The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What a remarkable bargain > Comments

What a remarkable bargain : Comments

By David Flint, published 1/8/2006

The Queen and her royal household return a profit each year to the British public.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Give it a rest -

unless of course Flinty is saying by inference that once the Monarchy becomes a liabiltiy we throw it out. But I suspect that is far from Davids mind.

And the Editors flatter this piece by tagging it as Political Philosphy - as with most of Davids dcribblings it more akin to Monarchical Sycophanthy than anything else - when all else fails tell us she's a good little earner.

I'm not too sure how this percption of profitability was derived but I am fairly sure if we took away all we pay each time some royal comes swanning over here - and Canada and elseewhere from the alleged profits - the argument might weaken - we then could also consider assesing the profitabiltiy of the properties - now claimed by the Queen - if they were in the hands of other private citizens - and see how those numbers stack up.

A money maker or not as nice as the old girl is, she should no longer have a place at our political table.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:39:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disneyland makes a profit from tourism too but I don't think that Mickey Mouse should be made King of America.

(But then again....)
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:59:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... I thought mickey was president...

Before I continue, I'd just point out that I'm in favour of a republic for Australia, though I voted against the miserable excuse that was presented to us last time.
(It kind of annoys me when monarchists pretend that the people have spoken, when in actual fact it was scuttled, but never mind that for now).

That being said, I think it would be foolish for the Britons to discard their Queen.
Like it or nor, the Royal family is a living example of their history.
Whether or not it makes a profit I don't know (I suspect this huge profit is largely due to property the royal family owns due to their royalty... therefore that argument is somewhat spurious) but it certainly does bring in the tourist dollar, and lets face it, what else has Britain really got to offer by way of tourism? Bad weather and stonehenge?

Abolishing the royal family would be foolish, and would ignore the many britons who do adore them, and value their signicance of the monarchy in British culture and history.

Let the British keep their Queen I say, but let her be THEIR queen.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And the point of Flinty's latest excursion into wishful thinking is what exactly?

I don't see any relevance for the Australian constitution - in fact every time the royals visit us, we, the Aussie taxpayer foot the bill - something Flinty omits.

He also omits that his claims of profit aren't entirely accurate.

See Guardian article on the cost of the royals at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1808472,00.html

"Buckingham Palace dug deep into its reserves of hubris yesterday to come up with a topical World Cup analogy for the Queen's cost to the nation.

In previous years, Alan Reid, the keeper of the privy purse, has compared the 80-year-old monarch to the price of a loaf of bread and two pints of milk. This time, issuing the Royal Public Finances annual report, he claimed that the purely notional annual cost of Her Majesty to her subjects was 62p a head, or a minute's worth of attendance at Saturday's England versus Portugal match.

Buckingham Palace dug deep into its reserves of hubris yesterday to come up with a topical World Cup analogy for the Queen's cost to the nation.

The bizarre comparison was made as the palace sought to gloss over the fact that the head of state's expenditure rose by 4.2% last year - nearly twice the rate of inflation - from £35.9m to £37.4m. Mr Reid insisted that the cost represented a decrease in real terms over the past five years and a 60% reduction since the royal finances came under greater scrutiny and audit in the early 1990s.........

......The Queen's accountant said: "The chief aim is not to achieve a low-cost monarchy but a high-quality, very efficient, very professional, value for money monarchy. We are spending taxpayers' money."

"Political Philisophy?" Pull the other one, OLO.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear post writers, David Flint is joking with this one. He will get a great tickle out of seeing that some take his piece seriously.
How can money taken from Brits, raised within Britain, then some given back to the government, be a profit? It is extraordinary that OnlineOp chose to let it be published under anything than cartoon, or humour.
Posted by Ironer, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the monarch hands back the income from property stolen from the people many centuries ago to er... the people via the state and that is a bargain?

Yeah right, and this guy was a leader of sorts. Figures.

Go here for the truth... http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon11.html
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mort aux rois!

Nah, she's a good sheila really.
Posted by Dewi, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David says "Nor is the Queen paid as head of the Commonwealth, nor as Queen of Australia"

Not true. The Governor General, and the State Governors as representatives of Betty Windsor are paid from the public purse.

The actual role of the monarch however, cannot be understated (whether this role be performed by Betty or an elected polly is a another story). This role is primarily as constitutional protector of the people from outrageous governments and parliaments. It is ironic that a monarch is the last ditch defence in democratic principles.
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't read the article. Don't need or want to. When Davo writes it's a certainty that the comments will be better informed, more realistic, more objective, more interesting and more coherent than the article.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 4:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Estimates of the Queen’s wealth, income and expenditure are fraught. The royal family is exempt from FOI and the Public Accounts Committee of the Commons and the National Audit Office are forbidden from looking at how the family spend the money from the Civil List.

