Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Haggis Hunt is now on!

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Royal Family costs £40m a year, accounts reveal (but Buckingham Palace is a right old mess)



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: 28 June 2008
EVERY British citizen contributes 66p a year to pay for the Royal Family's annual running costs of £40 million, it was revealed yesterday.
But despite a £2 million rise on the previous year, the Queen's main residence, Buckingham Palace, is riddled with asbestos and has not been rewired for more than 50 years.

The annual publication of the royal finances, for 2007-8, reveals that £6
00,000 of the £2 million extra cost – an extra 4p per British citizen – is a result of more foreign trips, particularly by Prince Andrew.

The Duke of York made 12 overseas journeys, costing nearly £800,000 – almost double the cost of the previous year, when he went abroad on seven occasions. This is said to be a result of his increased workload as an ambassador for British business.

Members of the Royal Family travel abroad at the request of the Foreign Office or its offshoot quango, UK Trade and Investment.

Palace officials are adamant that the royals remain good value for money for the nation, saying the 66p annual cost is less than two pints of milk, or the price of a single musical download for an iPod.

But they have warned that a £32 million black hole will emerge in the next decade because the government is freezing its £15 million annual grant for the upkeep of royal palaces. Aides have calculated that it will cost an extra £4 million a year from 2011 for repairs.

A palace source said that requests to the Department of Culture for increased funding to deal with the backlog of maintenance work had "fallen on deaf ears". The source said: "Given the experience we've had in the past ten years, we cannot be optimistic. We haven't received anything, despite putting forward what we thought was persuasive claims for the money."

Sir Alan Reid, who earns £187,000 as Keeper of the Privy Purse, said that officials had paid "continuous attention to obtaining value for money".

The Royal Family's travel bill totalled £6.2 million, of which £900,000 went on rail travel. Only 19 journeys were made on the royal train, and 27 nights were spent on board. The Duke of York's excursions included a two-week trip to Singapore and India that cost almost £250,000, a week-long visit to Brazil (£77,000) and a week in Tokyo and Beijing (£19,453).

The most expensive trip was the £381,813 for a charter flight to take the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to the United States for a six-day state visit.

During that trip, they hired a helicopter, at a cost of £22,849, to take them to the Kentucky Derby.

A luxury yacht chartered for the Prince of Wales for a visit to the Caribbean in March cost £210,000.

Prince Charles also took a three-day trip on the royal train from Aberdeen to Euston, via Liverpool, that cost £40,513, while a four-day trip from Mid-Glamorgan, via Bangor, Powys and Welshpool, to Kemble station, near Highgrove, cost £43,258. Taking the train from Ayr to Euston overnight last October with his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, came to £23,949.

During the year, the Queen made state visits to the United States and Uganda, and hosted state visits from the president of Ghana and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The Palace of Holyroodhouse, in Edinburgh, cost £1.1 million to run in the last financial year, down £200,000 on the previous 12 months.

It is likely to cost £2.4 million to rewire and install new plumbing at Buckingham Palace due to the presence of potentially lethal asbestos. Palace staff are not at risk as long as the asbestos is not disturbed.

Yesterday's figures exclude security costs and those related to ceremonial duties performed by the armed forces.





The full article contains 657 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 June 2008 12:36 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Jwil,

28/06/2008 00:55:12
When they have to give the figure as per capita you know they are trying to con the public.
2

celtic4,

USA 28/06/2008 01:11:23
That does seem a bit pricey> as the United States President only makes $400,000 per year annual income. Geez. Plus, how're they ever going to manage to bring the Buckingham Palace up to par? Golly.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 02:35:23

Who cares about the 66pence contribution,?

Make it £6.66 and I would not mind atall in this worthwhile investment for the 'Royals'

Only if you are 'Mr Scrooge' or our,..'Boy Wonder' who hides his money under his bed, would mind contributing to good cause.

You could spend this money on,...'Chewing Gum' every day and we all know what happens to that!
4

Traquir , Alba,

28/06/2008 02:57:33
One a separate topic here are two wonderful news
scoops from the London Times :

"Scots Labour leader Wendy Alexander ‘on the brink of resigning'"

"David Marshall, the veteran MP for Glasgow East, had decided to resign from the Commons because of ill-health — which would prompt a by-election that would give the Scottish Nationalists a big opportunity."

see - tinyurl.com/6q52mv
5

Scullion,

Canada 28/06/2008 03:11:11
"...saying the 66p annual cost is less than two pints of milk, or the price of a single musical download for an iPod." - at least you get nutrition and a bit of pleasure from those purchases.

