Is the British Monarchy wasting taxpayer money?

Prince Charles took himself, his wife, and a staff of 14 on this privately leased jet which seats 134 in commercial arrangement. He was touring South America to meet with a number of people who are honoring his achievements for saving the environment. The cost of the charter for the 10 day trip was well over half a million dollars funded by UK taxpayers. We are not amused at the idea of being bumped.

Quote: pacomartin

The cost of the charter for the 10 day trip was well over half a million dollars funded by UK taxpayers.

As far as I know, English royalty is one of the richest families in the world. They do not use taxpayer money to fund their private affairs.

How about it, Canadian taxpayers? The royal couple is here. Staying in the best hotels this country has to offer, eating food prepared by the best chefs in the country, chauffeured around in a limousine and all at the expense of us, the poor, overburdened and mostly underpaid taxpayer.

You can bet they came with empty pockets. Why should they come with their own money to spend? They're royalty, after all.

We don't mind paying for their way across Canada, so this week we don't put too many groceries on our tables. We needed to lose the weight, anyway.

The strange thing is, no one pays my holiday time, or yours either, I'm thinking. It sure would be nice, though.

If we booked a trip to England, would the royal family pay our way? Hardly.

All sarcasm aside, this trip for Charles and Camilla is probably costing us millions more that could be better spent to benefit those who have lost their jobs and have families to feed and clothe.

The soup kitchens of this great country, unfortunately, have to depend on the goodwill of the general population, the majority of whom are hurting themselves. But they have the generosity to dig a little deeper into their own pockets, especially at this time of year.

There is one thing you can admire about the United States. They fought a war to completely separate themselves from England and won. You have to admire that.

According to the Globe and Mail, tough times in Britain are forcing its government to retool how Queen Elizabeth will receive her funding.

Under the proposed change, which is still to pass through Parliament, the Queen will take what amounts to a nine per cent cut over the next four years.

Though it’s been in place since 1760, the way the Queen gets funded has gone through some changes over the years.

By 2014-2015, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said the proposed cuts would limit the Queen to 15 per cent of the annual profits of the Crown Estate, a string of lucrative properties in and around the U.K. The Crown Estate holds urban and rural land in England, Scotland and Ireland.

Of course, “limit” may be a poor choice of words here. By Osborne’s estimation, the Queen will still receive about $54 million each year to perform her royal duties, which we can’t imagine come too close in cost to that figure.

Still, it’s a sign that the economy still isn’t right when the Queen, of all people, has her payouts slashed.

Britain, where almost 2.5 million are unemployed, is trying to reign in a budget deficit of about 10 per cent of the country’s GDP.

I'm lost here. What has the Royal visit have to do with being bumped off flights?

I have no idea. United Airlines just told me that since it was an international flight to London,
I would have to see the Queen for any refund.

Quote: weaselman

As far as I know, English royalty is one of the richest families in the world. They do not use taxpayer money to fund their private affairs.

Well here is a newspaper article about the trip dated 14th February 2009:
The Prince of hypocrites: Charles embarks on 16,000 mile 'green' crusade... aboard a private jet

On their expense account on the royals website they list the jet charter as £645,127 (7-18 March 2009) which is nearly a million dollars. The itinerary is
Lyneham, UK - Santiago-Brasilia -Rio de Janeiro - Manaus -Santarem -Quito -Galapagos Islands -Lyneham, UK. (Lyneham is an air force base roughly 80 miles outside of London, and 12 miles from the private residence of Prince Charles). The charter actually costs an additional £15,467 which was reimbursed by the organizations honoring the Prince.

I don't mean to specifically single out Prince Charles. He is the next head of state. I think most heads of state spend similar amounts of money on junkets. He, unfortunately has to file a very explicit expense account because they don't have VIP jets anymore in the UK for the royals. In most countries the cost of travel for the highest ranking officials is a state secret.

The GAO audited President Clinton on his expenses in the late 1990's for three of his trips (at the request of Republican Senators). One trip to Africa involved him bringing 1300 people in four passengers planes (plus Air Force One), but the real kicker was $30 million in DOD supplied heavy lift aircraft time for a ten day trip. There is no partisan difference here. It costs just as much for all the presidents, Democrat or Republican to travel.

Quote: weaselman

As far as I know, English royalty is one of the richest families in the world. They do not use taxpayer money to fund their private affairs.

That is because of their earnings from selling which product or service?

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is because of their earnings from selling which product or service?

Land rent, for one.

Quote: thecesspit

Land rent, for one.

