Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Royal bill goes up £1.5m – and they need more

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: 30 June 2009
THE Queen looks set to ask the government for a significant increase in her Civil List as annual accounts revealed yesterday that her reserve funds will run out by her Diamond Jubilee.
During the past financial year, the total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5m.

The Queen and the Royal Family now cost the taxpayer 69p for every man, woman and child in the country – a 3p increase compared to 2007-8.

Although the Civil List, which pays for the running of the Royal Household, has not increased in two decades, any request for a boost in funds comes during the worst economic crisis to hit the UK since the Second World War. The current deal – worth £7.9m a year – finishes at the end of next year.

The royal accounts showed that the Queen dipped into a reserve fund last year to boost this by £6m to £13.9m. This is the highest amount ever drawn from the reserve, which comes from surplus Civil List money accumulated in the 1990s.

Buckingham Palace accountants are understood to be hoping to keep the total current level of spending the same in real terms when the Civil List is renegotiated, prompting speculation that the Queen will ask for a substantial rise in order to do so.

The boost from the reserve last year accounted for 43 per cent of the total Civil List money.

If the Queen continues drawing on her reserve at the current rate, she will run out of funds by the start of 2012 – 60 years since she acceded to the throne.

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

The current Civil List deal of £7.9m a year was agreed by Sir John Major in 1990 and frozen in 2000 following a deal with the Treasury to compensate for ten years of over-generous payments.

A senior palace aide said formal discussions had not begun with the Treasury about a new agreement. He stressed it had always been the plan to build up a reserve and then use it up by the end of the latest ten-year cycle, which expires in 2010.

But the aide would not be drawn on how much more money the palace would be seeking from the government.

Graham Smith, from the anti-monarchy group Republic, said: "The whole thing needs to be run by a government department on a budget that can be scrutinised by parliament."

The Civil List is taxpayers' money used to fund the Queen's duties as head of state. It pays for the costs of staff and the running of the official household.

Last year, £9.9m was spent on salaries, £1.5m on administration, £300,000 on housekeeping, £400,000 on furnishings, £400,000 on ceremonial functions and £300,000 was used for other unnamed costs.

It also paid for catering and hospitality, with the bill coming to £1.1m, including £600,000 for garden parties and £500,000 for food and the royal kitchens.

Other royal funding from the taxpayer includes grant-in-aid, which pays for royal residences' upkeep, communication and royal travel. The amount spent on royal travel increased by £300,000 to £6.5m last year.

The most expensive journeys were the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall's two long-haul overseas tours at more than £1.3m in total.

The couple's 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 to this was more than £85,000 paid in staff travel associated with the tours. A charter flight by the Duke of York from RAF Northolt to Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt to attend the World Economic Forum in May last year cost more than £55,000, while the Duke of Gloucester – 19th in line to the throne – and his wife flew to Tonga and the Solomon Islands for £150,000.

Sir Alan Reid, keeper of the privy purse, said: "The money provided by the taxpayer to enable the Queen to fulfil her role as head of state, is equivalent to 69p per person in the country."

The total £41.5 million cost for the Royal Family excludes the cost of security provided by the police and army.

Keeping up appearances … where the money went

Queen/Duke of Edinburgh – £359,557

The most expensive trip was a state visit to Turkey, which cost £123,856. A state visit to Slovenia and Slovakia cost £93,505.

Travel expenditure to and from Balmoral and the Palace of Holyroodhouse, excluding the costs of engagements in Scotland, comprised £61,521.

Travelling without her husband, the Queen incurred an additional £68,456. The Duke of Edinburgh, travelling alone, incurred a further £2,783.

Prince of Wales / Duchess of Cornwall – £1,467,259

The vast majority of the couple's travel costs came courtesy of two official visits abroad. They chartered various flights to and around Japan, Brunei, and Indonesia at a cost of £655,675. A scheduled return rail journey from Tokyo to Nagano, meanwhile, cost £2,596.

Charles and Camilla also went on an official visit to Chile, Brazil, and Ecuador, costing £652,398. Not included in their joint total is travel costs for Prince Charles and reconnaissance trips by his staff, which amounted to £176,983.

Duke of York – £419,322

A nine-day-long trip to Ukraine, Takikstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Mongolia, cost £149,430. A month before, Prince Andrew's staff went on a reconnaissance costing £15,221.