6

Joseph Gibson,

Stevenston 28/06/2008 03:28:06

Always anti Monarchy people around, I wonder where these people come from! I wonder why they are against their Monarch! If you want someone to blame, blame the damn government/politicians.

Look at it this way... If Monarchy was in power and not government, all that tax everyone pays and yes! that includes what everyone buys every damn day at 17.5% VAT on all those transactions you make, imagine that heading to the Monarchs purse and not the politicians BACK POCKET! The Monarchy and government has always been at war with eachother if anyone looks at history, and everytime damn time government got control, they ****** up the country, when Monarchy restored order things were better for us all eventually leading towards the biggest empire ever seen and changed the course of everyones lives in many countries worldwide, and yes!!! that was us BRITISH not the Americans! and on that note, Americans have us to thank! anyway... No matter what, there will always be anti monarchy, and everyone that is anti monarchy well... what right do you have to british history if you cannot accept those who rule, and had fought with us and given their lives aswell as every citizen unlike politicians.
7

somerferg,

perth 28/06/2008 03:58:34

#3 - great idea in fact why don't we make it 66.60 pounds each. Let all the unemployed pay their dole money over to keep the hard working royals in Krug and cavier. Lets remember how they keep our wonderful class system in good working order - especially "Prince" andy he is just a wonder, how does he cope with all the trips overseas,meals and games of golf?

Oh and Joseph Gibson I don't know what you are smoking but you need to stop immediately - you can only have a couple of brain cells left. I will avoid making comment about Stevenston after all the Three Towns are themselves a haven of peace and calm full of fun loving monarchists :)
8

Traquir , Alba,

28/06/2008 04:33:12

An excellent day Scotland is getting rid of
two of the remaining 11 Labour Feeble Fifty
Sycophants ( see - tinyurl.com/3kmxfx )-

"Labour MP David Marshall to quit causing Brown more by-election woe"
see - tinyurl.com/6nsrau

"Strang thinks again and vows to quit as Mp"
see - tinyurl.com/63ftu9
9

Traquir , Alba,

28/06/2008 06:01:06
It gets better and better , Come on Elaine

"Labour fears that the SNP will select Scottish comedienne Elaine C Smith as their candidate. She lives in the constituency and is very popular locally."


http://tinyurl.com/6nsrau
10

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 06:31:31
I suppose when they refer to British “citizens”, they are really referring to “subjects who happen to be tax payers”.

Where do I sign to opt out of this royal levy?
11

Boy Wonder,

28/06/2008 07:54:33
I want an opt-out clause in contracts for work. I don't see why my tax should pay for an institution I do not believe in!

Like I said before ... anyone else who wants the parasites can have them ... but let them pay for them! Get Lizzie and her brood out of this country!
12

scottish person,

paisley 28/06/2008 08:05:03
Get rid of them, I have never recognised them as my monarchy. They dont allow catholics to marry into the r888l family, only whoremasters and drunks and charlatans can do this. An cost we dont need or want.
13

inkster,

28/06/2008 08:16:44
#6 I'll make it simple:

Empire=bad (invading, humiliating, robbing, killing all round)

Royalty=sad (breeding leaders impossible)





14

eric,

28/06/2008 08:20:27
,They are good for LONDON.Tourists are money!
15

No 42 days,

28/06/2008 08:26:12
As an Englishman, I'd like Britain to become a republic once more. We need to reinstate the treason laws that Tony Blair and the Queen abolished, then we need to make her answer for her FIVE acts of treason.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/35

When she has gone the way of Charles I we can force the remaining royals to make their own way in life or go and ive somewhere else.

No monarchy and no private central banks!
16

Joe90,

28/06/2008 08:55:15
#6 I can almost imagine your Col Blimp figure sitting there in Stevenson with your monocle screwed firmly into your eye socket and spluttering into your port as you read these posts. "Horse whipping's too good for 'em, I say".
As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, I have seen some of these people in action abroad. It is not pretty, especially amongs the so-called 'junior' royals!
Personally, I would rather have the 2 pints of milk.
17

Highland Mighty©,

28/06/2008 09:13:47
£40m a year seems a bargain considering the royal property portfolio known as the Crown Estate brings in £8bn a year.

