Royals cost Britain £37m a year

[Talon]

Royals cost Britain £37m a year

The Royal Family cost Britons £36.7m last year, equivalent to 61p per taxpayer, new figures show.

Buckingham Palace said the figure, which excludes security costs, was at it lowest since 2001 and had fallen 2.3% in real terms since 2003-4.

Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royals gave "value for money".

The travel bill rose from £4.7m to £5m after Prince Andrew's overseas trips for UK Trade & Investment were transferred to the Queen's accounts.

Among the journeys, paid for by grants-in-aid, highlighted in the accounts were:

A trip by Prince Charles to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji by chartered plane that cost £300,000

A chartered flight taken by the Duke of York to the Far East to promote UK interests costing just under £125,000

A royal train journey made by the Prince of Wales from Aberdeen to Plymouth, Devon, that cost almost £45,000

The report showed significant differences in travel costs between family members, though, with a flight taken by the Duke of Edinburgh to Toronto costing just £12,800.

"It's almost a generational thing," said BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell.

"The Duke of Edinburgh travelling on scheduled flights with very few officials; the Duke of York, though, insisting on a much bigger party to accompany him; the Prince of Wales really not using scheduled flights at all... using chartered helicopters, the royal helicopter, on occasions for very short flights.

"They would, I think, like to get some of these costs down."

Labour MP Ian Davidson said the expense of the royal train - used 19 times last year - could not be justified and called for it to be scrapped.

Mr Davidson, a member of the public accounts committee in the last parliament, told BBC News: "We ought to have more of the royals using normal trains and perhaps then they would put pressure on the powers that be to make sure that the train service was improved for everyone."

The Queen received a rebate of over £1m after appealing against the business rate paid on Buckingham Palace, the accounts also showed.

Westminster City Council had doubled the palace's rateable value in 2000.

The palace also halved its insurance bill by finding better deals on employers' liability and other policies.

Mr Reid said: "We believe this represents a value-for-money monarchy.

"We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

[warden]

Is that all ,you have to wonder sometimes why people go daft about the royals when they are only spending that little amount.

Before i forget,can you find the figures in how much the royals bring into this country and britian as a whole .

Then take away the two sums(im sure you can just about manage that) and tell us what is left and who benefits

[Blackleaf]

The Royals might cost us £37 million per year, but having a Republic will be more expensive.

A monarchy is cheaper than a Republic.

[warden]

I have sent of for a complete stat on how much britain benefits or does not benefit from having the royal family,hope to get it soon

[Blackleaf]

Everyone seems to think that £37 million per year is expensive. But it isn't. It's very CHEAP.

Britain has a population of almost 61 million, and that £37 million per year is paid by taxpayers. That's equal to about 61 pence per person, per year.

61 pence!

That's hardly anything.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Blackleaf

[bathory]

but do they deserve to live in the lap of luxury due to your taxes?

[Blackleaf]

People seem to forget that the Royals were BORN to be in the public eye. Whereas actors and actresses and other people WANTED to be in the public eye, the Royals MUST be in the public eye even if they don't want to. It's not as nice a life as you think being a Royal.

Also, they do a lot to help the public. Prince Charles has created his own charity, the Prince's Trust, to help disadvantaged young people in the UK. His wife, Camilla, is the patron of the National Osteoporosis Society. And other Royals do charity work, too.

So because of those two things, I don't see why we should complain having to fork out just 61p per year.

[Rachael]

If all the money they spent each year was sent to charity - that would be a good thing!

And there are always charity workers.

They arnt necessary!

[Erikl]

Well I think that the mere existance of the House of Lords, and the fact that it had actual power til 1949, proves Britain wasn't really a democracy until that year, and isn't fully democratic nowdays as well.

The fact that your upper house is made of people who get there thanks to their bloodlines and heritage, is in conflict with the principle of democracy.

I mean it is one thing to have a constitutional monarchy, like other european countries have, in where the monarchy only retain ceremonial duties.

But the House of Lords is in total conflict with democracy.

The UK should leave their monarch alone, cause millions pay to see it from all over the world.

But resolve the house of lords. Only then will you be a true democracy.

[Blackleaf]

If all the money they spent each year was sent to charity - that would be a good thing!

And there are always charity workers. 

They arnt necessary!

695642[/snapback]

Well, there's gratitude. Prince Charles has created a charity to help disadvantaged young people, but those young people shouldn't at least pay 61p per year for the Royal Family and demand the monarchy to be abolished? Hmmmm.