He also attended the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, which cost £55,269. He also visited South Korea, the flights for which cost £42,283. Another trip to Vietnam and Singapore cost £64,747.

Princess Royal – £89,517

A visit to Croatia and Kosovo in February cost £19,670 in flights. Visits in Australia cost £21,349 in flights, and an official trip to Gibraltar in March at a cost of £21,553 for just two days.

Earl and Countess of Wessex – £24,470

Prince Edward's visit to new offices of the organising committee for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games and the Edinburgh Festival cost £10,180.

His wife, Sophie, travelled to Germany to visit a British Army battalion at a cost of £14,290.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 June 2009 9:16 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The Monarchy
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:26:47

If you add up all the 'bonuses', that our Bankers were give over the last 5years, and all the 'expenses' that our MP's were given, Her Majesty is of 'Better Class', and 'Better Value', I do not mind giving Her my 69pence, at least I know what I am spending it for.



2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:27:00

If you add up all the 'bonuses', that our Bankers were given over the last 5years, and all the 'expenses' that our MP's were given, Her Majesty is of 'Better Class', and 'Better Value', I do not mind giving Her my 69pence, at least I know what I am spending it for.



3

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 00:29:05
In what way do they represent value for money - It is one huge propaganda bill! Off with thier heads!
4

fourthletter,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:29:08
"while the Duke of Gloucester – 19th in line to the throne – and his wife flew to Tonga and the Solomon Islands for £150,000."

Anyone notice this was not included in the "Keeping up appearances … where the money went"

Why exactly are we paying for the 19th in line for the throne and his wife to fly off to the Solomon Islands ? And why does it cost £150,000 ?

I think it's time we decide the monarchy should die when the Queen dies, at the very least the civil list should only pay for the monarch and her/his immediate family, we have equality laws why do they not apply to the world's best paid job that passes down a family line ?
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:56:49

Where's the sense of being proud to be British, and having 'Loyalty', to what our Nation stands for!?
Or would you rather your, be in the situation that others have to suffer, being in the hands of 'bin laden', and 'al Qaeda'?
Stop the Moaning and pay your 69pence!



6

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 01:04:15
I would rather spend my 69p on something else! Certainly not in propping up a sham that is the Bankrupt UK PLC!
7

,

30/06/2009 01:29:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 01:29:40

7 ~Iainbroch,

One Presumes that you would rather give you Money to Our Greedy-Banks, that will take from you Grotesque Charges, typically £40.00, for Being 1second overdrawn on your Bank Account!, 'None_the_Wonder' Sir Fred must Love us All.

9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 01:31:35

~8,

GOOD SUZANNE!!, At Least You Have Some Dignity!


10

Ronald Penman,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 01:37:45
Er...Charles grow up - please ! All this nonesense about costing us 69p each. They - and you - are havin' a larf.

What the cost us is - acording to "Republic" and other reputable agencies is upwards of £183 million per year.

A bloody outrage ! This sum has factored in the approximate costings for security and for costs acrueing to Local Authoritys, and not included in Betty Batenburghs duplicitous "accounts".

You really should stop listening to slavering, simpering idiots like the ebc's Nicky Winchell.
Might I suggest Dear Charles, that rather than spend this ludicrous amount - Germany spends less than £10m
by comparison - on this high-camp embaracement we might have more worthy uses for such massive amounts -tackling child poverty for example. And perhaps we could start in Lord Gorbals Mick's constituency.

Oh and stop knuckling your forelock Charles - its very demeaning y'know!
11

,

30/06/2009 01:39:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Ronald Penman,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 01:49:38
Then there's the prospect of "King" Charles........

Don't know about you, but sure as hell frightens the

bejesus out of me !
13

Jo Flo,

off thread 30/06/2009 01:56:14
Sorry, suzanne you have just dropped your veil
Twin of Jerry, sister of ruffie


Suzie, aloof and sourly sweet.
But you just couldn't keep that face, hard as it must be.

I like Sue. x
14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 02:05:31

"Then there's the prospect of "King" Charles"

Yes!, I Will make a very good 'King', as I am Proud of our Nation.

15

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 02:11:26

We may have 'free-speech', at the same time, we still have the Laws of 'Treason', and quite rightly so!, those that blaspheme our Queen, better watch their Lip!





16

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 02:17:53

And as far as I am concerned, our Queen can have Her free 'ice-cream', I only get concerned about Her weight.