Queenie is being ripped off!
18

Queen D,

Glasgow 28/06/2008 09:31:26
Never thought I would agree with HM but I reckon the Royal family is a bargain!
Besides which, the alternative is too awful to contemplate!
Would any of you have liked a First Lady like Mrs Blair??
19

Highland Mighty©,

28/06/2008 09:37:40
20. How about a Bush, a Chirac or a Putin as head of state?!

Why on earth would we want yet more politicians?!

20

Geoff,

sa 28/06/2008 10:50:51
23 happy english-ta for that snippet-I am sure it will make an interesting debate later.
19 Highland mighty and 20 Queen d-morning gentlemen! Yes nice to have some consensus across the board. I always have a little chuckle when a poster uses the phrase"The Scottish people believe..." or similar as though the Scottish people are a monolith who all think,speak and act the same. There is a wonderful range of opinions well represented on this forum of the broad sweep of Scottish thinking at home and "in the colonies":)
I am a Monarchist of the heart but even taking into account some good arguments of the head for a republic,every nation needs a head of state and this costs money. Would people come to Britain to see the President Mr.Smith show? Likely not. If one does the double entry accounting properly, I think you would find the Royals good value even if you dont have a personal love for them!
21

Joseph Gibson,

Stevenston 28/06/2008 11:42:01
#7

Hah, thankfully the 3 towns still have its good area's like everywhere around this dump. And thankfully there is still people in this country that support Monarchy and don't support thieving politicians.

Seems alot of you people that are British, are anti-british now thats depressing.
22

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 28/06/2008 11:48:52
To really look at the true cost of the monarchy properly it is really necessary to examine specific costs individually.

Whether this country was a republic or a monarchy the upkeep of the palaces would still be required in that they are buildings of our national heritage.

A large part of the Royal costs is staff wages. Most I would guess are quite modestly paid. Maids, butlers, chefs, handymen, gardeners etc would still be needed whether we were a monarchy or not.

Security costs for persons or property is unavoidable under republic or monarchy.

The 'hangers-on' is a frequently bandied about expression. If it means minor royals who fill in opening village halls or old folks' homes then there worth is hard to quantify. It is generally felt that their presence at such occasions give a morale boost to individuals and make local communities feel good about what they have achieved.

State ceremonial, royal weddings etc give a touch of colour to national life. They boost the economy with tourism, merchandise etc, and reinforce the 'brand image' of the country. In Aberdeenshire the importance of the royals cannot be understated in their impact on tourism to Ballater and Braemar. A working palace will always have more drawing power than one that has become only a museum.

The Queen as head of state has a role, however, that cannot merely be measured in economic terms. Her social relevence to the country is a far more important subject of debate, and whether we would consider a president and a republic would add more to the good of the country than what it would permanently remove.

23

Joseph Gibson,

Stevenston 28/06/2008 11:49:35

Oh... another thing, Atleast Monarchy doesn't try and hide what it spends and needs, and atleast it shows what it needs money for and not try and make something up.
24

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 28/06/2008 11:49:38
To really look at the true cost of the monarchy properly it is really necessary to examine specific costs individually.

Whether this country was a republic or a monarchy the upkeep of the palaces would still be required in that they are buildings of our national heritage.

A large part of the Royal costs is staff wages. Most I would guess are quite modestly paid. Maids, butlers, chefs, handymen, gardeners etc would still be needed whether we were a monarchy or not.

Security costs for persons or property is unavoidable under republic or monarchy.

The 'hangers-on' is a frequently bandied about expression. If it means minor royals who fill in opening village halls or old folks' homes then there worth is hard to quantify. It is generally felt that their presence at such occasions give a morale boost to individuals and make local communities feel good about what they have achieved.

State ceremonial, royal weddings etc give a touch of colour to national life. They boost the economy with tourism, merchandise etc, and reinforce the 'brand image' of the country. In Aberdeenshire the importance of the royals cannot be understated in their impact on tourism to Ballater and Braemar. A working palace will always have more drawing power than one that has become only a museum.

The Queen as head of state has a role, however, that cannot merely be measured in economic terms. Her social relevence to the country is a far more important subject of debate, and whether we would consider a president and a republic would add more to the good of the country than what it would permanently remove.