Thank you for jogging the memory of a long-ago European History course, relieving the anxiety over where the family's next meal is coming from and inspiring some more checking:

By Simon Hobbs, CNBC Anchor
Updated 4/28/2011 4:12 PM |

Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding is about to showcase a Royal Britain to billions of TV viewers around the world. But the real truth behind Windsor Money is as surprising as any fairytale.

Most of the assets on display during the Royal Wedding do not belong to the queen. Some 250 years ago, the queen's third great grandfather, George III, gave virtually all royal property to the government, in order to get taxpayers to forever pay to maintain them.

This is a list of royal assets operated by the U.K. government and which it loans to the current royal family. The queen neither owns them — nor could she ever sell them.

•Buckingham Palace: The queen's primary residence in London where she will host an evening party for 300 family and friends the night of the wedding.

•Windsor Castle: The retreat 20 miles west of Buckingham Palace, near Heathrow Airport, where the queen prefers to stay because she says it's more comfortable.

•Crown Jewels: A collection of scepters, swords, rings and crowns normally secured at the Tower of London. During the Royal Wedding members of the Windsor family will wear them as symbols of their right to rule.

•The Royal Collection: 200,000 drawings, prints and paintings — including works by Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Caravaggio — collected over 500 years. It also includes furniture, textiles, armor and one of the finest Faberge collections in the world. Valued at $16 billion.

•The Duchy of Lancaster: A portfolio of property assembled 600 years ago. 72 square miles of farm and city land (an area about three times the size of Manhattan). Valued at $570 million.

•The Crown Estate: An even more impressive portfolio of land, eight times larger, that includes iconic properties in London like Regent Street, Piccadilly and the Park Lane sites of The Four Seasons and Intercontinental hotels. 12,000 tenants are paying rent on 560 square miles of land across England and Wales. The estate even includes all U.K. coastal waters within 12 miles of land, where energy companies are increasingly paying to construct wind farms. Valued at $12 billion.

Last year the Crown Estate alone generated $342 million. But, as with virtually all these royal assets, that cash went straight to the U.K. government. In return, the taxpayer pays the queen a fixed, annual allowance.

There's one exception. The U.K. government still hands the queen income from the smaller of the two property portfolios. Last year she received $21.8 million from the Duchy of Lancaster.

Taxpayers also give Elizabeth an annual allowance of $23.3 million for performing 360 engagements a year as Head of State. The Palace says she spends 70% of that on servants and entertaining 50,000 guests, mostly feeding them afternoon tea in the garden of Buckingham Palace.

Taxpayers also pay the Queen $25.9 million in expenses to maintain her palaces; $6.4 million toward the Royal Train, helicopters and jets; and an additional $6.4 million toward other costs, like State Visits.

In total, each year the queen gets $83.8 million from government.
---usatoday

Quote: SanchoPanza

Last year the Crown Estate alone generated $342 million. But, as with virtually all these royal assets, that cash went straight to the U.K. government. In return, the taxpayer pays the queen a fixed, annual allowance.

You don't suppose that this means taxpayers paid for Price Charles' trip, do you? :)

Quote: weaselman

You don't suppose that this means taxpayers paid for Price Charles' trip, do you? :)

Well, with even just that $84 million a year that the government showers on them, even that trip shouldn't be a budget buster.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Well, with even just that $84 million a year that the government showers on them, even that trip shouldn't be a budget buster.

It does not shower it on them. It pays rent for their land, at quite a bargain rate. As you quoted, Crown Estate alone generated $300+ million, which is more than 3 times more than the total Queen gets from the government.

British royalty is one of those intangible things that makes British british. In Canada, we always talk about the worth of Royalty, the fact that we have a Governor General who is a representative of the Queen as a key figure in our government. Is it a waste? Absolutely. However, it's one of those things about Canada that makes it special and most Canadians do not want to get rid of its connection to the Queen. So the money is spent.

Quote: boymimbo

Is it a waste? Absolutely. However, it's one of those things about Canada that makes it special and most Canadians do not want to get rid of its connection to the Queen. So the money is spent.

No skin off my nose, so I won't criticize. But I have a hypothetical: had the current queen met her demise shortly after Diana did, do you think Canadians would have still felt the same for King Charles whatever number he gets?

I wasn't aware that Windsor Castle was owned by the government... I thought it was one of the parts of the royal holdings which was part of the house of Windsor that has the royal crown ( rather than part of the estates of the crown). There you go.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Taxpayers also pay the Queen $25.9 million in expenses to maintain her palaces; $6.4 million toward the Royal Train, helicopters and jets; and an additional $6.4 million toward other costs, like State Visits.

In total, each year the queen gets $83.8 million from government.

That total number has gone down a little to about 40 million pounds (more like $60 million). But it does not include the cost of security which probably doubles that number.