17

Liber Respublica de Scotia,

30/06/2009 03:02:27
Oh well, it will be remedied by Scots - just like it has been for three-hundred and two years now. At least she won't run short of ice-cream for a while.
18

,

30/06/2009 03:09:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

donald,

glasgow 30/06/2009 04:00:53
Nessie as titular head of state would be a cheaper option than this alien form.

Off with her head.
20

drunken proffet,

Tassy 30/06/2009 04:23:01
Dont know if Aussis contribute their $1.38 a year but it seems to be a good deal. Quite a few are Republicans and would rather have a President. My own feelings are that it would cost a heck of a lot more than $1.38 annually and taking a cross section of your average President throughout the World it would seem sensible to stick with the true and tested. If you do not like the idea of King Charles, well King Harry could be an interesting alternative.
21

Graeme,

Guangzhou 30/06/2009 04:28:53
I would rather the Queen be head of State than a politician. Britain loves her along with most (all) of the world. Hundreds of millions of pounds floods into the country from tourists...
22

,

30/06/2009 05:06:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Aldi Shopper,

Irvine 30/06/2009 05:30:09
What use are they?
24

i wear trousers not a skirt,

VOTING NEW LABOUR OUT. 30/06/2009 05:31:15
worth every penny.GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
25

Overseas Scot,

Washington State, USA 30/06/2009 05:58:16
Over here on the other side of the pond we don't even know what it costs to have a President. The latest "estimate" is over $100 Million according to this source:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1974/4/1974_4_64.shtml

Not sure what that equates to per capita, but I'm guessing it's quite a bit less 69p.
26

Graeme,

Guangzhou 30/06/2009 06:24:04
#26. And where else in the country do you find castles and Palaces? Eejit!
27

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek Aussie 30/06/2009 06:41:34
If the Queen needs some extra cash then why not take out a mortgage on a few of the properties, then again we are in a global meltdown and she may be flung out if she can't keep up the repayments.
#13 Its not King Charles that scares the hell out of me its Camilla, she will need to spend a fortune on botox.
#21 Hey Tassie,I think we do still pay that
28

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 07:07:16
It's a lot of money for smiling and waving at people. Time for our country to grow up and rid itself of the parasites.
29

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 07:55:18
Um, this is a tricky one. One the one hand the Royal family have given up many of thier powers and authorities, on the other hand, we (the UK)need a statesman/person to represent the UK abroad.

Looking at the alternatives (Brown, Cameron, Gray, Salmond, Clegg, Foulkes et al), the Queen is a far better choice and a fantastic diplomat.

Tricky indeed.
30

thinking,

Scotland 30/06/2009 08:17:34
I thought tourism was one of our biggest industries, bringing much needed money to the UK?
Whether we are royalists or not, we should recognise that many tourists come because of our history, including our present day royal family. Change that and we risk losing many tourists and as such we would lose a lot of new money coming in.
Also, because of how other countries perceive our royal family, they help in other ways too, including industrial contracts.
31

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:19:35
#28 And where else in the country do you find castles and Palaces?

Ahem. Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh. Scone Palace, Perth... as for castles... can find them all over the place. Likewise 'stately homes'... countless.

I do hope you weren't under the impression that you can only find these things in London!
32

paulr,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:19:49
69p better off in my pocket than paying for these parasites.
I see she doesnt dip into her personal millions to pay for a single thing.
She keeps on getting richer and the rest of us.... well after all we are just peasants here to service them.
33

paulr,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:22:37
#27 big difference you voted him into office,
he didnt just claim everything you have as his personal property because he was born with the name windsor.
34

Grumpy,

30/06/2009 08:27:18
I'm not a royalist, but the Queen does attract a lot of visitors to the UK who spend a lot of dosh here, so we probably get a good return on her. Princess Anne also works tirelessly and is probably good value too. Edward? Who is he? Charles and Camilla? Ok, spend on hims as he'll be King sometime, but she will never be queen. And Andrew - he's just a freeloader who thinks more about his golf than anything else.