25

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 28/06/2008 12:11:34
To really look at the true cost of the monarchy properly it is really necessary to examine specific costs individually.

Whether this country was a republic or a monarchy the upkeep of the palaces would still be required in that they are buildings of our national heritage.

A large part of the Royal costs is staff wages. Most I would guess are quite modestly paid. Maids, butlers, chefs, handymen, gardeners etc would still be needed whether we were a monarchy or not.

Security costs for persons or property is unavoidable under republic or monarchy.

The 'hangers-on' is a frequently bandied about expression. If it means minor royals who fill in opening village halls or old folks' homes then there worth is hard to quantify. It is generally felt that their presence at such occasions give a morale boost to individuals and make local communities feel good about what they have achieved.

State ceremonial, royal weddings etc give a touch of colour to national life. They boost the economy with tourism, merchandise etc, and reinforce the 'brand image' of the country. In Aberdeenshire the importance of the royals cannot be understated in their impact on tourism to Ballater and Braemar. A working palace will always have more drawing power than one that has become only a museum.

The Queen as head of state has a role, however, that cannot merely be measured in economic terms. Her social relevence to the country is a far more important subject of debate, and whether we would consider a president and a republic would add more to the good of the country than what it would permanently remove.

26

Geoff,

sa 28/06/2008 12:31:21
Janis B-maybe if Italy and France were Monarchies they would receive even more tourists!

A hereditary position has its merits and demerits. A democratically elected position is not without its problems Mugabe(initially), Milosevic,Bush,Nixon to name a few were elected to office!
27

European Scot,

28/06/2008 12:44:55
24 Geoff

Good afternoon Geoff !
Now there's a surprise, a sentimental Unionist like you, full of British nostalgia, turns out to be a Monarchist !
Well no surprises here either, someone who believes in the Independence of Scotland, and in the principles of democracy, turns out to be a republican.
The idea of privilege, of the silver spoon in the mouth brigade, of aristocracy, and Kings and Queens, of a class ridden society, somehow it never quite gelled !
A Head of State, a President by all means, but with those magic words, 'an elected' preceding the title.
As for your Queen, personally I'd let her see out her days, and play out the role.
Then that would be it. End of.
Charles and Camilla ? No thank you.
The idea, that somehow or other, people are attracted to London to see the Queen, is a nonsense. Most tourists arrive in London during the Summer months, the Royals are up in Scotland then.
When did anyone ever plan a holiday, visit a country, or a city, on the basis that a Royal was living there ?
More people visit the Palace of Versailles, than Buckingham Palace, the French had the good sense to lose all this Royalty nonsense some time ago.
The Royals do however provide a class system, which is such a useful platform for assorted social climbers, and snobs.
Looking on this thread, I can see you're in good company Geoff !
28

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 28/06/2008 15:32:05
It is while we have the House of Commons that we do not have a proper democracy. The FPTP system of election results in the Commons not reflecting the country's political make up.

The House of Lords to an extent puts a brake on the elected dictatorship of the prime minister. As for the monarch, she plays no meaningful part in the democratic process. Her purpose is purely symbolic.

The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708 over some Scotland Army bill. Republicans would have us believe that the monarch meddles in the democratic process. This is utter c*r*a*p. A president would not only meddle they would demand to meddle. What ever may be wrong with the democratic process, the limited part played by the monarch is not the problem
29

Thomas Campbell,

New York 28/06/2008 16:31:25
Trying to comment on the anti-Windsor comments here is like farting in the wind. But a few points:
The President of the US receives $500,000 per annum salary (taxable) and a further $50,000 expense account non-taxable. (The White House costs $11 million a year to maintain) No member of the British Royal Family is paid a salary.
The entire cost of the Head of State expenditure and royal property grant amounts to LESS THAN .002 per cent of the annual UK govt. outlay. A pittance.
Gatcombe Park, Sandringham, Balmoral are privately owned. Highgrove House is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pres. Chirac spent tens of milions of Euros renovating the Elysee "Palace". At least the French are proud of their architectural heritage (la patrimoine). If the Brits don't care, the historic buildings should be vacated and left to ruin. It would be a fitting symbol of modern Britain.
Since most of the posters here have no idea what the members of the Royal Family do (hint: read the Court Circular. 4000 public engagements last year alone) your suggestions of what they SHOULD do are meaningless.
30

