Queen in hospital with stomach bug, Buckingham Palace says

[josie andrews]

Great post Cowyeds :eusa2: well researched, thank you for enlightening us

[Aaron C. Rescue]

Out of touch with reality, aloof, arrogant, what have we got amongst them, racists, adulterers, foul mouthed divorcees, clothes horses, they could go tomorrow for me and not be missed.

[Sutty]

What a waste.
That queen, living it off the government in her castles with her corgis. (and gin) Just how much does this cost to maintain?

The answer: 40 million pounds.

That’s about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.

Sure, It’s still twenty-three pence short of a complete shield, but it might be more than you want to pay.

Anyway after all, those are your coins. Why does the queen get to steal them?

Well, it’s a little complicated.

The story starts with this guy: King George the third, most well known as the monarch who lost the United States for the Empire.

Less well known – but far more interesting – is he likely suffered from a mental illness.

King George was having trouble paying his bills and had racked up debt.

While he did own huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses.

He offered a deal to parliament: for the rest of his life he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary and having his debts removed.

Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term, which they did good style.

Just how well did parliament do?

The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.

But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.

200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.

That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.

So stop all your moaning about the Royal family and how much they cost and how worthless they are. The Royal Family is Great for Great Britain.

Doing the individual maths again:

160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds and 60 pence.

Because of the Royal Family, your taxes are actually 2 pounds and 60 pence cheaper each year than they would otherwise be.

But perhaps that’s not enough for you because you’re a real greedy geezer. Why not kick the royals out and keep 100% of the revenue.

Because it’s still their land. King George the crazy wasn’t crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits.

But it wasn’t only him: every Monarch since King George the third has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: Voluntarily.

If the government stopped paying the Royal Family’s living and state expenses the Royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Monarchy-haters, would go UP not DOWN.

Plus 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family.

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

But perhaps you don’t care that the monarchs are a perpetual GOLD MINE for the UK. You’re a Republican and you dislike like the royal family because of their political power. After all, the government gets all its right to rule through the crown, not the people.

And yes, I’ll grant you that back in the head-choppy days of yore, this was a legitimate concern, but the modern queen isn’t a dangerous political lion but a declawed kitten.

Her powers are limited to a kabuki theatre act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.

Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

But, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps the queen is a political ticking time bomb, just waiting for her chance to declare random wars and devolve parliaments.

But until that day comes.

God save the queen.

she also pays taxes as does Prince Charles @ 50%

:eusa2: :eusa2: A very pleasurable read.

[cpwigan]

The monarchy great for tourism?

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred 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. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

[cpwigan]

The royals are great ambassadors for trade, they promote exports and investment.

The notion that the monarchy is required to provide Britain with 'ambassadors' for trade is pure fantasy. We only need consider the scale of the British economy to see what nonsense this is.

London is a major world financial centre.
The City channels billions of pounds of investment into the UK every week - do the big businesses in the City and Canary Wharf need the help of a little old lady in a big house in central London?
The UK is in the top five economies in the world.
The UK is a member of the G8 group of leading industrialised nations.

This is another example of the monarchy claiming credit for the work of others. Do you really believe that our economy and trade relations would suffer if we lost the Windsors?

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the monarchy brings in trade and investment. Prince Andrew's appointment as trade ambassador is a meaningless indulgence. Most people outside the UK have never heard of Andrew and his 'star' value is limited.

Finally, if the monarchy does want to claim credit for the British economy, they must also take the blame when it goes wrong.

[jobo]

You been listening to Morressy too much and his opinion never mattered, it costs the average house hold 52p a year too keep the Royal family you cant even get a Mars bar for that.

Im a Royalist because without the Royal family we as a country would have no identity and would end up like the USA, and i know what i would sooner be like as a country.

We are the envy of the world and millions and millions of people flock to this country because of our history and the Royal family in particular.

I say its reverse snobbery.

Well doff the cap and tug the forelock.

If you think this country is the envy of the world you are sadly mistaken. Just about every other country whilst maybe not disliking us as much as say the USA or Israel, have Britain firmly on their no cards at Christmas list. A lot of this is due to our colonial, imperialist past identified most strongly with, wait for it, the monarchy.

As for people flocking here in their millions, more people visit Paris alone in just 6 months, than they do the whole of GB in a year and look what happened to the French monarchy.

With regard to them costing 52p, I'd rather pay a bit extra and have the mars bar.

[the winky one]

Ahem!!....wish I'd never spoken....

[i'm spartacus]

The royals are great ambassadors for trade, they promote exports and investment.

The notion that the monarchy is required to provide Britain with 'ambassadors' for trade is pure fantasy. We only need consider the scale of the British economy to see what nonsense this is.

London is a major world financial centre.
The City channels billions of pounds of investment into the UK every week - do the big businesses in the City and Canary Wharf need the help of a little old lady in a big house in central London?
The UK is in the top five economies in the world.
The UK is a member of the G8 group of leading industrialised nations.

This is another example of the monarchy claiming credit for the work of others. Do you really believe that our economy and trade relations would suffer if we lost the Windsors?

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the monarchy brings in trade and investment. Prince Andrew's appointment as trade ambassador is a meaningless indulgence. Most people outside the UK have never heard of Andrew and his 'star' value is limited.

Finally, if the monarchy does want to claim credit for the British economy, they must also take the blame when it goes wrong.

The monarchy great for tourism?

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred 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. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

Clearly you are entrenched in your opinion, and no matter what is said here, it isn't going to change. I cannot see how either of these two points, which I assume you raise in support of your stance, go anyway towards answering the main point of cow yeds post.
The fact remains that the Crown Estate - a statutory company which pays any and all profit directly to the exchequer (and which actually returned £240 million in 2012 and not £200 million as previously stated), still outweighs the money delivered via the civil list by a very substantial margin.

What I really found amusing is the fact that one quote starts with the conclusion that tourism revenue is irrelevant in a debate about the constitution, before going on to argue why we should abandon a fundamental aspect of our constitution because it doesn't attract tourists.