The monarch of Great Britain exchanged the royal property and much of the responsibilities of funding government to parliament in 1760 when King George III took the throne from his grandfather. The crown estate is now set up like a corporation. It pays off to parliament, and parliament authorizes certain payment to the royal household.

Personally, I think the creation of the crown estate may have saved the British royals. They became merely stinking rich, while the monarchs of France, Russia, Germany, and Italy were among the greatest fortunes held by individuals (in particular the Tsar). When the revolutions toppled these monarchs and resulted in their bloody massacre in Russia, in the UK there merely came more calls for some austerity.

Royal travel (particularly air travel) was pretty much covered by the RAF up until 1997, with the exceptions being state visits or large commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. For those visits usually a charter arrangement was made with British Airways.

In 1997, there was a move to try to isolate royal costs of all sorts into one pile of money and to very gradually move away from the RAF providing air transit. In roughly 2004 they began publishing an annual expense report. The expense report is heavily reviewed by the media, and in particular by pro-republican activists groups. Initially parliament required them to itemize trips of £2500 or less. Since it is almost impossible to charter a helicopter for £2500 , Prince Andrew in particular got a lot of bad press for taking helicopters over short distances for what looked like luncheons or golf games. The royals persuaded parliament to raise the limit to £10,000 to require itemization.

A helicopter was obtained on a long term lease and painted with the royal colors, but even though it has been considered a number of times no jet has been procured for their use. To be fair, the ministers of the UK do not have a government jet either. The UK is the only major power in the world that does not have executive aircraft for their head of state, prime minister, or other high ranking officials.

The Queen does not make personal trips. If she moves around the kingdom, it is by definition official travel and is covered by the taxpayers. She cannot travel internationally on private business either. If she leaves the country, it is on government business. That is also not unusual, President Obama does not pay for a jet to take him to New York City on date night, or to visit his home in Chicago, or to go on vacation.

Many activists feel that Prince Charles should not get the same consideration. They were bothered by him charging the taxpayers £30,000 for a jet to take him to his home on the Balmoral Palace estate in Scotland for a four day holiday where he had no official engagements. The distance is 400 miles each way. As Duke of Cornwall he automatically receives £13.2 millions of pounds in revenue last year. The activists believe he should rent his own plane out of those millions if he wants to go to another one of his homes. You can rent a tiny jet to go anywhere in the UK and same day return for four people for £5,000 or less, and a turboprop for even less than that.

While the domestic trips are irritating to some people, their cost is miniscule compared to hundreds of thousand of pounds to rent a jet to accept environmental awards in South America. While the Queen does that once or twice a year, nobody cares because that is clearly a big part of her function, to go on state visits and to go give royal visits to the countries where she is head of state (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.). She is also expected to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting every two years.

Quote: thecesspit

I wasn't aware that Windsor Castle was owned by the government... I thought it was one of the parts of the royal holdings which was part of the house of Windsor that has the royal crown ( rather than part of the estates of the crown). There you go.

Windsor Castle is owned by the crown estate which also owns Buckingham Palace and several other properties. It's assets are separate, but it pays it's profits to parliament every year. Windsor Castle is valued at £186 million.

Every monarch since 1760 renews the agreement to assign the revenue of the crown estate over to parliament. In exchange parliament authorizes royal grants for the civil list, travel, property maintenance, etc.

The revenue by portfolio, for the crown estate is considerable
Urban £226.9m
Marine £47.4m
Rural £25.7m
Windsor £6.8m

The property value is worth in excess of £6.5 billion (a little less than the net worth of Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Venetian).

The Queen owns Sandringham House and Balmoral Palace, as these properties were acquired by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert after 1760 when the crown estate was established. They are considered private working estates. They must make money to pay for themselves. They both make considerable revenue from stud farms, tourism, shops, and leasing cottages for vacations. Her net worth estimated to be around £300 million.

Kensington Palace holds multiple apartments for the royal family. Prince and Princess William will take up residence shortly, starting out in Nottingham Cottage (#10) while he is still in the military, and moving up to the most opulent apartment (#2) in two years.

Prince and Princess Michael, the Queen's young royal cousin and his wife, live in apartment #4. Their new daughter in law, Sophie Winkleman (age 31), a British sitcom star, is trying to break into American television. She just appeared on a story arc on 2.5 men. Most of the headlines note that Sophie looks like a British version of Demi Moore.



I wonder if the British are rooting for the home town girl who marries into the royal family, and now is trying to make it big in American television. Or do they think it is a lot of "rot"?

I alwasy assumed Lord Freddie was gay.

Check out this vid.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw


You should check out the other vids. from this guy.