The Queen is funded from four British sources - the Civil List (tax-free); the Privy Purse (taxable subject to deductions for official expenditure); Grants-in-Aid (tax-free); and ‘private’ income (partly taxable).

The Civil List is taxpayer money covering official expenses. About 70% of this pays the salaries of 307 staff working directly for the Queen. Prince Philip is paid £359,000 a year. The Civil List also pays for the Queen’s catering, hospitality, administration, housekeeping, furnishings and ceremonies.

Annuities of other members of the Royal Family who ‘work’ on the Queen’s behalf are provided from the Privy Purse. Revenue for these (£8.3m in 2004-05) comes from property holdings and investment notably the inherited Duchy of Lancaster. Prince Charles derives most of his taxable income from the hereditary Duchy of Cornwall. In the 2004-05 year this gave him £13m to supplement his income of £2.7m in taxes.

The several Royal Palaces are funded by taxpayer funded grants-in-aid, amounting to £20.2m last year. In addition, various government departments contributed £5.5m for the administration of the honours system, ceremonies and overseas visits. Prince Charles billed taxpayers £970,000 for travel last year. Prince Andrew spent only £560,000.

The royal family’s wealth depends what is regarded as held on behalf of the nation and what is private property. Who ‘owns’ Royal Palaces, the Royal Art Collection, Crown Jewels, the Queen’s financial and property investments? The Queen considers she ‘owns’ Balmoral and Sandringham and other properties but democrats claim it is the property of the people of Britain. The Windsors have no more right to it than John Howard has to Kirribilli or The Lodge.

Monarchists say the cost of the monarchy is £37 million annually but democrats estimate the real cost to be £88m when you count the £30m for security for the numerous family members and their residences.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 5:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think the price matters... Dieu et son Droit.

The problem with republics is that they confuse a very simple fact... we are not a bunch of people who have come together to make decisions, we are a bunch of people forced into community by the chance of birth, and to that community we thus owe everything, for without it life would be nasty, brutish and short. The bonds that the chance of birth creates should not be broken, those of hearth and home, kith and kin. What's more, they bind us in duty to honour and respect those before, and act for those to come, because we are just temporary sustainers of a state which will outlast us. No system of government more clearly expresses this condition constitutional monarchy, whereby the people are delegated power by representatives of those bonds which we can't choose to sustain it.

If you wonder why Canada isn't a republic, despite being a more liberal nation than us, one need look no futher than that nation to their south. Republicanism creates tensions which monarchies do not have, because there is competition over the idea of what the state is, rather than an acknowledgement of the condition of our birth, and therein lies the most potent argument against republicanism, not a fiscal balance.

We are born into a society for which our ancestors have shed their blood and bent their backs to the oars of labour, and there is no greater way to honour them than to uphold the institutions of the society they built, whilst guarding them and strengthening them for the next generation. To not do so would be shameful.

Republicanism won't solve questions and issues of our past, future, and the place of groups within our nation. The USA, South Africa, and other republics has those selfsame problems to a greater degree than we do. This is nothing more than constitutional viagra.
Posted by DFXK, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 6:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unlike Australia, all private land in Queen Elizabeth's primary country is owned by the Crown and house 'owners' are no more than legally warranted tenants for a specified time.

Moreover, a vast amount of land which is 'the monarch's personally' generates revenue on which Queen Elizabeth pays a sum as if by way of tax. Why this land is hers as opposed to the State's is clear only to those who choose to believe strange stories about what Norman Dukes did on their beach holidays.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:28:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David...that's great...for Great Britain. We in Australia want and are prepared to pay for our own Head of State as a significant and real part of our national identity.

PS suggest you check your work before you send Professor...some poor expression in your second paragraph. Do try harder.
Posted by smithie, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 12:25:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I first read the article, I was supposing that a report was commissioned to estimate the benefit of the Queen to the United Kingdom. I accept that the Queen is an opportunity for tourism and she does promote British interests and to some extent Commonwealth interests around the globe. I would be interested in seeing some figures on this.

As people in this forum may know, in the Copernican Group we are promoting the idea that the Queen should be replaced by a directly-elected Head of State. We think this is the most cost-effective way of establishing an Australian republic. Also one with the most benefit. (http://www.copernican.info)

The "extraordinary" relationship between the Queen and Australia does guide us towards a republic. Financially speaking, we owe the Queen nothing and thus her efforts are directed at advancing her own nation. Seems fair and logical.

It would be a better arrangement if Australia was its own boss. We wouldn't need to pay anything like 63 pence per taxpayer (A$1.50). My own estimate is about 17 cents per taxpayer.

Please consider also adding comments to our forum http://www.7gs.com/copernican
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 3:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy