Insect Royalty (or how much the royal family cost the UK)
 

Cost
Official costs of the royals 37.4 As disclosed by the royal finances 2005/06:Royal Finance Report

Additional security costs 100.0* Estimated by the Times in 2004:The Times article

Unpaid tax 0.5 The Prince avoids Corporation Tax on the Duchy estimated to be around £500,000.IT Week news story

Unpaid tax (Queen) Unknown (£5m+?) The Times article

Grants in Aid to Prince Charles 2.0* Given to partly cover costs of official residence and travel:BBC News story

Costs to Local Councils (for royal visits) 10.0* Official cost of Queen's visit to Brighton in March 2007 was £11,451, as disclosed to Republic via a Freedom of Information request.
Extrapolating this cost for each visit undertaken in 2006 by the Queen's (425) and Prince Charles (500) would mean costs to local councils of £4,866,675 and £5,725,500 respectively. Telegraph article
Therefore the figure given is a conservative estimate based on these costs, particularly as it does not include visits undertaken by other royals (total number of visits is claimed by the royal press office to be near to 3,000).
Royal site It is also worth considering that in 2007 a visit by the Queen to Romsey left the local town council with a bill for £58,000, including £5000 for a new toilet. Daily Mail article




TOTAL 149.1 -

Doesn't the royal familiy own the UK?

yes, but then who would be the centralizing political figure for the British world including the Commonwealth Nations?

Colonialism aside, the contemporary monarchy in the UK is a genius political move at unity and coalition building, people can throw all their muck at the ministers, and enjoy the unifying presence of the Queen and the Royal family, I say 149 million pounds is a very small price to pay to unify millions of people under a common British identity and government, even though many are Africans and Asians, much more unifying than a few thousand nurses and teachers.

The apolitical power of the monarchy is the very source of its political potency. People do not hold the monarchy accountable for the ills in government like they do the ministers. If the US had a comparible political figurehead, there would be so much less division amongst Americans, instead it is every-man-for-himself politricks, Democrat vs Republican vs Everybody else, there is no common ground, the Queen for many British citizens is that common ground.

This was the exact same genius which the Ethiopian monarchy employed, and today, the republic is in the shambles of ethnic nationalism and division, where as under the monarchy there was a common sense of national identity which is now lost.

NO!

Exactly how does the royal family unify anything? What evidence do you have for this, I've presented you with cold hard facts, and to be quite frank part of me wants you to do the same with your arguement.

Well, not anymore.

They still own some rediculous percentage of the land in Britain, something like 10%. But this means nothing in the greater sceme of things, the government and the people of Britain have the political power to abolish the monarchy and reclaim this land.

It depends what you mean by the royal family or 'the crown'. One things for sure, 70% of UK land is owned by 1% of the population.

evidence for your point is easy to find, just get some financial data, where as the inference I have made is not so overt.

I don't have so much evidence to support something so obvious. The monarchy is a potent symbol of British identity, if not at home for the pissed of youth, definitely abroad for the members of the Commonwealth. This is particular in places like Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, and also Jamaica, Trinidad and St Lucia, all places where I know people who testify accordingly.\

Again, as I said before, in the US there are no apolitical symbolic figureheads, it is just politricksters, and this creates an environment of division. At least the common experience of the monarchy adds a paternalistic (well in this instance maternalistic) flavor which adds common ground.

"In his book, 'Who Owns Britain' (2001), Kevin Cahill takes a long, hard look at UK land ownership. His findings surprised many: the Royal Family for instance owns UK land equivalent to an average-sized county. Just six thousand people own two-thirds of the entire supply of UK land - forty million of the sixty million acres of UK land are owned by a clique comprised of the Crown, aristocrats and a few institutions."

Probably because they own the land they're living on.

not likely, do you know any island folk or Africans? and further, you were aware that the majority of commonwealth folk I know are here in the states, so they are diasporic (ie, probably do no own shit at home)?

I am not trying to glorify the queen, just comment on the solidarity which the monarchy creates. Regardless of the opinions of more radical folks like ourselves, the monarchy offers this aspect to British identity. I think that it is something which can be built upon, and should not be destroyed. If we adapt the monarchy to fit the needs of even the radicals, we can use its unifying common experience to better the people, rather than sink into division.

In Ethiopia, the monarchy was by no means perfect, but what replaced it was far more worse and divisive, my only warning is to be careful when tampering with such ancient institutions, they stick around for so long for good reasons often.

be grateful you have a monarchy and not some half witted idiots ruling your country!!!!

seriously tho.... the royal family will have to come to terms with the situation at some point wont they... or will they, they are still incredibly popular with the british public!

Weren't you trying to claim the commonwealth was unifying?

In 1997 over a quarter of the British population wished to abolish the monarchy. Thats probably because they were all murdering eachother at that time, but it's still not incredible popularity, is it?

We have both.

yes, and that is what proves my point entirely!

I know folks from Ghana, Uganda and Kenya, or from Trinidad, Jamaica, and St Lucias, and while these folks are all in the diaspora, and all live removed from their homes and are here in the US, the unifying experience of being under the monarchy has stuck with them in a positive way, even though these were once colonies! That is some powerful shit man I tell you, to leave a good residual taste rather than a bad one in those folks.

My point is this:

The experience of the monarchy is so unifying that it creates a british identity where there is no real cause. Are Ghanians or St Lucians really British? Are they Anglos? No, but they are most definitely British, and the queen has been a major part of that. She gives them a sense of commonality and British identity, which extends far beyond the circumstantial British influence of colonialism in their homelands. They have carried this solidarifying British identity across into exile, and remain British despite being African or Caribbean and also now subsequently Americans...

again, that is some powerful shit.


since when is 75% NOT incredible popularity?