As for the Gloucesters - just what value do they add to UK Ltd? Absolutely nothing at all, so why on earth are we paying out money for them?
35

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

30/06/2009 08:37:14
Okay they bring in the tourists...but why is Charles able to interfere with business that is none of his?...ie his recent scuppering of an architects contract?...a chap he does not appear to like by the looks of it...
36

thinking,

Scotland 30/06/2009 08:38:18
#36
I am not a particular fan of Price Andrew but, it seems, that he has brought in large business deals (billion pound deals), so I guess he is earning his way.
We have to look at the way other countries (that spend here) perceive the royal family.
37

Linda,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:39:35
Another saving we can make once independent.
38

Balliol II,

Dunbar 30/06/2009 08:41:31
No one has pointed out that at the beginning of their reign the sovereign surrenders the crown estates in exchange for the civil list. Last year the income from the crown estates exceeded the civil list by more than £200 million.
39

Joe90,

30/06/2009 08:55:56
Let the royal family tighten their belts like the rest of us. I can think of a few ways they could save money (the ultimate being dissolution). Cutting the parasites Andrew and Edward off would be a start!

I live in France (and before anyone says anything, I pay UK tax on my UK pension!) Our esteemed government chose, unwisely and through unwarranted pressure from the little englanders, not to join the Euro then proceeded to let the 'must be protected' pound slide down to its lowest value ever. I have lost around 30% of my income as a result. Who is going to reimburse me? No-one is the short answer. I just have to make do. Let the so-called royals do the same.

BTW Charles Lindskaill, have you always been a forelock tugging, sycophantic, sniveling, uneducated, ignorant, boringly repetitive vassal or have you just been practising more lately? One simply wonders. You are always one of the earliest posters. Either you are an insomniac, or you live in a different time zone, or you do not work, or you work nights and are cheating on your employer, or you are an employee of the scotsman. Which are you?

Re #31 Andrew Morton. If you are THE Andrew Morton you will be aware that we have embassies and trained staff abroad to promote UK interests and trade. We really do not need the lightweight Andrew who seems interested only in lining his own pocket (vide the sale, for more than its true value, of his house to his Khazakstan buddy with whom he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time)!
40

Ewan Oosami,

30/06/2009 09:01:01
I have no problem giving the Queen 69p a year - she is good value for money considering the income she generates from tourists. What I object to is funding the hangers on - even Charles, who has his own income from the Dutchy of Cornwall and certainly object to taxpayers funding £300k worth of alterations for Princess Beatrices student accomodation and jollies to all part of the world for others. Give the Queen the money she needs but make the rest self sufficient - in fact make them get a job!
41

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 09:13:54
#40 says "No one has pointed out that at the beginning of their reign the sovereign surrenders the crown estates in exchange for the civil list."

They do not "surrender" anything they stole it all in the first place. Just get rid of them.
42

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 09:15:23
This is absolutely appalling,as tens of thousands of people on the island of Britain live below the poverty line. Shame on the English royals,shame on their lackeys.
43

Jaq,

30/06/2009 09:17:01
Being royal is a job being schooled from birth to serve your country is a 24/7 job.So if she needs more money I for one am not bothered about giving it, I would rather the Queen who does a good job on behalf of this country have it, than those stinking parasites we call Mp's.
44

The Ayrshire Bard,

30/06/2009 09:19:55
Why should we pay for the Saxe-Coburg family to lord it over us? Charles and his long standing affair with Camilla while her husband sat upstairs knowing what was going on was disgusting and disgraceful. Andrew and his daughters are parasites who bring in nothing but cost a lot. Watch him at the Open as he scuttles round the manufacturers vans scrounging clubs, balls and clothing. He and Charles are total snobs and are bringing up their children to consider themselves as superior beings. Germany is welcome to have them all back and save us a fortune. Only Anne is worth keeping.
She and the Queen are the only ones who understand the need to perform public duties. The young royals would be lucky to get jobs in McDonalds or as builder's labourers without their ridiculous titles and influence. Start off by taking away the security staff for the young ones and let them live like the rest of us. Anne did that and her family are fine.
45

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 09:30:42
#45 Here here!
46

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 09:31:35
#46 Here here!
47

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 09:40:47
#45 and #46 Well said!
48

Clive Hamblin,

30/06/2009 09:41:27
'It's not difficult to spot the difference between a little ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance.'

What a surly disagreeable bunch some of you are!

God save the Queen

49

Joe90,

30/06/2009 09:48:17
Clice Hamblin - of England, no doubt...
50

Mike S,

30/06/2009 09:48:24
Since the queen is almost always referred to as the Queen of England then let them pay for the upkeep of that title and not the rest of the UK. In addition what this civillist doesn't cover is the helicopter Andrew used to go play a game of golf and the helicopters William used to visit his girlfriend and all the other misuses of taxpayers monet for private jaunts.
51

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 09:53:40
#50 Get down,peasant!
52

Clive Hamblin,

30/06/2009 09:58:23
I repeat. 'What a surly disagreeable bunch some of you are.'

