Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Cost of Royal Family rises by £1.5m

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 June 2009
THE Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year – an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today.
The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5 million during the 2008-09 financial year.

Opinion poll: Is the Royal Family worth £41.5m a year?

Palace accounts also showed that the Queen dipped into a reserve fund to boost her Civil List by £6 million.

This is the highest amount ever drawn from the reserve which comes from surplus Civil List money accumulated in the 1990s.

The total cost of the Queen's Civil List – which pays for the running of the Royal Household including staff salaries – was £13.9 million in 2008.

It was made up of £7.9 million from the Government and £6 million from the reserve.

The boost from the reserve accounted for 43% of the total.

This prompts speculation as to how much the Queen will ask the Government to increase the Civil List by when the current financial deal runs out in December 2010.

If she continues drawing on the reserve at the current rate, she will run out of funds by the start of 2012 – the year of her Diamond Jubilee.

The pot of money has gone down from £35 million to £21 million over the last decade.

The current deal – in which the Queen gets £7.9 million a year – was agreed by Sir John Major in 1990.

The total £41.5 million cost for the Royal Family excludes the cost of security provided by the police and Army, and the ceremonial duties performed by the Armed Forces.

The amount spent on royal travel – which come from the taxpayer through grants-in-aid – increased by £300,000 from £6.2 million to £6.5 million.

The most expensive journeys were the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall's long-haul overseas tours, which were mentioned in Charles's annual review last week.

Today's accounts revealed the actual figures, showing that the cost came to £1,310,669 including staff reconnaissance trips.

Their charter flights to the Far East cost £655,675, a train ride from Tokyo cost £2,596, their flights to South America came to £645,127 and the charter yachts cost £7,271.

In addition, a staff reconnaissance ahead of the trip to the Far East cost £35,810 in flights, while the one to South America was £41,423.

A charter flight by the Duke of York from RAF Northolt to Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt in May last year to attend the World Economic Forum cost £55,269.

The Civil List has not increased for two decades.

It was frozen following a deal with the Treasury in 2000 to compensate for 10 years of over-generous payments.

The accounts showed that last year the Civil List was spent on salaries at a cost of £9.9 million, administration at £1.5 million, housekeeping and furnishings at £700,000, ceremonial functions at £400,000, £300,000 was used for other unnamed costs and £1.1 million spent on catering and hospitality.

Within this, garden parties cost £600,000, while the bill for food and the royal kitchens came to £500,000.

Keeping the Palace and other residences spick and span cost £300,000 for housekeeping, while £400,000 was spent on furnishings and equipment.

Computers and IT systems cost £400,000 – double the figure for 2007 following the launch of a new British monarchy website and new personnel, payroll and online recruitment systems.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 June 2009 12:35 PM
  • Source: scotsman.com
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: The Monarchy
 
1

Lianachan,

Highlands 29/06/2009 12:15:07
Can I claim my 69p back on expenses?
2

Tartan Viking,

29/06/2009 12:32:58
£41 million could build a few houses.
3

Jerry Springer,

29/06/2009 12:46:16
Only 69 pence each?

A veritable bargain.

I wonder how much they bring in in tourism. Much more than 69 pence per person that is for sure.

GSTQ.
4

Nevsky;,

Moscow 29/06/2009 12:59:41
5 Jerry*

More satire from Rufus; great stuff. Keep the queen for tourists..haha...incidentally i don't believe 1 person comes to the UK due to the royal family....they therefore do not bring in 1 penny.
5

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 29/06/2009 13:01:20
Will our MP's kick up a fuss? Er... no because in the 'democratic' UK every MP has to swear an oath to our untouchable monarch before being allowed to take up their seat.
6

jane shore,

london 29/06/2009 13:09:52

Oh dear Im agreeing with Nevsky.

France & Italy both Republics have more visitors than the UK. A palace or a castle is a palace or a castle, whatever, & usually with more access without occupants.
7

,

29/06/2009 13:34:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Joe Plaice,

the Nutmeg of Consolation 29/06/2009 13:59:00
You would think that someone with the land, properties,art and stock portfolio that the Queen has would be perfectly capable of looking after their own finances. Perhaps a slight reduction in the number of residences and more flights on Ryanair would help to make the Royal Family less of a burden on the poor taxpayers who already have to support over 600 trough snufflers at Wastemonster and all the bureaucrats that go with that dunghill.
9

Dún Aenghus,

29/06/2009 14:07:23
The queen of England and her sponging dysfunctional family are a blight on the Scottish people. The time has come for the whole lot of these scroungers, to go
10

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/06/2009 14:30:08
When are these spongers going to get real jobs ?
11

,

29/06/2009 14:35:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Jerry Springer,

29/06/2009 14:48:17
5 Nevsky;,Moscow 29/06/2009 12:59:41
i don't believe 1 person comes to the UK due to the royal family....they therefore do not bring in 1 penny.
==================================================

I am sure you don't.

But then again you do believe in Peter Pan, Mickey Mouse and Dora the Explorer.
13

inkster,

29/06/2009 15:43:29
The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children might beg to differ
14

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/06/2009 15:56:14
#12 Rodan - not that old myth again.
Let’s be quite clear about the true nature of the Crown Estate: It is not and never has been the personal property of the Windsor family.

