Is the royal family value for money?

Question

The monarchy now costs £40 million to maintain, up £2 million in the last year, according to an annual report from Buckingham Palace. The Queen spent £1.2 million on catering and hospitality and £600,000 on housekeeping and furnishings.

Palace officials said that the cost was less than the price of two pints of milk or an iPod download.

Does the monarchy offer us good value for money? Is £40 million a small price to pay given the number of official engagements the Royal family attends, their charity work and the income they generate through tourism?

Is it unfair that the tax payer is faced with an increased bill just when the average Briton is feeling the pinch? Should fewer member of the Royal family be entitled to receive state funding and, if so, who should decide who is on the Civil List? Is it time Britain did away with an hereditary monarchy altogether?

I wonder how much it costs each person for prisons, MP's, war, social security benefits, etc. hmmmm....

Answer 1

Money is only part of the problem. Essentially, the monarchy is based on nothing more than tradition and is robbing us of our democratic right to choose our head of state. It is an outdated institution and whichever you look at it, plain wrong in a supposed democratic country.

www.republic.org.uk

Answer 2

Of course they aren't. successive royal families have cost us countless sums of money through their constant wars and land feuds. All they've ever know is privillage and all at our expense when the money could be spent on stuff that everyone needs like the NHS. All those millions of pounds every year and the Queen objected to Tony Blair making her pay tax!

I don't think the royals have ever been value for money.

Answer 3

Very interesting, thought provoking Q.  I think that the late Queen Mother, bless her heart, was an asset to this country and a marvellous ambassador, through the abdication, 2nd world war and years following.  She clearly continued to guide and support our current queen following the loss of the King in the 50's.  I can say I think they were value for money - as for the heirs apparent - well that is a different story.  Charles and Camilla seem set in the ways of country pursuits and I do not think they represent a modern Britain at all.  As for William, he is still developing, but is wary of the media and so I think we never see the real person.  All the rest are hangers on in my opinion and should pay their way like the rest of us have to.  See how fired up I'm getting, this debate could run and run...........where are my trainers?

Answer 4

Yes, the royal family is value for money.

The monarchy cost us £40 million last year, but what you neglect to mention is that the income from the crown lands (which is handed over to the people) was £200 million, so we made a profit of £160 million out of the monarchy.  That sounds good to me.

Moreover, the cost of maintaining the monarchy is trifling compared to what some other countries pay for their heads of state.  The monarchy cost us 66p each.  The Italian President cost the Italian £1.24 each, nearly twice as much.  Our royal family are very good value.

Answer 5

The British Crown owns that money, the wealth of the British people belongs to the Crown.  It is for the use of the monarchy that the British Pound even exists.

The question might well be asked: "Are British subjects a good value to the Monarchy?"  

If a British subject doesn't like the way the Monarchy rules, then there are essentially 2 choices,: 1)gather the rabble and seize the powers that the Crown represents or 2)become a diffidant, by an act of diffidatio, withdraw their own consent to be a subject of a Monarch.

Each human person must make their own choice whether to be ruled by another man or to be ruled by themself.

By allowing the Monarchy to rule, a subject endorses the decisions of the Crown.

If you don't like being owned, it is up to you to throw off the yoke of slavery.

Answer 6

Sadly I think not

But how much money do the Royals bring into UK with tourism ?  

Dont bother me....

Answer 7

I really think that only the Queen and immediate family members should recieve funding. Prince Charles does alot of charity work which i think is worth the money, but i don't think it's right to fund all the nice cars and homes and so on... I mean here we are, hard working, tax paying people who struggle to pay the mortgage for one house and they have several stately homes dotted around all over the place!.

Answer 8

yes certainly better value than our over indulged over payed arrogant MP's who can't even be bothered to turn up to work for important decisions sleep on the job and are able to lie beg steal and borrow with out reproach GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

Answer 9

I agree with Louise C.

Charles is not on the Civil List.He earns his money through his businesses and other interests from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Civil List was reduced in 1992.The Queen needs to pay for her immediate family's expenses out of her allotment.Perhaps,only the sovereign and spouse should be on the Civil List to keep expenses in tow.But government workers still have to be paid.

A republican government is a lot more costly.Bush has pushed the US into a recession because of his poor choices;we also pay for pay raises of a do-nothing Senate and Congress,as well as for our state representatives.Every year, in the US,it seems like this bond is passed and that bond is passed,which means taxes go up and up,and for what? Nothing has improved.Prisons are still over-crowded,education and social services are under-funded.It doesn't matter what type of government you have for overspending to happen because of the choices elected government make.Doing away with the monarchy won't help you;elected officials will only spend more than the monarchy.

Answer 10

No, just because there royalty doesn't mean that there special.

Answer 11

no they are not,  if the queen is the richest woman in the world, why are we still paying her,  charles made 16 million last year why are we still paying him, and the list goes on and on and on.........oliver cromwell where are you now when we need you ...............

Answer 12

I'm a Republican, so no, I think not.

Answer 13

£40 million was the figure just for the Queen alone and some have been questioning that and saying it's probably higher. So for the whole Royal family it's definitely a lot more. No it is not value for money.

Answer 14

The £40 million is a total nonsense nobody knows the exact figure as it comes under the official secrets act. You can not keep a dozen or so palaces castles and other private residences and the scores of people employed to run these places,  run the Queens fleet of aircraft [£6000 an hour when there in the air] and all the other hidden expenses ie. the royal train fleets of cars telephones travel security etc etc on £40 million a year. On a recent foreign jaunt the Queen travelled on British Airways the royal PR. machine said it was to save money what they forgot to tell us is that BA. ripped out the entire first class section of the aircraft and replaced it with something more suitable for a monarch including a bed then sent the bill £165,000 to the government

Answer 15

Yes 2p

Answer 16

In a word.................................

NO

Answer 17

Yes, they are good value for money.

All heads of state cost money, whether royalty or presidents. A huge proportion of the money goes to pay for exactly the same functions as any head of state performs.

Answer 18

Yes they are value for money.