Joe90 - Yes; of Scots descent and proud of it!

55 Dun Aenghus If you insist - but with better manners!
53

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 10:15:12
#10:

"What the cost us is - acording to "Republic" and other reputable agencies is upwards of £183 million per year."

Relying on information from "Republic" regarding this is like relying on information from ASH about smoking.

We need to keep the monarchy and we need to continue to keep up the standards.
54

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 10:39:17
#58 - Clearly a minority view.

Is the Royal Family worth £41.5m a year? (Poll Closed)
Yes 31% (27 votes)
No 69% (59 votes)
55

Lianachan,

Highlands 30/06/2009 10:42:09
I'd gladly pay up to £10 a year for Chooky Embra - the man is a comedy genius.

The rest of them, well, I'd grudge them the steam off my sho!te.
56

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 10:56:56
I don't have the source handy but I well remember that last year a newspaper did a poll of London tourists and asked them why they went there. Over 70% said "Britain's rich historical architecture". Less than 10% said to see the royal family. We won't miss the parasites.
57

JCA REID,

Annan 30/06/2009 11:33:13
They are an expensive irrevelance we can do without. They don't generate revenue. Tourists would still come to these lands without a monarchy.
Surveys & TV documentaries have been carried out & the business of ...."to see the Royal Family", don't feature at all!
In the 60's at primary school I can recall the many "balloon debates" we held.....the folk that got thrown out of the balloon every time was royalty & this was not some rabid left-wing socialist/political establishment.
58

Gina Gibson,

Wales 30/06/2009 11:34:02
Why can't the Queen just sell off some paintings or antiques?

She could go on that BBC programme, Cash in the Attic.
59

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 30/06/2009 11:45:21
When you look at these costs you wonder why some of them were ever incurred. For example Charles and Camilla's Far East and South American holidays. Let's not adorn them as in any way useful as no discernible effect has been published as regards the effect on the environment which was the major excuse. So that would save £1.5M for starters and if you're an eco-loonie like him several tons of carbon dioxide and other noxious fumes.

Serious efforts could be made to reduce this extravagance and define more carefully what should be a taxpayer-funded venture or whether funds for the jollies should be met from the family members' own incomes.

The "only 69p per head cost and worth every penny, Gord bless yer ma'am" euphemism must not distract from the £41.3M total!

Real value for money (and I mean this most sincerely) would be for the Queen to dissolve parliament on the grounds that the present lot couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag and seem set to pile up endless debt with the OECD already warning about a double-dip recession. The cheering would be heard from one end of the realm to the other!
60

,

30/06/2009 11:50:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

Joe90,

30/06/2009 11:57:36
Re tourists and the royal family
France has more tourists than the UK and managed to get rid of their 'royals' 220 years ago. QED.

I think most tourists come to Scotland for many reasons and certainly not to see 'royals'. I suggest that Scotland's natural beauties, searching for their roots, given the Scottish diaspora, and the fact that the highlands and islands are amongst the last unspoiled areas of Europe.
62

Sedov,

30/06/2009 12:00:00
I see no need for the royal family.

As they are the stalwarts and defenders of the free market economy and the status quo then let them loose into the market place and fend for a living like the rest of us.

63

Joe Plaice,

the Nutmeg of Consolation 30/06/2009 12:10:09
I agree with Sedov. The royle family, (sic) are an out of date anomaly and should be quietly absorbed into wider society. If the quair old dean can't even provide the very real and valuable service of dissolving parliament and she signed the Lisbon Treaty behind our backs, what farking use is she?
64

Tartan Viking,

30/06/2009 12:16:00
Sorry Suzanne - you really are a sorry person Roofarse. Can you not think of a better moniker?

As for the story - the Royals asking for an additional £1.5 million represents an increase of 3.75% - away above inflation (or, deflation, as we are now told we have).

