
According to this site, the Queen refunds to the government all civil list payments to members of the Royal family other than to herself, the Duke of Edinburgh, and at that time, the Queen Mum:
Also according to that site, the net cost of the Civil list from 1991 to 2000 was £ 8,902,000 (12,462,800 US$).
Just in case people wondered, the monarchy as a whole costs the UK tax payer approximately £52m a year, that’s roughly $88m. So the common saying “immagine all the hospitals, schools etc. you could build if we got rid of the monarchy” is a bit silly as £50m wouldn’t get close to building a hospital, and would would only build and finance about 10 schools, hardly worth aboloshing 1500 years traditon for. BUT, putting opinion on whether we should have a monarchy or not, they bring in substantially more than £50m in tourism, Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Crown Jewels etc. And it has been proven that the majority of tourists would not be as interested in seeing the properties and possesions of an ex-monarchy… hence the British Monarchy being much more famous than the French or Italian, both long since deposed. Also there is the simple fact that the monarchy would have to be replaced with ‘something/someone’ as head of state, and they would require 90% of the same facilities, security, travel (helicopters, cars etc) and multiple residences (you’d have to have to have one in England, Wales, N.Ireland and Scotland to avoid offending anyone). So do the Monarchy cost anything? yes. Is that a loss to the taxpayer? Yes, a 100% loss, but they gain from secondary benefits, namely tourists. Is there a cheaper opiton? Probably not, not substantially cheaper anyway. Do the public want the monarchy? At the moment, all polls say yes, (but not by a huge majority)
I’m not up on subtleties of government, but why would the queen have to be replaced? Wouldn’t the PM be the head of state if there wasn’t a queen? (or I am supposed to say Queen with capital q)
Because in a parliamentary system, the head of state usually has certain reserve powers that can be used against the wishes of the Prime Minister, in very rare circumstances, to ensure the Prime Minister plays by the rules of the Constitution. In extremely rare circumstances of prime ministerial misconduct, that could even be to dismiss the PM and appoint a successor. HM currently has those powers - you wouldn’t want them to be given to the PM.
The Prime minister couldn’t be made head of state, he would then have no check, and would have effective absolute power if his party had a large majority. You have to split power, one to check the other. I don’t think (as far as I’m aware that anyone is suggesting the removal of the monarchy without replacing it with some other form of head of state).
And for the record, the Queen does make money, her property and stock investments make her millions which she re-invests into her upkeep. That is why she is worth 250m in her own right independant of state possessions, that fortune is of her own personal creation. Yes she made it from her initial wage from the tax payer, but she has made a lot of profit from it.
Just a minor point, not saying she pays her own way, but it’s just not entirely true to say she doesn’t make any money of her own.
Welcome aboard the SDMB, Joetimg, but in the General Queastions forum you’re not supposed to make claims about things having been proven unless you can provide evidence of the proof. Can you do that please? Or, in other words, “cite?”
So what, exactly, does the Queen do? In a governmental sense, I mean. (I’d imagine she spenda a great deal of her actual time trying to ignore the antics of her family.)
Someone already mentioned that she’s there as a checks-and-balances measure for the Prime Minister, but I don’t imagine she has to actually take action in that capacity often. Does she play any role in the actual day-to-day running of the country, or does she just smile for the cameras and hang around just in case she’s needed?
Oh, come on everton.
I think he did that by hinting at the current position of the French and Italian situation. Surely Versailles is a tourist trap, but you must agree that it would probably be much more of a one if it was still inhabited by a French monarch.
The queen doesn’t perform any executive function on a day to day basis. Each Act of Parliament has to be given the Royal Assent, which is effectively a rubber-stamping exercise to complete its passage through the parliamentary machine. Theoretically she signs each Act herself and can refuse to sign any she disagrees with, but in practice a civil servant often signs in her absence and the last monarch to refuse to ratify a law was Queen Anne in 1707.
The Prime Minister meets with the Queen each week while parliament is sitting and so long as she’s in the country. Supposedly she offers the benefit of her experience in matters that might be causing Tony to scratch his head, and she does at least have the advantage of not needing to be motivated directly by party politics, but in practice it’s difficult to imagine what essential advice she could possibly give, and the contents of their conversations remain private anyhow.
The point of my earlier remark was to give a gentle nudge to a newbie about the difference between the GQ forum and In My Humble Opinion. Over in IMHO you can say pretty much what you like – you won’t be expected to back up any claims with stats. But here you certainly can’t use words like “proved” unless you can explain what that proof is. Similarly you shouldn’t really be using words like “probably”.
Perhaps it's up to the moderator of this forum to decide what constitutes reliable source material, but personally I wouldn’t trust wet-finger-in-the-air guesswork from the editorial team at *Majesty* magazine, or someone from the London Tourist Board (of whatever its new name is) asking a handful of fifty-something Minnesotans outside Buck House whether they would’ve made the trip if we didn’t have a queen. Unless someone can indicate otherwise, that’s the sort of hearsay that all too frequently supports the monarchist view of their essential role in the UK tourism industry.
You might be interested in this article from the BBC’s website: [London Eye tops tourism poll](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3018194.stm)
[quote]
Top 10 'cool' places
[ul][li]The London Eye - 33% [/li][li]The Lanes, Brighton - 14% [/li][li]Covent Garden - 9% [/li][li]Cambridge University and river - 8% [/li][li]Windsor - 7% [/li][li]Soho - 6% [/li][li]Westminster Abbey and Big Ben - 5% [/li][li]Hampton Court Palace - 4% [/li][li]Urbis Museum, Manchester - 4% [/li][li]Liverpool Waterfront - 3% [/ul][/li][/quote]
Note that Hampton Court Palace, an unoccupied, former royal residence (and well worth a visit), lags the current royal residence at Windsor by only three percentage points. These figures don’t cover total visitor numbers but the word ‘cool’ implies popularity among younger visitors who, presumably, represent the future. I am certainly not claiming that the royals play no part (or even a decreasing part) in the UK’s tourism industry. This subject is a notoriously difficult one to analyse, which is precisely why we shouldn’t be relying on guesses, “probablies” and unsupported “proof”.
**The OP of this thread specifically requested that tourism be left out of the equation anyway.**
It seems ironic that I should have been condemned, effectively, in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193765) of being a reactionary monarchist. Where were you then **Popup** ;)?
On the contrary: You should absolutely use words like “probably”, if that’s what you mean. To feign certainty, when you’re not certain, is exactly the sort of misleading statement which should be avoided in GQ.
As for that hot tourism list, is that foreign tourism or domestic? Because if we’re going to be considering tourism, we ought to restrict ourselves to foreign tourism which brings money into the UK, not domestic tourism which mearly spreads it around in the country. And speaking as an American, I’ve never heard of the London Eye, the Lanes, nor Covent Garden. It’s also misleading to say that Hampton Court is only three percentage points behind Windsor, since you could also say that Windsor is nearly twice as popular.
Everton, I meant that everyone has heard of Buckingham Palace from here to New Zealand… and most people are interested in seeing it if they are nearbye. How many people can name the royal residence of the Italian King, or The (still reigning) Spanish King for that matter?
Secondly, the crown jewels take on added significance if they are still used in state occassions, it’s just the very simple concept that there is more interest in traditions still carried out, namely our monarchy, than ones considered archaic now.