Cost of Royal Family = 66p per UK person = good value in light of big UK nostalgia tourist revenue generated?

Question

Cost of Royals at 66p per person

Press Assoc. - 32 mins ago

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 66p per person last year - an increase of 4p, Buckingham Palace accounts revealed.

The total cost of keeping the monarchy in the year to March 31 increased by £2 million to £40 million, royal accountants said.

The amount spent on official royal travel rose, as did the Queen's Civil List - funds used to cover the cost of the monarch's official duties as head of state.

But Palace officials highlighted for the second year running the backlog of essential maintenance projects that need to be carried out to royal palaces.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: "Expenditure on royal travel, which will vary from year to year, also increased in response to the number of overseas visits undertaken at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and UK Trade and Investment.

"During the current year, the Department for Culture, Media & ..

BBC News 24!

Answer 1

As far as I am concerned it's 66p too much! They are nothing but scroungers and it's about time they payed their own way and cut back on expenses like everyone else has too! To me they epitomise every thing that is wrong in this Country…… I despise the whole lot of them…

Answer 2

I am not a Royalist in any way but in this mad world the cost per person is negligible to enable our country to have a head of state who is sane and endowed with common sense. I am not so enamoured with support for the other, more minor Royals, and believe they should work like anyone else.

Answer 3

I think so

and it's cheap at twice the price if it means we don't have a president (despite Blair's best efforts)

in fact, i'm sure the queen is cheaper than my wheelie bin..

Answer 4

It's d**n good value for money

Answer 5

Compare that you what we spend on government, police, cars or our TV licence and it's good value for money.  Associated tourism earns us about £5 a head, so we get the monarchy for nothing.

The queen is our head of state.  We need one of those.  (She's the only person who can sack Gordon Brown)  The alternative would be a politician - and you know how much they cost.  Compared to the cost of maintaining past and present presidents in the USA or France, we get amazing value for money.  Don't knock it unless you're prepared to do the job for less.

Answer 6

If the whole lot were sold to Disney then I think that would make more economical sense.

Answer 7

Yeah real value for money...don't other people who live off of the backs of the tax payers get called scroungers....we don't need the royals anymore and attracting tourists is no excuse to keep the royal family in such a ridiculous extravagant lifestyle

Answer 8

They are worth every penny bless them all

Answer 9

Once again, the anti- Royalist BBC are falling over themselves to point out what the Royals cost us. There is no historical precedence for this, the BBC have simply decided to do it, the reason being obvious.

The cost, which I haven't asked for, nor am I interested in knowing, is petty cash compared to the massive Governmental and Public Sector wastage, not to mention the massive spending by the thousands of quango's set up by the Government, that we endure on an ongoing basis. I understand that Tony Blair used to use the 'Royal Train' more than the Royals.

I notice that they make know attempt to evaluate the benefits accruing from foreign tourism.

Answer 10

I think the Royals get too much.  They should be limited to one palace per UK country, and be made to sell the rest off and give it to the health service.  If they (queen's kids) don't want to live in Buck House they should have to buy their own property like the rest of us.

Answer 11

How do I claim my money back.

Answer 12

Better them than the scum we keep in prisons, costing us thousands.

Answer 13

You've heard the saying:

Lies - damned lies and then statistics.

Who says the Royal family only cost 66p per person.  Does this take into account the extra policing for every public engagement?  Does it take into account the upkeep of the official buildings in which they reside?  Does it take into account the official trips abroad which are paid from the privy purse?  Charles and Camilla don't get a penny paid directly to them from the Government, but they do get their expenses met when undertaking duties on behalf of her Majesty - but the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster provide him with a very tidy sum.  If he stepped aside to relinquish the monarchy to William where would that leave Prince Charles and Camilla - financially?

Don't think Charles would be able to cope with being stony broke and living off the revenue generated by Gatcombe Park.

Answer 14

It would be good value if I didn't have to pay all the extra 66p's for alkis, druggies, chavs and every other unemployed layabout in the country!

Answer 15

FIrst off, your post is too d**n long.

Second:  open question to all Brits:  what is your ROI on 66p getting you?

Answer 16

Of course it's good value. Only the most sour of anti-Royalists will still oppose this. I would much rather my hard earned 66p per year be spent on the Royal Family than some of the other hare-brained crackpot schemes our government wastes our money on.

Answer 17

LOL@seven ... for once we disagree.. i would much rather have a royal family than a president.. i just wish they would  interfere more with politics...

Answer 18

The Queen represents the country, not a political party. The Monarchy is part of our history and tradition, it's got to be worth a measly 66p pa.

When you get the super rich not paying taxes they're the ones that cost the country, like Phillip Green who gives himself a £1.2 billion dividend and paid not a penny tax.