Cost Of The Queen? Less Than $1 Per Person A Year

LONDON — Like millions of her subjects, Queen Elizabeth II is going to have to make do and mend – cutting spending and putting off palace repairs as royal finances are squeezed by Britain's budget crisis.

Accounts published Monday by Buckingham Palace reveal the total public cost of supporting the monarchy was 38.2 million pounds ($57.8 million) in the year to March 31, the equivalent of 62 pence (94 cents) per person. The total is more than 3 million pounds less than in 2008-2009.

Britain's public sector is facing cuts as the government tries to eliminate a record deficit, and Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royal household "is acutely aware of the difficult economic climate" and will be cutting costs and putting off essential maintenance.

The 84-year-old queen receives 7.9 million pounds ($12.3 million) of public money each year to pay for staff and other costs, an amount that has not risen in 20 years. The accounts show also drew an extra 6.5 million pounds ($9.8 million) from a reserve fund built up over the years by saving portions of her allocated budget.

If the queen continues to use money from her reserve at the current rate, the fund will run out by 2012 – the year she celebrates her 60th year on the throne.

She had been expected to ask for an increase in basic funding this year, but the government – which is bringing in deep cuts to welfare payments and spending programs – imposed a freeze until at least next year.

The accounts show the government spent more than 15 million pounds ($23.4 million) on the upkeep of royal residences including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, and almost 4 million pounds ($6.2 million) on royal travel. Both amounts were down from the previous year.

Reid said the royal household would be cutting its property services budget by half a million pounds, "implementing a head count freeze and reviewing every vacancy to see if we can avoid replacement."

He said "the necessary cuts in public expenditure will have an impact on the backlog of essential maintenance which it is hoped can be addressed in the longer term."

"In the meantime, the household is continuing to pursue opportunities to reduce costs and generate income from the estate's assets, including commercial lettings and management charges," he said.

News of the royal cost-cutting did not satisfy the anti-monarchy group Republic, which held a protest outside Buckingham Palace on Monday.

Campaign manager Graham Smith said Britain's monarchy was the most expensive in Europe, and "continues to waste many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money when front line services are being threatened."

"It's time to slash the budgets without reservation or sentiment," he said.

___

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

Comments

[temenos]

02:06 AM on 07/08/2010

Has anyone noticed the sublimely ludicrous polemics in this thread over the last few days?
Just consider the numerous comments by Americans protesting the monarchy, and voicing support for its termination in a foreign country in which they don't vote, don't pay taxes and for the most part have never visited. No doubt most of them, judging by their ridiculously fallacious posts, gained what little information they have from reading tabloids purchased at the checkout stand at their local supermarket.
However, the supreme irony is that The US based its independence on the concept of no taxation without representation and now some of these bozos would dearly love to have their views represented in Britain but without paying any taxes. :-)

[professor]

01:37 AM on 07/08/2010

At the risk of seeming to (although not) agree with the reactionaries in the crowd:
As you will remember, when Peasant Spokesperson Wat Tyler wanted to air the grievances of the commons, he would speak to none other, none lesser, as they used to say, than King Richard II, because a king is the re-ification, the very embodiment, of a people--in theory, the defender of the common people AGAINST all other classes. For his trouble, Tyler was cut down by the Mayor of London. Aptly. Sans king, we're left with nothing but Mayors of London for our ruling class. It seems at least arguable that plutocratic rule has nothing on monarchic. Moreover, The Current Prince expressed, before he was muzzled, excellent views on architecture and ecological sustainability. Unlike democratically elected representatives. Perhaps it is not the form of the government, but the kind of people who govern, that matters most in the end.

[UberReaganite]

03:48 PM on 07/07/2010

I'm sure all you people who are bad mouthing the queen would do a much better job representing your nation than she has. You all sound like unselfish people, not whining jealous people that simply want to attack the rich to compensate for their own personal inadequacies..sure you do. Do you really think your country will enjoy any tangible benefits from removing the royal family as heads of state? You make me laugh.

For all of you that think the common man is capable of fairly and equitably governing themselves without a wealthy class in charge please NAME ONE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNIST NATION. Go ahead, there are many...name one Name one nation that is communist and then say the phrase "I wish Britain was just like that!" out loud. Look in the mirror when you say it so you can see the moron looking back at you.

Look at America without a Monarchy and with the resources to be succesful and are we better off than you? We are led by a collection of self-serving incompetent imbeciles that drag our nation down with incompetence, just like you only we dont have a Royal family to look up to as we lie here.

Your Parliament can do good deeds now, they can save money, they can do projects that benefit the public but they dont so you really think if you dump your Queen that somehow any savings from that action will be passed on to YOU? Really?

[Seaniebhoy]

12:47 PM on 07/07/2010

Maybe they should sell off some of their land.

[Hematite]

08:33 PM on 07/06/2010

Ah, if only Prince Charles had moved on to London from Derby instead of retreating the world wouldn't have had to deal with this pack of disreputable German pretenders.

[llc317537]

06:02 PM on 07/06/2010

I have never understood how the monarchy of Britain has been allowed to continue living off the taxpayers. They don't do any real work. It's all pomp and circumstance and cutting ribbons. Not to mention dressing up in the finest clothing (and likely never the same outfit or hat twice). This is a disgusting abuse of real working people for the sake of ceremony and the novelty that a handful of human beings in that country are somehow "divine" and worthy of people bowing in their presence and forking over their hard-earned wages in the form of taxes. ENOUGH already!

