The only place I can find giving that figure is an organisation dedicated to forming a republic in the Uk and getting rid of the monarchy. It includes everything in that cost from several spurious things which aren't actually costs (such as lost income, which isn't lost income because it isn't state owned) and the pension contributions for staff connected to the royal household. That £334m is a nonsense figure. The one cost I imagine does arguably actually need to be added on top of the sovereign grant (which is set at 15% of crown estate income as opposed to being a set figure) is security in the form of additional police during visits (though it could be argued this is a work expense not a personal expense). Which even the most pessimistic put at around £100m a year. The crown estate alone generates over £200m for the coffers. Before even including the additional revenue from tourism and one off royal events, the crown estate contributes more to the country than the royals cost. My point about us ending up out of pocket - we cannot asset strip them. Not within the law. It would be illegal to take from the royal family and put it into the governments hands and set a dangerous legal precedent around the seizure of private property.
On that point alone, it's only not state owned because it's been 'benefited' to the royals. The duchy of cornwall for example. Prince Charles personally takes £19m out of Cornwall each year for his own personal wealth. When Cornwall has been identified as having some of the worst areas of deprivation in England and is struggling to pay for essential services (like many others) As for private property, this comes down to a legal definitions and I'm aware that current law would make it difficult to seize their assets, but in principal, those assets never 'belonged' to them in the first place. They were 'benefited' to the royals by taking them, sometimes forcibly from people who owned them previously. This goes back centuries to when the English royal family first took a foothold in this country. The morally correct thing to do would be to take back those assets into state owned control and the revenue raised paid into the exchequer for the benefit of the whole country, not a super rich family who have amassed a personal fortune from asset stripping the common people.
But morals don't make the world go round and we couldn't get rid of the royals and keep the assets. It isn't an option to just ignore the law and do what we want. Regardless of how unfair you may think the acquisition of said assets might be, the law doesn't distinguish between property seized from peasants hundreds of years ago and property bought and sold as normal. Also the duchy of Cornwall isn't paid for by any public money, it's a private estate under no obligation to fill funding shortages. The royals are a great asset to the country, used properly they can generate lots of visitors and income for the country. No idea why we'd want to get rid of an asset like that even if you don't agree with the idea of a monarchy.
I know the logistics would be difficult, but morally it would be the right thing to do. The Duchy is a private estate that should belong to the state and therefore revenue raised from it should go to Cornwall council, not into the pockets of Prince Charles. As said, I've got no problem if people want to gawk at a bunch of toffs. I even welcome the revenue that it brings in to the country. My issue is that said toffs should not be funded by the UK taxpayer. The Queen has an income of £39m per year (from assets that she has bequeathed from common ownership) if we can't take them back, then she should at least pay her own way with her own money and not rely on state handouts to tune of £334m per year.
Again that £334m figure is nonsense. And the sovereign grant is paid out of the crown estate (15%). We can't seize that back, so if we get rid of the royals they will then have full access to 100% of the crown estate profits. They could easily pay for themselves out of that, as they already pay for themselves on 15% of it. What "should" be the case isn't the reality, the duchy isn't a public sector organisation it's a private organisation. (Note: Charles does run a lot of stuff in the interest of charity and encouraging young people, the princes trust for example do great work and the profits from his food companies are donated to charity, that's off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more)
The £334m is a lot more accurate than the offical £37m from sovereign grant. I think you're missing the point of who 'owns' this money. The royals don't pay for anything themselves, the Crown estate is an asset that should belong to the people of the UK, it's been bequeathed to successive royals after the assets were robbed from the people who rightly owned them. As for the Duchy, it is a private enterprise again, stripped from the people of Cornwall. How do you think the Duchy acquired those lands ? It should be owned by the state and the revenue paid into Cornwall Council. I know I'm talking in idealistic terms and there's very little chance of asset stripping the royals, but that is because people are too **** scared to change the status quo. They Royals should be asset stripped and the crown estate should return to state ownership with 100% of the revenue going to the exchequer. We should then have an elected head of state who is accountable to the people of the UK.
I think you've summed it up in your last paragraph, your stand point is an idealistic one and in reality would be incredibly difficult to achieve. The other problem being if you achieved this it opens up precedent for governments to asset strip private individuals on the basis of morality or "what's right" instead of a solid foundation in law.
I agreed with everything else you said, and I close the (sex pistols) song but can't agree the sentiment! ;p
Crikey, this has really kicked on from one old Welsh chap saying he thought the English national anthem was a national anthem
Just to add regarding tourism: "The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle . Tourism is the third-biggest industry in the U.K., the tourism board claims, and supports about 2.6 million jobs." Plus, I'm pretty sure that the Crown estate hands their profit to the treasury and the Royal Family only keep a relatively small reserve.... BTW I am not a Royalist, just putting some info up.
I doubt people visit because of an existing royalty, they just like visiting palaces and sites that have a history to them.
That's a fair point, but how often do you go visiting castles in other countries, like in France etc. I haven't been to many at all, but I have taken my kids to the Tower of London to see the crown Jewels and to watch the changing of the guard etc. Buck house would be a poor mans Versaille if it wasn't the Queen's residence. Not advocating them, just merely saying.
According to most sources, London has overtaken Paris. However, Paris is a beautiful city with many things to see (plus it has EuroDisney, which no doubt helps). But, many come to London to see the Royal palaces, watch the changing of the guard, see the crown jewels and numerous other attractions. How many people came for the royal wedding and how many watched it worldwide. (I didn't because I couldn't give a ****, but there is no doubt at all that millions are interested in the royals, that they do do a lot of good work and that they bring in revenue).
