Dr. Bapswent Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7477222.stm Royals cost taxpayer '66p each' Breaking News 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 amount spent on maintaining the monarchy in the year to 31 March rose by ?2m to ?40m, the 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 visits 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 non story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Waste of money. Bunch of horse faced inbred germans. I realise they may generate more than this in tourism but I personally see them as a joke. Harry seems like a good lad but the rest can gtf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambogaza Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Any figures that show how much they bring in return? Genuinely interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 It would be hard to put a figure on it I would imagine as hundreds of "tat" shops wont disclose their accounts. Plus you also have extra revenue being brought in for all Londons other tourist attractions. I.e. If Buckingham Palace and Tower of London didnt exist would folk still visit other attractions or choose an alternative holiday destination? prince charles "earned" 14m last year according to accounts. I wonder how much of it he put back in to keeping him and his mum? The queens accounts are not disclosed but I honestly do not see why the taxpayer pays to keep a family of millionaires. They should be self sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 66p ayear is a bargain! I'll take two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Anybody got a source for auld queens for the Commander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Anybody got a source for auld queens for the Commander? http://www.Hibs.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 http://www.Hibs.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 if they asked nicely, i'd have chucked in 34p and made it a whole pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flux Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I baggzy Zara! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Waste of money. Bunch of horse faced inbred germans. I realise they may generate more than this in tourism but I personally see them as a joke. Harry seems like a good lad but the rest can gtf! I would imagine about 99% of tourists don't get to see the queen, while they are standing outside Buck palace taking photos she is probably on tour somewhere else or staying at one of her many homes. People will still come to this country even if we get rid of them so I don't think the tourism industry would be damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 It's completely missing the point to say it's "only" 66p per person. I'd be quite pleased if everyone in the UK gave me 1p each in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Any figures that show how much they bring in return? Genuinely interested. how do u know they actually bring anything in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimpos Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I would imagine about 99% of tourists don't get to see the queen, while they are standing outside Buck palace taking photos she is probably on tour somewhere else or staying at one of her many homes. People will still come to this country even if we get rid of them so I don't think the tourism industry would be damaged. Or we could get rid of them and not tell the tourists, just let them stare at buildings thinking some stinking rich layabouts are watching jeremy kyle inside! cashback:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Waste of money. Bunch of horse faced inbred germans. I realise they may generate more than this in tourism but I personally see them as a joke. Harry seems like a good lad but the rest can gtf! I was at the changing of the guard today (been down here 18 months, thought it was about time I played tourist for a bit!). Now I am not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination, while I was standing there I was thinking to myself, hundreds of people from all over the world were standing there watching this, not particularly interesting, event. If we were a republic there is no way these people would be drawn in the same way. Now, the folk around me were all French. That country has been a republic for over a hundred years, yet people flock to Paris in their droves. That's when it hit me. London is lazy when it comes to tourism. They rely on the kudos of the royal family to draw the crowds, whilst in comparison to other major Euaropean cities the galleries, museums etc are really quite poor. Scotland isn't quite the same, we have our landscape and most of the buildings that draw the crowds are either ruins, or not really royal residencies as such. I suppose what I'm saying is sans monarchy, London would need to get the finger out, but I think we'd be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I'm generally against the monarchy in principal, in that I agree that the taxpayer shouldn't support a big rich family due to lineage, but I would not wish to abolish the monarchy due to the benefits that the institution brings to the country - mainly tourism. The Brow raises a good point that Paris still attracts as many tourists, as a secular democracy, but you can't change your history to suit you. Personally I think that thre are much more important things going on in this country and in the world to get your knickers in a twist about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.