Royals 'cost each taxpayer 66 pence'

[gjbkk]

Royals 'cost each taxpayer 66p'

Palace officials said the cost of royal travel would vary from year to year

The Queen and the Royal Family have cost each taxpayer 66p during the last 12 months - up 4p on the previous year, Buckingham Palace accounts have shown.

The total amount spent on maintaining the monarchy in the year to 31 March rose by £2m to £40m, figures revealed.

The cost of official royal travel and the Queen's Civil List - funds for her work as head of state - also increased.

Officials said much of the money was spent on more official overseas trips and essential maintenance of palaces.

Overseas trips

The amount spent on royal travel rose by £600,000 to £6.2m during the 2007-08 financial year and the Queen's Civil List increased by £500,000 to £12.7m.

The most expensive official overseas engagement was the Queen's state visit to America in May last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement.


A plane was chartered at a cost of £381,813.

Buckingham Palace officials described the cost of the Royal Family to each taxpayer as less than the price of two pints of milk or an MP3 player download.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, pointed out that the annual cost of the monarchy was lower in real terms than in 2001 and that the royals had responded to demands from government to carry out more visits abroad.


"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," he said.

He said a grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the maintenance of palaces was to remain at £15m each year for the next three years.

This meant that without an increase in funding for 12 years, "the backlog in essential maintenance projects has continued to grow", he added.

"In the absence of any increase of funding, the backlog of work is estimated at £32m in today's money."

The £40m quoted in the accounts does not include the cost of security provided by the police and Army or the ceremonial duties carried out by the armed forces.






it would be cheaper to have them stuffed

[jandajoy]

Link please.
And figures as to how much the UK makes from tourism each year virtue of us having 'em.

[peterpan]

Not from me, I wouldn't cross the road to see the dysfunctional bastrds

[gjbkk]

BBC NEWS | UK | Royals 'cost the taxpayer £40m'

the link


they are not tourists they are immigrants

[Texpat]

How much to shepherd Harold's dumb ass around afghanistan for two weeks?

40 million supports how many royals?

[jandajoy]

Not from me, I wouldn't cross the road to see the dysfunctional bastrds

But would you buy a burger off a street vendor?

[jandajoy]

Who do they consider taxpayers? Canucks? Ozzies?

Absolutely, great isn't it?

[Texpat]

^ I edited my post because at 66p/taxpayer, they can't be including those poor, unfortunate souls to reach 40m. (Unless there's a shitload of people in UK who aren't taxpayers.)

^^What does that mean? At least the burger vendor is supplying a service/product that you can decide to take it or leave it...

[jandajoy]

What does that mean? At least the burger vendor is supplying a service/product.

That's right. There are tens of thousands of people who make a living off tourists who come to the UK to see, oggle, view, experience the whole Royal Family, Pomp and Circumstance thing.

The whole LONDON / UK experience is part and parcel of the Royal thing.

[redfoot the fence]

^ not something one should either admit or crow about.

[Texpat]

Must have missed that show. Thrice. They got any dancin' girls?

[bkkmadness]

I used to be far more against the British royals, but as I have got older seem not to care so much. I think they bring in a fair bit of cash to the UK from tourism which balances things out and I think the Queen herself has done a lot for the country.

[jandajoy]

^ not something one should either admit or crow about.

Why on earth not? If people want to swarm - and they do - to the Uk, and London in particular, to see the sights and experience the tourist extravaganza that London has become and pay what they must pay, so be it. I think they're mad but if that's what they want, all power to them. The point is that the economy benefits greatly.

[britmaveric]

Nope, good bargain IMHO.

[jandajoy]

used to be far more against the British royals, but as I have got older seem not to care so much. I think they bring in a fair bit of cash to the UK from tourism which balances things out

Absolutely right. I'm not talking politics, republick vs monarchy etc etc but simple economics. The Uk makes more out of having a royal family than if it should not.
No...... I haven't got a link........

[redfoot the fence]

Not from me, I wouldn't cross the road to see the dysfunctional bastrds

my bias as well.

y on earth not? If people want to swarm - and they do - to the Uk, and London in particular, to see the sights and experience the tourist extravaganza

same rational as disneyland or dolly parton land. sad.

[jandajoy]

I took my wife to London 5 months ago, along with my 79 yr old Dad ( he hadn't been to London for 30 years, lives in Devon.)

They both thought it was cold, costly and crap we left ......

[redfoot the fence]

They would have loved dolly parton world.

[Texpat]

Am I missing something here or is the whole fcuking place a living, breathing contradiction?

[November Rain]

Well, I'm paying nowt for them. But my family are. Strange that my family support them & I don't, isn't it?

[Red dragon]

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, pointed out that the annual cost of the monarchy was lower in real terms than in 2001

The previous high costs of 2001 probably due to the Queen Mother??
must have saved a fair few million on Gin and Betting on the Gee-Gees when she pegged it early in 2002

[britmaveric]

No worse than paying yank pressie retirement/security for life. Actually cheaper and generates revenue.

[redfoot the fence]

Am I missing something here or is the whole fcuking place a living, breathing contradiction?

Like a governmental appendix.

Though lucrative as people come to see them.

But they do nothing.

Daft.

[peterpan]

No worse than paying yank pressie retirement/security for life. Actually cheaper and generates revenue.

Yea, BM whats Big ears done ? useless tosser he is, and now the poor poms are paying for is butt ugly slagdog as well. fucking wankpots the lot of them

[Texpat]

No worse than paying yank pressie retirement/security for life. Actually cheaper and generates revenue.

No comparison. It's part of a wage/benefits package.

You know, get elected to the position after meeting the criteria (over 35 etc etc)
Serve your term.
Receive the benefits.

The royal family requirement -- survive childbirth.

Daft.