Its not a 747 "air force one"........

Quote: WizardofEngland

Its not a 747 "air force one"........

I should clarify that I think that Britain would be crazy to get rid of the monarchy. Dollar for dollar it is the most effective money spent by any nation for maintaining world wide status. The budget of the US State Deparment is much higher for the office of the Secretary than the UK spends on the "civil list".

BTW: I did not select the title for this thread.

Most third world nations spend far more on their head of state than the UK. It's just the UK reports on it every year, while it is a state secret in nearly every country on earth.

I am quite sure that Hillary Clinton spends far more than Her Majesty and her entourage on travel in a year. Just the cost of keeping a jet primed and ready for private use per year is staggering.

I am critical of Prince Charles flying around domestically in fancy jets. While I am aware that our Speaker of the House does the same thing, at least she has to go 2.5K miles. I think it undercuts Prince Charles's public stand on the environment. The distances are very short, and he should rent a high end tubo-prop.

It can be a nice looking turboprop, but chartering a jet to go 300 miles is not in keeping with his speeches.

And what checks do you think are required in renting a plane?
I assume they dont just pick it up, and fly off. I imagine they would have to almost dis-mantle the plane and check for bombs. The cost of doing so, would be fairly high and the time spent would make it pointless.

Quote: WizardofEngland

And what checks do you think are required in renting a plane?
I assume they dont just pick it up, and fly off. I imagine they would have to almost dis-mantle the plane and check for bombs. The cost of doing so, would be fairly high and the time spent would make it pointless.

The government of the UK does not have jets for civilian government. Even the prime minister must charter a plane. The royal family has a helicopter on long term lease (10 years), but they must charter their planes per use. Until very recently the Air Force would provide them with limited charter, but that system has almost completely broken down. The air force set their fees so high that the royal household only ended up using their jets for two or three trips.

The type of jet, who they charter it from, and how the price is determined are not revealed in the annual reports, but on occasion you can see the insignia of the charter company. I would assume that the royal family charters from a limited group of companies, because security would be a risk.

But, the Prince of Wales and his wife expense £29,786 for a charter jet from London to Aberdeen for a personal four day trip to Balmoral, while Prince William expenses £10,530 for the same trip (only a single day tip). I take that to mean that Charles is leasing a much larger jet.

They have to lease something anyway, I am just saying given his lectures, he should be setting an example and leasing a prop.

By the time Prince William is monarch, they should have helicopter that can efficiently fly anywhere in the UK. The current one can easily fly to Scotland, but it would probably take over 2 hours. I'm sure that wouldn't bother Prince William since he spends hours in helicopters every day, but it is too slow and noisy for the older royals.


Just to switch to the USA, there is no way that Nancy Pelosi , or John Boehner, or Dennis Hastert (Speakers of the House) should be shuttled back and forth to their home districts on private jets. That was a measure instituted after 9-11, allegedly for security. I realize they are behind the Vice President in the line of succession, but it should be enough to purchase first class seats along with a seat for a security guard. The general public does not know when they are scheduled to fly.

Ive just spoken to Charles, he said "its all they had in the hanger...."
Seems reasonable to me

Quote: pacomartin

I should clarify that I think that Britain would be crazy to get rid of the monarchy.

During the wedding, one of the commentators said
the British Royals are by far the biggest tourist
attraction in England, and one of the biggest in the
world. My oldest daughter got a full boat 1 year
scholarship in the 90's to study at a hoity toity old
English university. We visited her twice and my wife
went bonkers trying to visit as many Royal residences
and Royal landmarks as possible. Every place you go
is always crowded, you always have to wait in line,
and nothing is ever cheap or a bargain.

Quote: EvenBob

During the wedding, one of the commentators said
the British Royals are by far the biggest tourist
attraction in England, and one of the biggest in the
world. My oldest daughter got a full boat 1 year
scholarship in the 90's to study at a hoity toity old
English university. We visited her twice and my wife
went bonkers trying to visit as many Royal residences
and Royal landmarks as possible. Every place you go
is always crowded, you always have to wait in line,
and nothing is ever cheap or a bargain.

Charles and the family send their regards ;-)

Quote: EvenBob

During the wedding, one of the commentators said the British Royals are by far the biggest tourist attraction in England, and one of the biggest in the
world.

With new waves of tourists coming from India and East Asia, Britain is going to keep attracting the tourists. Far more go to Britain than Germany even though the UK is smaller and in many ways has fewer touring regions. People are less likely to see castles when the monarchy was abolished a century ago.

That's why Serbia should restore their monarchy. The family is ready and waiting.