Speaking as a British citizen, I've never seen any evidence of this being so.

If a 500,000 tourists spend £300 while they're here (that is, slightly less than it'd cost to stay in London for a week except in hostels) then you've put £150m into the economy. I'd say the number of tourists coming for buck-ing-ham palace is slightly lower, and the amount put into the British economy per visit is slightly higher.

I'm not particularly a royalist, or a Tory (the above is a classic Tory argument) but I suspect weight cost/ benefit is much more intrangible than just positing the explicit cost and assuming there's no benefit.

Personally, I find the political benefit of sovereign monarches to be the most spurious of arguments, but then, if we don't have our strange customs (not just the Queen, the whole of Whitehall) and Britishness then we kind of disappear into the bay of France.

Hey hey - statistics lesson - if a quarter don't want them, three-quarters do. Granted, that's not quite 'most people' but it's certainly the sort of majority that's seen Mugabe run his country into the shit for a few decades.

What you have to think here is if 1 in 4 people had such a hard-line attitude to the royals, what were the rest of the population thinking? The statistics don't imply the country was divided into those that wished for the dissolution of the monarchy 0R those that were perfectly content.

my point exactly. and that sense of britishness is so powerful it extends across the globe..

I mean, as I said, I am not particularly pro-monarchy, just commenting on what I see.

I am a Rastaman, and the folks I deal with are Rastamen, and we Rastafari people are blatant anti-colonialists, and we burn fyah on British colonial govt for a long time, so I do not necessarily support it here, but I am just commenting on its obvious popularity and role in identity formation.

now you are inferring more than i am!

Yes I realise, doesn't mean these 3/4s beleived the monarchy was a moral, useful or plausible institution. However, this country has been a republic for 16 years in the past millenia and a half, it's a big step, and hard line attitude to adopt...

"The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today"

from Republic.org.uk

I find it really sad that you attribute Britishness, our national identity and eccentricities too a family who've never experienced this and have precisely nothing to do it being present. I think you'll only realise how brilliant 'Britishness' is when you realise where it really comes from.

Its not inference it's common sense. It there were the statistic that 1/4 of Brits are married, then common sense dictates that the 3/4s remaining aren't neccesarily single.

It is more complicated than that. The monarchy, as a long-standing institution, play a pivotal role, even as background noise, in British identity. I may not be a patriotic american, but Uncle Sam and the bald eagle are definitely part of my identity as an American, even is solely in opposition, they still are factor. This is same with the monarchy, it is a major part of existence, whether it has any direct responsibility in this or not, millions share the common experience of the monarchy, and this is the solidifying aspect, whether in favor of, opposed to, or indifferent, the monarchy is part of British identity.

I think what TINH is trying to say is the Royal Family is not a CRUCIAL PART in "britishness". They don't really make any difference to what is and what isn't british, they're just there. They are not the epitome of britishness, nor are they the opposite. They just exist, and the world would be just as happy without them.

Ha ha!

I figure it's very annoying to see an old lady bragging like in 1800, once or twice a year, in a modern country that has nuclear power.
Feel sorry for you, also I'm glad I don't have to endure it.

Look dude, okay so you're better qualified to speak for members of the commonwealth than me, but I speak as a citizen of England, and I attest strongly to the monarchy influencing national identity in no way at all, and I am totally apaulled to pay taxes to support such a redundant and excessive institution. I'm going for some food now, seeya.

yeah, that was obvious, and I was refuting his point.


its not about being better qualified, my entire point is simply this, you are claiming the monarchy is not part of british identity, but I call bullshit, cuz clearly it is, or people would not line up to see the bitch parade down the street, and they certainly wouldn't give a shit to line up in Kenya when she comes to visit if she was not a major part of their british identity. I am not trying to one-up you, just call it as I see it.

It was obvious, but you disagree despite the fact you don't even live there? That's kind of odd, don't you think?

I don't have to live there to see people support the queen. He doesn't have to live in the US to know that people believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, even though they are all bullshit? I am not saying the monarchy is right or wrong, I am commenting on its socio-political powers, which are obvious to any observer, outside or in..

Hah. Well, despite whether or not they support the Queen, I think the majority of british citizens would not be happy to find out that 150m of their taxpaying dollars is going to sustain the royal family. That's like finding out it costs that much for Sarah Palin's wardrobe. OH WAIT...

that shit is chump change, in the US that much gets spent much worse bullshit than national unity and creating a sense of common identity.

You can call it "chump change", but I think that money can go towards something better than the monarchy. They're already rich as fuck, why don't they just use their own money? Do they really need to suck that cash out from the taxpayer's wallet?

1. What about the people who AREN'T at the side of the street?
2. My arguement does not refer to or make any claims about Kenyans.
3. Don't call my view bullshit.

For the most part it's the local councils (with my council tax) facilitating the royal family on visits on other occasions, which, ironically are supposed to benefit the local area - instead, as the data in my original post details, is always vastly expensive.

Look, 'dude', fuck off. I'm British, English in fact, and I do not attribute Britishness to a single factor. I'm not going to detail precisely what Britishness is, because it's very precisely too many things to detail. I'm not a monarchist (can't stress this enough) but the Royal Family are one aspect of Britishness that I happen to enjoy, in much the same way as your people enjoy that misanthrope parade you call 'Eastenders'. I also enjoy Morris dancing, conversations about the weather and whinging, or Eid in Easton, or Purim etc etc.

"your people"?! Piss off buddy.