Why is it that Joe public has to live within their means yet these fat cats seem to think they are above this? They should get lost and live on what they have, thankful that it is a lot lot more than the average family has to scrimp a living on.
65

westview,

Paisley, resting place of many Scots Kings. 30/06/2009 12:19:03
The Egyptians and French do fine tourist rip offs with their displays of dead kings things. The Russians have tourists queing round the clock to see Lenins tomb. No need to pay for live royalty here to attract tourist cash. Set the royals free and progress to a 21st century country. The Queen could not even stop Blair dragging us into war , so what use are they? Sarah Boyle for an armed forces figure head would make more sense.
66

Tartan Viking,

30/06/2009 12:20:04
#64. Gina,
"Why can't the Queen just sell off some paintings or antiques?"

The puzzle is......why does she own paintings and antiques in the first place? If she depends on the public to finance her lavish lifestyle then her assets surely belong to us, not her or any of her dysfunctional hangers-on.
67

Tartan Viking,

30/06/2009 12:21:22
#71. Did you mean Susan Boyle?
68

fiferjohn,

30/06/2009 12:43:23
off whith their heads in this day and ago groveling to a man or woman just because of birth is long gone and so should be the royal family.
in scotland the people are Sovereign not the royal family. if the people where not happy with the job the king/queen was doing they they could get rid of them.
i say get rid of them now and don't bother replacing them.
69

AM in ,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 12:44:43
No, No - a million times NO! How can that possibly be of value. Given the public's outrage at the cash wasted by MPs and banks - why do they continue to give credence to this archaic and bloated institution?
70

Ronald Penman,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 12:48:54
My favourite Royal intervention was THE DOOK lambasting Scots for having the temerity to
instigate a handgun ban, in the wake of the
Dunblane massacre, and shortly after both he and Lilibet visited the School.

Seems to me that this bunch of freeloaders and parasites are about as much use as the proverbial choc
teapot!

The Country was dragged into an ilegal war; Silence!

Unethical,amoral Poll Tax; Silence!

Civil war erupts as the mining communities atacked
by the State; Silence!

Widespread poverty and deprivation in Britain; yes, you guessed it; Silence!
71

Scotfree,

Erskine 30/06/2009 12:52:03
The 60p per person is a neat little con that this family business palms the population of with. In reality what we are talking about is a family business, which with it’s landed property interests alone, consists of nearly 2 billion pounds of assets between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancashire (they also have the largest art collection in the world which is kept private from the public and a vast but undisclosed share portfolio which is hidden from the public). These are actively trading land companies who have a major competitive advantage against other land companies in that they pay no capital gains tax on their transactions. The income from these two companies is over 40 million pounds before tax. Prince Charles paid 3 million in tax but was reimbursed 3.5million by the taxpayer so in affect pays no tax on either his business or person and enjoys in effect a personal income of 18million a year with near a billion pounds in assets. The Queen enjoys an ever greater subsidy of nearly 40million a year with an additional 50 million in security costs, in effect a cost of 90million a year. She is demanding an additional one off subsidy of 30 million to support the repair of her six palaces. This against a backdrop of 4 million plus unemployed, endemic child poverty and the lowest life expectancy in Europe in parts of Glasgow is an obscene waste of national resources. We have the spectacle of MPs being dismissed for 1000 pounds in expense claims yet the entire cost the Westminster Lords and Commons does not match even half the cost of the Queens expenses! They stand at the pinnacle of a great pyramid of corruption from Monarchy to Lords, from Lords to Commons, from Prime minister to Cabinet there is no part of the British system that is not systemically corrupt.
72

Alba Abú,

30/06/2009 12:58:51
#77 Scotfree......Excellent post.
73

Rea Sonable,

Broxburn 30/06/2009 12:59:11
It is sad that the Queen has been forced to ask for a higher allowance from her own estates, which generate far more income than she and her family could ever get through. Who are we to decide how she spends her inheritance? I'm damn sure if any one of you was to be in her position you would be demanding to be given the full whack of income, leaving your country to rot. Or would you use it to pay our snivelling politicians their ridiculous salaries to allow them to clean out their moats? If so, best turn their homes into tourist attractions for added benefit.