European Scot,

28/06/2008 16:38:37
34 Bob Christie

Cheers.
Looking ahead, post referendum with an Independent Scotland, I would think that in England the people would likely wish to continue with Royalty, as it is felt to be very much a part of their tradition, a part of their identity.
In Scotland it probably wouldn't be looked at in quite the same way, apart from the blue rinse brigade, and the staunch Unionists.
Whatever, it will be a democratic decision made by the people of Scotland, they are the ones who are actually sovereign.
That is something to be decided in the future.
At present, I'd be happy to let things go on, until the queen's reign comes to an end.
That will be the time to take a fresh look.
31

European Scot,

28/06/2008 16:43:55
35 Huntly Loon

"What ever may be wrong with the democratic process, the limited part played by the monarch is not the problem"

The presence of 'Royals' means the acceptance of a class ridden society, I could do without that in the 21st century, thank you very much.
If we are to have a decent and democratic society, let's at least base it on some form of meritocracy.
Having a bunch of chinless wonders, waving their hands, in the rear windows of extremely expensive limousines, doesn't quite hack it for me.
32

Joseph Gibson,

Stevenston 28/06/2008 17:00:49

Our Royals have given so much to us all and we've given so much to them, and they are grateful, just ask. I'd love to know why people are anti monarchy and are anti british "those of you that are against the union". Do any of you that have commented on Monarchy and the Union actually stop to think for one momment why you are against it? maybe even about the History, our history?

I'm going with a few posts here, and I believe that Monarchy are value for money, and that what they get that may seem high is nothing compared to politicians.
33

European Scot,

28/06/2008 17:23:03
37 Thomas Campbell

"Brits don't care, the historic buildings should be vacated and left to ruin. It would be a fitting symbol of modern Britain"

Brits Mr Campbell, oh dear you are out of touch !
I, like many others on here, am a Scot, and I care very much about the buildings and heritage of my country, Scotland by the way, not Brit-land !
Supporting an institution like Royalty in this day and age, is like continuing to believe in Father Christmas, after you've just taken your driving test.
We don't need this medieval nonsense superimposed on a so called democracy.
I take it you've passed your driving test ?
So try facing the reality of, no such thing as Father Christmas, and no such thing as Kings and Queens.
It's called growing up !
Now let's try moving on to democracy.
Voting people in, voting people out.
By the way you should check up on your surname, it's got quite a history too !
The Clan supported Robert the Bruce by all accounts, but perhaps you should be wary of MacDonalds !
34

james395,

28/06/2008 17:30:14
Remember how the Northern Rock got well over ''£100 billion'' from the Labour Government yet when the Queen needs just a few million it is refused well what dose one expect from two Scottish Labour Prime Ministers.
35

The Batboy,

28/06/2008 17:46:49
Oh how my heart aches for a bloody revolution and the tyranny of the Monarchy and its supporters fall to the new tyranny in which I play a large part!
36

,

28/06/2008 18:51:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

james395,

28/06/2008 20:00:00
The anti-socialist revolution is nigh in ENGLAND.
38

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 23:52:32

Well said AM2!
39

Craig Mead-BTUBank,

San Francisco, CA 29/06/2008 22:08:49
Its probably not obvious to most folks, but the sequence of events for a complete global meltdown have now begun to unfold - first the U.S. mortgage and credit crisis, followed by blows to both the U.K. and close allies in Asia (even China), with no expected crash in Germany, except - ooops - even DE Seimans is now crashing and thereafter, the final blow - the Petro-Dollars held by the Arab world become worthless. In short, if you focus on today's news without a global perspective and long range trend, coupled with historic events, you miss the boat. It won't be until we've cured the energy crisis (and global warming) that we'll ever see the boom times of the last 200 years if industrial output again. Get ready for the dark ages once again ladies and gentlemen - far more archaic than even the 1400's when at least we had craftsmen to support the populations. With food and water and energy shortages and plagues and civil strife on the rise, about the only good news will be that the Earth will finally get a breath as billions (yup) perish in what is coming down the pipe. Check out the news by Fortis if you don't believe what is coming.

As the Chinese say "You are blessed to be born in interesting times."

American 'meltdown' reason for money injection Fortis.
28th of June Fortis expects a complete collapse of the US financial markets within a few days to weeks. That explains, according to Fortis, the series of interventions of last Thursday to...

 

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.