The public rooms at Kensington Palace should have renewed interest. Just knowing that you are in the same building as William and Kate will excite some people.

By the time Prince William is king, VIP's should have a civilian version of these new helicopter designs that will function like planes as well. For a small place like the UK, one flying vehicle should suffice to zip 4 people around from palace to palace, and to the far corners of the realm like Belfast, and Inverness and Land's end. Since William is spending so much of his time in his 20's flying a helicopter, Britain may have a monarch who can fly himself to functions.

The Boeing prototype would retract the helicopter blades into the rotor at high speeds so that it can fly at higher speeds. No speed is mentioned, but I suspect it will be more like turboprop speeds instead of jet velocities.

This story is over 500 years old, but it has long been suspected that King Edward IV (died 1483), the penultimate medieval king was illegitimate. Tony Robinson (from Blackadder) did a popular documentary in 2004 which discussed the idea that all the monarchs from the Tudors, the Stuarts, the Hanoverians, to the Windsors actually based their claim on an illegitimate birth. One supposed source of the illegitimacy claim came from the mother of Edward IV, herself, who denounced her son as illegitimate as an adult when she was angry at his choice of a bride.

Tony Robinson dramatized this story (and took credit for its discovery) and traced the actual bloodline to the "Earl of Loudon" who had left Britain at the age of 18 to move to Australian outback. While still an Earl, his family had lost all of their money nearly a century ago, and now they were working class.

"King Michael" died a few days ago on the 30 June 2012, leaving his son , Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun (age 38), as the new pretender to the throne. And it is the same Loudon as Loudon county where Dulles Airport outside of Washington DC is located.


The documentary may be interesting to some people, as it also illustrates how the addiction to gambling (specifically horse racing) brought down one of the great houses of Britain. The Earl at the time made staggeringly large bets.

Is the British monarchy wasting taxpayer money?

This question was answered almost exactly 236 years ago.

I hope everyone has a good holiday.

Quote: FinsRule

Is the British monarchy wasting taxpayer money?

This question was answered almost exactly 236 years ago.

I hope everyone has a good holiday.

I find it un-American to have any sort of "love" for the British Monarchy, let alone for any US citizen to bow to them. I've thought this over a lot and I think a sincere head nod is the most I could personally tolerate doing. They're my favorite Monarchy family in the world, but because of our unique history I think a little bit of resentment is well deserved... not as much as the Irish though :).

How do you feel about the Japanese and Germans ?

Quote: ahiromu

I find it un-American to have any sort of "love" for the British Monarchy, let alone for any US citizen to bow to them. I've thought this over a lot and I think a sincere head nod is the most I could personally tolerate doing. They're my favorite Monarchy family in the world, but because of our unique history I think a little bit of resentment is well deserved... not as much as the Irish though :).

The Monarchs themselves don't expect bowing from people who are not their subjects. They bow to each other based on their order of precedence.

On July 23, 1860, the 18 year old Prince of Wales entered Canada and then crossed from Windsor to Detroit on September 20, 1860. At this point the population of the UK was 29.1 million. By this point the USA had roughly 32 million people and was no longer intimated and completely forgot the fact that the USA had fought two wars with the UK. The Prince would stay on in the USA for another month.

The Prince inaugurated the Victoria Bridge, Montreal, across the St Lawrence River. He watched Charles Blondin traverse Niagara Falls by highwire, and stayed for three days with President James Buchanan at the White House. Buchanan accompanied the Prince to Mount Vernon, to pay his respects at the tomb of George Washington. Vast crowds greeted him everywhere. He met Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Prayers for the royal family were said in Trinity Church, New York, for the first time since 1776. In some ways, his visit was the origin of celebrity culture in the USA. We were entertaining a young man primarily because he was glamorous, handsome and rich.



It was the beginning of what would eventually be known as the "special relationship". In the post civil war years as the original railroads across the country and connections to Manhattan were built, as the nation entered the industrial revolution, the newly rich began to admire and emulate the European royals (particularly the British).

In the summer of 1886, the Prince of Wales invited New York millionaire James Potter to Sandringham House, his Norfolk hunting estate. When Potter asked for guidance on appropriate dinner dress, the Prince sent him to Poole & Co. to obtain the new style of jacket. Potter then brought the dinner suit home with him to Tuxedo Park Club, a newly established residential country club for New York’s elite. Thus was the birth of the Tuxedo, and proof of the influence of the British royals on American style (which has now reached epic proportions).

So you might say that the adulation of the British royal family has been a part of American culture for longer than it's initial hatred towards the institution. By 1939 FDR realized that getting the British King to come to America was the most important peacetime propaganda tool he could possibly use to soften the public about entering the war.