There was a time, long ago, where kings and queens commanded respect (and armies) and knights would die to honour them. Now that most country borders have been fought over and decided, have we suddenly no need for respect and honour? I cling to this archaic and sometimes bloody past in favour of our shameless (yet shameful) and weak present. What do we have to look back on proudly? The might of the monarchy is the best I can come up with.
74

Alba Abú,

30/06/2009 13:04:44
#79 Rea.
NURSE!
75

Joe90,

30/06/2009 14:12:03
79 Rea.
You talk absolute shoite. Where do these vast estates come from? When Victoria came to the throne, the monarchy was broke, so parliament introduced tax breaks and allowances that would make a modern day banker blush. Get wise; the 'royals' have been screwing us for centuries.
Do you really want to go back to the days of olde, when knights were bold, etc? You, dear, would not even be a vassal. You would be a peasant, ruled by a despot supported by self seeking 'nobility' whatever that means. Don't be deluded by tales of king arthur and his merry band of brothers. They were all crooks, some just a little more crooked and despotic than others.

76

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 14:40:57
Thes English royals are arrogant and selfish.These parasitic people do not give a damn about the ordinary Scottish people. It saddens me to hear the supporters of a certain Glasgow football club sing "long to reign over us".Many of those doing the singing are unemployed and have little chance of getting a job. Some of the singers probably live in sub-standard housing,but they dont see anything wrong with being"reigned over" by the richest woman in the world.I really think that such people have been cheated in life,cheated in to believing that they are somehow better off than their neighbour who chooses not to sing such songs.
77

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 14:41:56
#82 These and not thes.
thank you.
78

Dougie Welsh,

Halifax 30/06/2009 15:19:40
I think it is sad that so many of you have forgotten why we have kings and queens and various Royals in the first place.

Sad. You're the ones will be the poorer for it. Have ye no pride?
79

Joe90,

30/06/2009 15:36:28
#84 Dougie - Do enlighten us!
80

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 15:47:58
#81 here here! Royal = parasite.
81

Thomas Campbell,

New York 30/06/2009 15:58:46
Reading most of these comments: what a sorry bunch of ignorant whingers you are. You get most of the basic facts wrong (HM is not "the richest" woman in the world; palaces/artworks etc. open for many years [any of you actually BEEN to Holyrood House?]; the present Royal House reigns because of their Stuart connexion, and they are NOT "German" nor are they "English") and most of all, it's all about MONEY. The one sorry trait of Brits- known around the world- is their constant obsession with other people's cash...but you cannot even get that right. Envy, covetousness, hypocrisy, stupidity, obsession with class: all clearly shine through in your 'comments'. I'm sorry, it doesn't say much for modern Scotland, or rather, it says too much about it. Those of us who are Scots and choose to live elsewhere see it very clearly, a shame those (most) who post here cannot.
82

Stan Butler,

30/06/2009 16:08:52

No one should be allowed to received money from the civil list, either directly or indirectly, until their parentage has been established by DNA tests.

That should knock a few quid off the bill.


83

Alba Abú,

30/06/2009 16:18:16
#87 Thomas........ You are one of those misty eyed Jocks who wear the kilt in New York and remain subservient to your English queen.Those of us who live here,see these scroungers for what they are,scroungers.
Yes! modern Scotland will become "modern Scotland" when we throw of the yoke of British imperialism and start to think for ourselves.If you want to subsidise the queen of England,feel free to do so.

Not for us the English yoke
Dutch William or Roman Pope
but Scotland,her people,united and free
Liberty Equality, Fraternity.
Alba Abu.
84

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 16:46:42
89 Alba
Well said that man.
85

Joe90,

30/06/2009 16:46:56
#87 Thomas Campbell

'the present Royal House reigns because of their Stuart connexion, and they are NOT "German"'

Where did you get this nonsense. In the early 18th century, when Queen Anne died without issue, in order to prevent the crown passing once again to the Catholic Stuarts, parliament went to great lengths, eg. passing laws to make an obscure German branch of the royal family British subjects, so that they could offer the crown to Sophie, Electress of Hanover, who refused. Her son George took up the challenge and reigned as George I from 1714 to 1717. He was never able to speak English and I believe he visited Britain only once and that was for his coronation! Hanover is in Germany, therefore the Queen's ancestors were German. So much so that before the great war with Germany the family, to avoid embarrassment, changed their name from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor, after their family estates and the Battenbergs became the Mountbattens. To strengthen the German ties, Victoria married her German cousin, Albert! Do you need any more proof?

Believe it or not, the laws to make Sophie a British subject were still extant until recently, when descendents of the Electress could still claim British nationality by descent. A disgrace. I hope they have been rescinded since I retired from the Diplomatic Service in 1991.