From my understanding of history, the monarchy took its power and "divine right" to "rule" by brute force and even mass murder because they were mean and greedy enough to do it. They had the audacity to set themselves above other human beings by mere word alone. What completely confounds me is how people actually believed them and LET them keep up their charade. Oh wait--the threat of having a small stone house with a thatched roof and a few livestock burned by torch was enough to make them consent to being controlled

In the early 21st century, with unemployment and unprecedented corporate greed, the loss of homes and the lack of ability to pay debt on the rise--we have basically have the same thing. And the rupugnants are aiming to crown a new king.

[Exfl]

10:38 AM on 07/06/2010

Underlying all of this hostility toward royalty, I sense a bit of jealousy. I believe that America really needs a king and a royal family (other than Jersey Shore) to represent it in the tabloids. It will be a difficult job, however, I am willing to serve. If every American will simple send me $1 (no British pounds accepted!) I will begin my reign one year from today (or not).

[MrsGreebers]

11:10 AM on 07/06/2010

I'd go for the British pounds. It's a much stronger currency.

[netzwerg]

12:52 PM on 07/06/2010

It's even worse than the Dollar, GBP lost 16,4% to the USD in the last 5 years.

[UberReaganite]

10:35 AM on 07/06/2010

Well they could always just do away with the Queen but then why bother to maintain the Royal Palaces either? The Queen doesnt really need the 15 million pounds, obviously she has her own money but Britains Royal Palaces DO need the upkeep and her presence for the tourist industry. These palaces would cost about as much for upkeep without the queen and if she goes staff/jobs will cerainly be reduced with the likeliness that the palaces will deteriorate and become less of an attraction. I went to Windsor when I was there and that town has many beautiful shops that thrive on the tourists that the palace and the Queen attracts to that area.

America has no real monumental historical sites. A few millionaires homes and a contemporary captiol in its infancy by European standards. Instead of bashing the Queen you should be proud of what she stands for and the dignity she brings to your nation. America is led by a group of undignified assclowns in comparison.

I would like to add your idea of the savings from losing her making it to the people is simply ridiculous. Your government could build new schools now and does not. They wont pass on any of the money to the people if the Queen leaves either. You will simply lose a royal legacy that benefits your nation and you will gain NOTHING in return from Parliament.

[MrsGreebers]

11:13 AM on 07/06/2010

It hasn't happened in other European countries that have ditched their monarchy. I can hardly count the number of palaces and other historic buildings I've visited, and they are always crowded. For example, would any Tudors fan cancel their visit to Hampton Court just because the present monarchy was dissolved?

[alexii]

10:29 AM on 07/06/2010

England needs to get rid of these people.

[lastep]

09:08 AM on 07/06/2010

the only person on the Royal's staff that deserves a raise is the Groom of the Stoole

[wjousts]

08:50 AM on 07/06/2010

Hmmm....wonder how many schools you could build with £38.2 million a year?

The royals are parasites and it's about time they got off the government teat.

[MetrointheWoods]

09:56 AM on 07/06/2010

When you understand that the Royal Family's (not the government's) real property holdings are immense (they own, for example, ~40% of County Lancastershire), one has to ask the question as to why the Sovereign costs the people of Britain anything really?

[Walter H]

08:31 AM on 07/06/2010

A dollar a year to support the queen's lifestyle is a dollar too much. These folks need to get in the century.

[Deaninphilly]

08:41 AM on 07/06/2010

Yes, because we spend so much less here on our figure heads. Perhaps you should take a math course before espousing how others spend their money. A dollar is a bargain compared to what we spend. They also get something for their dollar we get nothing.

[independent32955-2]

09:22 AM on 07/06/2010

ok, yes, but in fairness, the queen basically does nothing compared to the POTUS...it's not an apt comparison. Some folks think "royalty" represents a by-gone era, others like having their "betters" around still.

It's England, we left for a reason, I personally couldn't care less what they do.

[Hematite]

01:02 AM on 07/07/2010

We don't have a figurehead. The President is no more one than the PM.

Why are you so passionate in the defense of "royalty"?

[Bruisersmom]

07:46 AM on 07/06/2010

I can think of better things to do with a dollar than give it to them, especially when your talking about a dollar per person in a country with millions of people. I'm glad not to be British and supporting them, and the British need to realize that they no longer need them to be an interesting country to tourists.

[MrsGreebers]

11:15 AM on 07/06/2010

Yep - Dublin castle was just as much fun in a democracy, and Spain's Alhambra palace in just as incredible despite the Moors being long, long gone.

[lunacougar]

07:27 AM on 07/06/2010

Financially irrelevant yes, but the institution is the biggest drag on the UK becoming a truly democratic 21st century nation. I respect her service but really want her to be "Elizabeth the Last". God save us from her son!

[piona]

10:17 AM on 07/06/2010

The man who would be tampon.

[AnnieLaurie]

06:51 AM on 07/06/2010

Running a news release from the Palace is terrible news reporting. You might at least mention that the queen is one of the richest people in the world!!

[lunacougar]

07:39 AM on 07/06/2010

The Palace PR team is the only really efficient thing about the whole bunch of them. Got to admire their work, nevertheless loathe what they so proficiently serve.