You're Australian. If you all want to get rid of the monarchy, you shouldn't have voted FOR the monarchy in the 1999 referendum. You should have voted for the more expensive version - a Republican.

Most British people are monarchists. The monarchy is a symbol of our country, and having a Queen as Head of States is much better than having a corrupt President as Head of State like they do in France and Italy.

[Blackleaf]

Well I think that the mere existance of the House of Lords, and the fact that it had actual power til 1949, proves Britain wasn't really a democracy until that year, and isn't fully democratic nowdays as well.

The fact that your upper house is made of people who get there thanks to their bloodlines and heritage, is in conflict with the principle of democracy.

I mean it is one thing to have a constitutional monarchy, like other european countries have, in where the monarchy only retain ceremonial duties.

But the House of Lords is in total conflict with democracy.

The UK should leave their monarch alone, cause millions pay to see it from all over the world.

But resolve the house of lords. Only then will you be a true democracy.

695644[/snapback]

However democratic or undemocratic we are, we are still more democratic than most Continental European countries. At least our Prime Minister is elected, unlike France's de Villepin.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Blackleaf

[Blackleaf]

And I don't think Britain, the world's oldest surviving democracy, should be lectured on democracy by an Israeli. When you consider that Israel is a country where only Jews mainly are allowed to live, and only Jews have proper rights, there's virtually nothing democratic about it.

[Blackleaf]

Three main advantages of a Monarchy over a Republic -

1) Having a Monarchy is cheaper. It only costs each British person 61p per year. Most of us spend more than that per day buying newspapers.

2) Having a Republic is not only more expensive, but tourists won't flock to Britain with their wads of cash try and catch a glimpse of the President, but they do flock to Britain with wads of cash to try and catch a glimpse of the Queen or any other Royal, or to watch ceremonies such as Trooping of the Colour.

3) Having a Monarchy means having princes and princesses to fancy. The girls croon over Princes Williams and Harry, and guys will be wishing they could date Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when they get a little bit older.

[warden]

61p a year ,come on ,i pick more change than that up of the streets when i am out working.

Some of the royals ,the hanger-oners should get of their ****`s and fend for themself but the main body of royals i would gladly keep.

We should have asked XSAS how mutch it costs to protect someone with 24 hour security,as i have heard that Prince charles spent a fortune on an air trip,but in this climate he would have had to hire a whole team to keep him safe and that im sure dont come cheep.

They do 3000 avents a year ,some for charity ,some for promotion of this country.

I still say what the royals bring into this country far out ways what is spent on them,money well spent.

I have sent an email to one of prince charles`s web team and asked them if they would send me a report on how mutch the royals bring into this country and what we spend ,as well as the jobs that are created that revolve around the royals,nothing back yet

[Erikl]

And I don't think Britain, the world's oldest surviving democracy, should be lectured on democracy by an Israeli.  When you consider that Israel is a country where only Jews mainly are allowed to live, and only Jews have proper rights, there's virtually nothing democratic about it.

695661[/snapback]

Oh I think I can lecture about democracy as much as I want, considering my country stayed democratic from day one, in conditions where I'm sure most democracies would fall.

Also you prove again and again you know nothing about my country.

Let's start from few facts:

A. as opposed to what you wrote in some other thread, Israel has a population of 6.9 million people, not 10 million.

B. Jews make up only 76% of the population in Israel. About 4% are non-Jewish Russians and about 20% are Christian and Muslim Arabs.

C. Israel is the only western country in history to rescue africans and give them citizenship and shelter, not for slavery (about 120,000 are Ethiopians which were rescued in special covert operation).

D. The Israeli Arabs, which are in fact Palestinians, enjoy full citizenship and full democratic rights. Currently, about 11 out of 120 MP in the Israeli parliament are Israeli Palestinians\Arabs.

Conscription doesn't apply for Israeli Arabs, though they are allowed to join the military if they wish to. Few if any actually do that. Instead they get 3 years ahead of their Jewish counterparts in university and work places.

Israel has no history of ethnic riots between it's Jewish citizens and Muslim citizens, even though Israel has suffered tens of thousands of casualties from different wars with Arab countries from the day it was created. This is opposed to European countries where even to this day different ethnic and religious riots occur.

Israeli Arab PMs daily denounce Israel and speak for the Palestinian national movement, had met and shown support for hostile leaders, and use the Israeli parliament and Israeli democracy as a stage to humiliate Israel diplomatically and cause internal ethnic-tensions, instead of advocating issues that are occupying Israeli Arabs on daily basis.

Show me any other western democracy that enables such cynical use of freedom of speech?