The key question is this: if we scrapped the Civil List or abolished the monarchy altogether, what would happen to the Crown Estate? The answer is simple: it would continue to raise revenue for the government.
15

Dan,

Englandshire 29/06/2009 15:56:59
Following in from Rodan, The proceeds of the royal estates, minus the cost of maintaining those estates and the royal list still generate around £136m a year for the treasury. This doesn't include the tourist revenue brought in from the rather odd foreigners who still think the Royal Family are a quaint tradition...
I wish all parasites were that beneficial.
16

Dan,

Englandshire 29/06/2009 16:00:22
@ Clamper
The royal estates come with the Royal Family, regardless of their surname.
IIRC, the estates revenue was signed over by the Prince Regent in return for what became the royal list when he managed to virtually bankrupt the crown.
Since then, succeeding monarchs have "Agreed" to hand over the proceeds of the royal estates to the treasury in return for funding from the royal list. An arrangement that gives far greater benefits to the treasury than the royal family.
17

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/06/2009 16:00:54
16 Dan - see 15
18

Tartan Viking,

29/06/2009 16:10:52
I think the old Chooky Edinburgh should have his own tv show because he is a scream. I may even pay another 69pee to watch it.

All the others can fack off though. Are we still paying for the likes of that Fergy etc? Damn disgrace if we are.
19

Ed's everywhere,

South America 29/06/2009 16:14:00
Simply doesn't cut the ice. Still trying to accumulate more, porky northwest European royals. Our ancestors in 1320 wrote the Declaration of Arbroath and in it, we stated, "For so long as a hundred of us remain alive, we will never on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English, for we fight, not for glory, nor riches, nor honours but for freedom alone, which no good person gives up, but with life itself." Additionally, this document introduced the concept of the royals being subjects of the people, that we should judge them and their value. They and the politicians are supposed to serve us, the people, not leach from us, like parasitic remneants of a shameful colonial past.
If there is a tourist value, lets create royal holograms, of that carton ilk, an animation version of the real thing would cost less!!! A Buckingham Palace computer-generated holographic dysfunctional freakshow! The musical score could be "The Monkees", or the "Munsters", or maybe "The Adams Family" would be more appropriate!
20

Tartan Viking,

29/06/2009 16:21:13
#13. Why doesn't it surprise me to see that you're a royalist Roofass? You and this lot seem perfect for each other. A bunch of airheads completely divorced from reality.
21

Great Scott.,

Clearbrook Vancouver 29/06/2009 17:52:50
Leave the Royal Family alone!
Only in Scotland which is more Red than China would one see this article based on misinformation.
The Crown did sign over the Crown Estates, it's Revenues to go to the Government.In return the Goevernment provived funding for the Royal Family.
At Westminster the hundreds of would be Monarchs are gobbling at the trough of the Public purse. And we all know that has happened there.Claiming for Mortgages that had already been paid,gardening,plants and other things out of the Treasury Trough.And what about the BBC? Who monitors how much it costs the Nation!
The Hanoverian Dynasty was brought over 'to preserve the Protestant Religion'
The present Royal Family is not Hanoverian,Scottish Queen Mother,God Bless her.They are more Scots than the Scots.
Its wise to remember that if it were not for the Georgian Monarchs this Nation would have descendend into Sectarian Violence.
Are they worth the money.Yes every penny!
22

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/06/2009 18:03:59
23 What a load of old rubbish.
23

Tartan Viking,

29/06/2009 18:16:55
#23 You are an idiot.
24

AVRENIM,

Montvalent 29/06/2009 18:19:17
23 hear hear!
Did the cost of 'Government' rise at all over the same period?
25

Joburg Pete,

29/06/2009 18:21:30
In the modern era one must ask whether Kingship is required. Must the British people be expected to pay for the luxuries of one family on the basis of a birth right? I am not suggesting the Queen is not a good person or a charitable person, but for how long does one ignore the facts?
The family are no longer needed, the future king is not popular and his sons are more inclined to live like celebrities rather than royal ambassadors. Is it fair that a child born to a family anywhere else in Britain has less right to the 69p per person? On what basis does the Royal Family own this superior courtship?
26

Alan B,

29/06/2009 18:48:44
Having the royal family in their current state give the uk a bad reputation for

. democracy
- we are not citizens but subjects
- the queen has to sign for legislation
- queen can disolve parliament etc
- she has alot of undemocratic powers
which they do not use
. sectarian
- defender of the faith is anti catholic
- shows we live in a sectarian country
27

Alan B,

29/06/2009 18:49:42
A great british institution made in germany.
28

Masterpiece,

29/06/2009 19:43:34
Why were the British Royal Family at Culloden Battlefield today? Is nothing sacred?
29

Dún Aenghus,

29/06/2009 21:10:56
#29 Alan.....Good post.
Britain is a sectarian state,with the Protestant only prime minister appointing Protestant only bishops to the house of lords. Not to mention the Protestant only monarchy. Pathetic,absolutely pathetic and not unlike the Islamic states.
30

Dún Aenghus,

29/06/2009 22:20:53
#23
You are a typical loyalist sectarian,and I agree with Tam #33.You are talking p@sh. What good did all this "defending the faith" do? Scotland is not a Protestant country! Scotland is not a Catholic country! In fact ,the majority of Scots do not practice any religion.So! what was it all for? The English/German /Dutch royals only wanted to line their own pockets and they used the old reliable i,e,religion to get them there. So please stop talking nonsense.
31

Alex Hogg,

rancho santa fe 29/06/2009 23:53:36
As usual a one sided story.

The allocation to the Queen is as a result of the Royals giving up land and other assets to the goverenment in exchange for what could be classedas an annuity.

If the math wre done I am sure the people come out ahead.

As for the worth it is a bargain.

The Queen has been an excellent representative for our country all of her life and shows class and dignity wherever she goes and in whatever she does.

A great example for others.

Imagine being represented by some head of state like Fornicator Berlosconni, Egomaniac Sarkosy, Liar Bush, Mugabe, Bashir, Chavez etc.

Give the lady a break

She is a LADY hardly something you could call most of your commentators.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.