Queen Refuses To Cut Spending, Faces "Showdown" With Treasury

The Times of London reports that Buckingham Palace plans on continuing to spend at its current levels despite news that its cost to taxpayers has increased this year, causing a potential "financial showdown" with the Treasury.

It reports that the amount of public money given to the Royal Household is decided once every 10 years. And this year, for the first time in decades, the Palace is asking for an increase.

The current level was agreed by John Major when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1990. It was a deliberately generous settlement that enabled the Queen to put money aside. In the event she was able to build up bigger than expected reserves of £35 million by 2000. With the agreement of the Palace Tony Blair announced that year that the payment would be frozen at £7.9 million.

The Queen has since been drawing on the reserves built up in the 1990s to pay for ongoing costs and last year spent £6 million from them. At current spending levels these reserves are likely to have been exhausted by the time of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012.

The Palace will have no reserves left and will therefore need an increase in public spending to cover its expenses, the Times reports.

The Press Association reports that the Queen and her household cost the British tax payers 69 pence per person last year - an increase of 3 pence.

The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by 1.5 million pounds to 41.5 million pounds during the 2008-09 financial year.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[AnthonyC]

***One thing I can say about our freedom is that Obama does not have his freedom to spend frivolously as does the queen. Can you hold your queen accountable? Could you impeach your queen?***

No, we could abolish her. Could you?

[AnthonyC]

As a Brit, i have no problem funding the Monarchy-do you know how much it costs every British citizen per year....a whole 68p-tthats 35 cents.

Add to that the enormously useful political neutrality of the monarchy as opposed to republics, where the president is almost always a partisan figure, and the money it brings in in the form of tourists, and the monarchy is worth all the money and more

[TurnToTheLeft]

Until I read your post, I had no idea that cost per citizen was so low. It makes me re-think my position about such a wealthy family.

[IDIOTA]

The queen's art collection is worth 22 billion.

[chicagomike]

You go, girl! Don't back down!

If Britain didn't have a royal family, tourism would drop by half. The Queen is worth many, many times her weight in gold.

[deluk]

Great view from the top of the Willis Tower.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***One thing I can say about our freedom is that Obama does not have his freedom to spend frivolously as does the queen. Can you hold your queen accountable? Could you impeach your queen?***

The Queen doesn't spend money in such a manner. All the expenses are required for upkeep of households and travel costs which all contribute towards the revenue that the Royal Family generates, which far exceeds the cost of paying for the Royal Family. As for accountability and impeachment, since the Queen has no real power, it's highly unlikely she would be ever in a position where she would need to be impeached.

***We are presently fighting the private insurance companies if you have not noticed.**­*

LOL. You honestly believe that?

***I would not want to pay my taxes to a queen to decide all for all***

She doesn't. The Queen of the UK doesn't rule by decree. Her power is largely nominal.

***Monarchy should have been abolished years ago. Is having a queen really any different than a dictator?.­..........­..........­........?W­hat if you get an evil aire to the throne?How do you defend yourself from one??***

And now you're descending into American paranoia towards government.

Defend oneself from the Queen? What do you think she's going to do? Storm into one's house and eat my children?

[expatwing]

you never know, her "aire" might!

LOL

[weatherwaxx]

Nah, that's just a lot of hot heir...

[Macready]

good for Lizzie . . . when you think what Labour has wasted and what MPs have done . . she only costs the taxpayer 68p per person per year and if not for the Royal Family tourism would dry up and quite frankly being an American and living in the UK . . I like having a monarchy . . . I would not want to have to cope with a succession of presidential tony bliar's . . give me the monarchy any day

[Bearangaria]

Yes...but besides cutting ribbons and such what is it they actually do?
Surely they can remain tourist attractions with a little less staff and
few fewer state dinners.

[GeneQueen]

Berangaria, my thoughts exactly. I mean, c'mon. The whole idea of a monarchy makes no sense whatsoever. Let the "queen" work one honest day's work in her life ... THAT I'd pay to see.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***Berangaria, my thoughts exactly. I mean, c'mon. The whole idea of a monarchy makes no sense whatsoever. Let the "queen" work one honest day's work in her life ... THAT I'd pay to see***

Which is a silly argument.

What work would you have her do? Stacking shelves?

Her job is to be queen.

[doubter421]

The queen was a vehicle mechanic in the British army in the Second World War. Do some research before spouting ignorance.

[BannedNBoston]

his is the Queen that told all the kids of England to pledge allegance to HER!

[deluk]

We're not required to "pledge allegiance" to anyone. All that quaint hand on the chest stuff is American. It's quite simple if we tire of the royal family (and they can get quite tiresome) We elect a political party pledged to kick them out.

[Furby]

Get crackin or pay up.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***his is the Queen that told all the kids of England to pledge allegance to HER!***

I've come to the conclusion that any American who refers to the UK as "England" immediately forfeits any chance of being taken seriously in debates relating to the UK and the British Royal Family.

[expatwing]

seconded!

[WindySailor]

Maybe Charles could get a job. Savile Row or such.

[OnReflection]

The claim has been made that the Queen and the royal family of the United kingdom brings more revenue that is allocated to them in the form of tax payer monies.

Does any one have the actual amount the royal family brings into the British coffers every year?

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***The claim has been made that the Queen and the royal family of the United kingdom brings more revenue that is allocated to them in the form of tax payer monies.

Does any one have the actual amount the royal family brings into the British coffers every year?***

The money the Queen paid back to the Treasury from the revenue generated from the Crown Estates alone is nearly five times the cost of maintaining the entire Royal Family.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/AnnualFinancialReports/Annualfinancialreports.aspx

[aoggus]

I think you should rename this page UK or Britain. I know Americans are not very good at geography, but this one is easy.

[KarateKid]

The Windsors, the greatest con job ever.

[Furby]

I think Madoff still holds that title.

[Adartist777]

The Queen should cut back her costs to show her sincerity and patriotism for the UK. Reductions in house staff, mothballing a residence or two and less travel should be put into place.

True, costs have gone up. But with her current standard of living, reducing costs shouldn't be difficult. She would still be living like a Queen, if you know what I mean.

[kapo]

How the media report certain issues is frequently more interesting than the issues themselves. This is essentially a case of someone whose income has been capped for 20 years and is now seeking an increase. The reporting and responses to that reporting is telling.

[drjasonmd]

Income? For doing what?

[johnr49]

About the same as a lot of people in Congress, particularly those in the party of "No".

[provgrays]

This woman's job is pointless ceremony while living in unthinkable luxury. She should be cut off at her pampered knees.