And all that in a country that is in war with several Arab countries, that are of the same ethnicity as the Israeli Arabs are.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Erikl

[SnakeProphet]

We should have asked XSAS how mutch it costs to protect someone with 24 hour security,as i have heard that Prince charles spent a fortune on an air trip,but in this climate he would have had to hire a whole team to keep him safe and that im sure dont come cheep.

Up to 170,000 $ a year ,I think.

I know of only one job in the high-risk sector that is more profitable:

Working for a PMC.You could get up to 1000$ a day,depends where you are stationed.

There are no set fees for the bodyguard. All fees are arranged by negotiation. The more skills you have, the more experience the more you can earn. We have one woman bodyguard earning $125,000 per year plus bonuses. She had the qualities and skills to fulfill the requirements of the position. She’s working in Saudi Arabia. She obtained the job because she spoke Arabian very fluently, knew how to live and abide by the moral ethic of the country. She was very skilled in martial arts and an expert with all weapons (eight years in the USMC). She spoke other languages and could act as an interpreter whenever her client traveled. We have bodyguards with all types of experience. The former Secret Service agents with us have some of the best training in the world - and the best experience. They can expect a fee at the high end of the charts. On the other hand, we have individuals who have extensive security experience, but do not have the close-personal protection experience of others. Their earning contracts are negotiated for the locale, the situation and other factors involved. Their pay can range from a minimum of $350 per day up to $700 a day. So each contract is different, it is negotiated for the bodyguard and the location as well as the degree of hazard involved. Many bodyguards earn in excess of $70,000 annually. In addition, we have some inexperienced but well trained individuals with us who can gain experience working in association with other bodyguards or who can handle situations that simply demand a presence to act as a deterrent.

From the Samurai homepage.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Snake_6024

[warden]

If you stats are true Snake you can see why it would take a large chunk of the 37 million just to keep them safe from some knd of attack

[Blackleaf]

We would still have to pay for security even if we had a President.

The American taxpayer has to pay for Bush's security we he goes on trips.

[Blackleaf]

C. Israel is the only western country in history to rescue africans and give them citizenship and shelter, not for slavery (about 120,000 are Ethiopians which were rescued in special covert operation).

Rubbish. There are thousands of Africans living in Britain to escape from tyrannical regimes such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and Britain was the FIRST country to abolish slavery.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Blackleaf

[warden]

We would still have to pay for security even if we had a President.

The American taxpayer has to pay for Bush's security we he goes on trips.

695711[/snapback]

You may well be right Blackleaf ,i still prefer to have the monarchy but scaled down a bit so the free loaders dont get a slice of the pie

[Blackleaf]

I should pay Prince Phillip to clean the dishes for my whole family. It'll give him some excercise.

[warden]

I would like zara philips to come to my bedroom ,i would give her some serious exercise

[Erikl]

C. Israel is the only western country in history to rescue africans and give them citizenship and shelter, not for slavery (about 120,000 are Ethiopians which were rescued in special covert operation).

Rubbish. There are thousands of Africans living in Britain to escape from tyrannical regimes such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and Britain was the FIRST country to abolish slavery.

695713[/snapback]

Most Africans in Britain came from ex-colonies, where they used to be slaves before the UK abolished slavery.

Israel never had slavery to begin with, and accepted those africans who were citizens of another country that had no diplomatic ties with Israel. We gave them full citizenship and they weren't brought here for the sake of slavery.

[warden]

The points are these

Millions of people visit this country every year to get a glimps of at least one royal,making this country millions.

Thousands of jobs depend on the royals

3000 engagments a year performed by the royals,some for charity,some for the enviorement and some to promote britain

Having the monarchy for a lot of people gives them some kind of identity(to feel british)

And all of this for 61p a year, what a bargain

[Blackleaf]

C. Israel is the only western country in history to rescue africans and give them citizenship and shelter, not for slavery (about 120,000 are Ethiopians which were rescued in special covert operation).

Rubbish. There are thousands of Africans living in Britain to escape from tyrannical regimes such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and Britain was the FIRST country to abolish slavery.

695713[/snapback]

Most Africans in Britain came from ex-colonies, where they used to be slaves before the UK abolished slavery.

Israel never had slavery to begin with, and accepted those africans who were citizens of another country that had no diplomatic ties with Israel. We gave them full citizenship and they weren't brought here for the sake of slavery.

695721[/snapback]

But you treat Palestinians far worse than any slaves were treated.

You have to remember that israel slaughtered thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Shatila refugee camp in 1982.

And 93% of Israel is a "Jewish Only" area.

Yeah, Israel is a real beacon of democracy.