Of course being a Campbell, you are bound to support the monarch as your clan has been doing for the last 300 or so years!

86

MattyMat,

So Cal 30/06/2009 16:54:05
It's quite apparent that "The Royals" are still treating the commoner as they have for hundreds of years-- class and bloodline trumps over the lowly, stupid, taxed peasant.

She'll get her money to buy her solid gold toilet paper whether you like it or not-- untill you do something about it.
87

Marymeet,

Nashville, USA 30/06/2009 17:19:05
I just have one question, where is Takikstan that the Duke of York visited?

I have looked all over and can't find it in any reference.
88

Joburg Pete,

30/06/2009 18:40:37
Is it fair that the royal family are entitled to 69p per person in Britain when others are not?
Should the Queen stand down? I think she should, she is the last of the true monarchs and following her death it will be difficult to take your new King seriously. I also believe that the two boys who you call Prince are good young people but more interested in a celebrity life style rather than an official life style.
89

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 19:33:34
Bunch of subsidy junkie leeching scrounging parasites!
90

Gordon A.,

Vancouver, BC 30/06/2009 20:00:01
here is one hoping that Her Majesty shall live for many years to come and all countries in the Commonwealth bear their fair share of support.

Our Queen is worth so much more than some slack bankers or politicans who cheat.

The Queen shall remain in high esteem throughout the world and we should be thankful that Her Majesty is so diligent and thorough in all that she does for each of us.

Best wishes to our Royal Family as they each learn so much from the Best Monarch ever.
May God save Our Queen for many years to come!
91

grannie,

East Kilbride Glasgow 30/06/2009 20:16:58
At least one pensioner doesn't have to complete a form listing every penny she has to her name to get a few extra pounds. to get a few pounds more than the basic 95 pounds 50p weekly ordinary pensioners with a small works pension have to list every penny they possess. We are told we live in a democratic country. Some are more equal than others
92

Tartan Viking,

30/06/2009 20:31:04
#88 Stan.

Ha ha ha .

Nice one:-D
93

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 21:58:48
#97 We know that you are not a second rate Englishman from Canada, you are more than likely a third rate Englishman from Govan who supports a team that is remembered in Manchester. One has to sympathise with your subservient bowing and scraping to the richest woman in the world.Especially you being unemployed and all of that.Our big problem here in Scotland will be to educate our braiwashed royal peasants in to believing in themselves as Scots and having pride in their own country.We must also teach them how to stand on their own two feet and not to be waiting at John Bull's table to collect the crumbs.I think that Independence will restore some pride in these people.
94

Scottyt,

Saint Paul, Usa 30/06/2009 23:52:58
Spot On, Charles. Sir Freddie and ALL the other heads of banks should give from their pockets also, and substantially at that.
95

Astarte,

Giffnock 01/07/2009 01:39:26
On June 6th I visited with my father who is a Veteran of WW2 and who landed by glider and helepd to secure Pegasus Bridge, the first place to fall on the eve of D-Day. It was a celebratory occasion of the 65th Anniversary and my nephew asked him if her thought that it brought change. He thought about it and said that it was important for the world peace that we defeated the Nazi machine but unfortunately it did nothing for the lives of thousands of our brave men and women who came from the squalor of the slums and after victory returned to the slums with no help being offered for cleaner housing and better education while the British Establishment got richer and fatter. He is not against Constitutional Monarchy but he is angered on the money that is thrown away on flaunting behavior, like Royal divorces and frivolous activities while thousands are homeless and have no prospects for better education. Then we can look at the Royal slush fund and be realistic. Personally I believe that the British people are living in the past and if we must provide money for fun and games, or is it pomp and circumstance then make the Government accountable to the people and start by auctioning or placing in museums the archaic treasures where they will draw revenue to pay for the play actors under the Royal Shield. It is time that so called Royals came into the rael world.
96

Finlang,

Hong Kong 01/07/2009 04:05:32
#70 Tartan Viking

Sorry Suzanne is the former BTO, now princess of witticisms.
97

sheri,

usa 03/07/2009 04:37:01
"Time to rid ourselves of the parasitic pestilence that the monarchy has become and have an ELECTED head of state and begin the transition to true democracy."

Yeah, Elected parasites are so much better. NOT. I would rather have someone like the Queen than a lot of the most recent Presidents we have had over here. Also, there is no such thing as a true democracy, because the rich will also keep the poor down.

 

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.