Top

What the Royals cost us

Like her subjects, the Queen has announced that she'll have to make do and mend as the Royal finances are squeezed by the UK budget crisis - but how much do the Royal Family actually cost us each year? And what do we get in return? Find out

We’re all feeling the pinch as the credit crunch gives way to the new age of austerity - and even the Queen isn’t immune to the economic downturn. In last month’s Budget Chancellor George Osborne announced that the Civil List - the Government’s financial package that funds the Queen’s official duties - would be frozen at £7.9m for the current financial year.

Yet that doesn’t tell the whole story - the amount provided by the Civil List has actually remained unchanged since 1990. In real terms, the value of the payment has fallen by 76% over the past 20 years - yet the Royals haven’t been forced to send their crowns to “cash for gold” services or ditch the Daimlers for public transport.

So how much are they setting us back every year? And where’s the rest of the money coming from?

How the Royals receive it

Accounts published this month in the Royal Household’s annual report go some way to answering the questions. In the year ending March 31 the Royals cost us a total of £38.2m - which equates to 62p per person in the UK. In addition to the £7.9m from the Civil List, the Queen drew an extra £6.5m from a reserve fund built up over the years by saving portions of her allocated budget.

That adds up to £14.4m - so where did the remaining £23.8m come from? The report shows that the Queen received £19.7m in additional Government grants, including a £15.4m payment towards the upkeep of the Royal residences, £3.9m in travel expenses and a further £3.9m for related costs met by Government departments. The remainder comes from annuity funds.

It should be noted that these grants and taxation funds are supplemented by the Royals’ own money-making activities. The Royal purse received £3.6m last year in management charges and rent from properties let out commercially on Crown estates, while revenue from admissions to the Royal palaces and estates raised a further £1m.

The report also notes that the Queen and Prince Charles fund part of their official duties with income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall (i.e. real estate) respectively - but no figures are disclosed.

How the Royals spend it

The annual report shows that the Royal Family has actually been cutting its cloth to meet the straightened times. Total expenditure was down more than £3m from the previous year with significant savings made to the Royal travel bill (down 40% from £6.5m to £3.9m) and to the sum set aside for maintenance projects, which was cut by £500,000.

The report shows that the Royals have gone some way to embracing the new mood of austerity - but it also contains evidence of some lavish outlays that will enrage republicans.

Donna Werbner explains who are the winners and losers in this week’s Budget!

The breakdown of Civil List spending presents a more measured picture. Over the past year, the biggest expenditure for the Royals was staff costs for the Royals’ 1,200 employees at £10.4m, followed by the £3.9m in travel costs outlined above. Some £1.3m was spent on catering and hospitality - including £700,000 on the Queen’s summer garden parties - while housekeeping costs came in at £600,000.    

Perhaps the greatest extravagance can be found in the Royals’ £3.9m travel bill. In addition to the eye-watering £1.2m spent by Princes Charles and Andrew on private jets and chartered flights, accounts show that the Queen spent £374,000 on a private jet to the West Indies: Charles and Camilla’s trip to the Vatican last spring cost £85,700: and the £32,000 spent on the Queen’s visit to the Heinz factory in Wigan.

What we get in return

It’s hard to put a specific figure on the return we get from the Royals. Supporters of the Monarchy point to the unquantifiable, but enormous, boost to UK tourist revenue the Royals generate. It’s also claimed that state costs for the Monarchy are lower than those for Republics like France and the US - but because the Royals have no administrative function, this makes for an “apples and oranges” comparison.

What we do know - but again, can’t ascribe a monetary value to - are the civic duties the Royals perform every year.  The annual report shows that the Queen performed 359 official engagements last year (including 75 with the Duke of Edinburgh), including 27 Royal Investitures and seven large-scale garden parties. Prince Andrew also works as an official trade envoy to the Middle East - and his efforts are said to bring in contracts worth significant sums.

Finally, there is the revenue from the Crown Estates to factor in - last year saw the Royal property portfolio return £226.5m to the Treasury in the form of an income surplus. And that means tabloid suggestions that the Queen may go bankrupt when her reserve fund runs out in 2012 are more than a little wide of the mark...

And remember – if you’re spending like a minor Royal you can regain control of your finances with our online banking tool and make major savings by making it your goal to manage on a small budget.  

More: 10 great British brands sold off to foreigners

Comments



  • 19 July 2010

    I thought that every base had been touched in this(mostly)good natured debate,with roughly a 50/50 split between pro & anti royalists Then WHAM! someone comes along & tries to defend the House of Lords--are you for real? I am very sceptical about many of the statistics given. IE if the cost of employing 1200 people is £10.4 million then these people are working for not much more than £150 per week,on average.As most of these workers are in the south of England,how is this feasible? One pro royalist said that one of the young Royals had been quoted as saying he/she wished they had been born into a "normal " home.This is all well & good but you may get a different quote if they had to dip in to their own pocket/purse for the next bottle of vintage champagne. It really is time that we put to bed this fiction about the monarchy attracting revenue from tourism.Do you really believe that Homer says to Marge"were not going there,theyve sacked their Queen,lets go to Hawaii" The tourists come to see the Tower of London,Blackpool Illuminations,the Highland Games,to eat fish & chips & to drink in an English pub,not fogetting Madame Tussauds(to see the monarchy!) In response to TWINKHUGHES perhaps you could elucidate on these situations which the Queen "calmed,which might have led to war. The only thing I can recall was a mild rebuff for the Scots when devolution was first mooted. Perhaps some of the older contributors may recall,as I do,that the Queen entertained Emperor Hirohito(twice) on state visits,and the hurt that this caused to so many brave veterans,who STILL wait for justice.She could,and should have said no. I know I am rambling on but would just like to add that I am with SAVVYCHICK. I dont want a president but the current set up is far too expensive & we should devise a system of "pay by performance"on terms more in keeping with these straightened times

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    3

  • 19 July 2010

    This Country has the best system of government, where the Head of State grows naturally alongside His or Her people as the Princes are doing now, getting proper formation for their future roll. This system protects us from unexpected heads of state as those who turn up in republics from time to time and who can't match the quality, inspiration and leadership we get from our Head of State, in our case the Queen. Ours is a most natural and logical form of government and which is an extension of a natural family concept to the whole of politics. We can make improvements here and there but it is much better than the more un-natural form of government which comes with a republic which means “public thing” of which just anybody within a powerful group can turn up and be in charge of.  Mostly all is done with very short term views. Generally republics end in oligarchies where a few are in the real government. So the image of the Head of State is lost with all its potential. The greatness of England seems to be more a function of the power of the Monarch and not of the House of Commons through out the ages. Just take a look at the little time the House of Commons has had sway over the House of Lords and how they have completely messed it up and ruined its image and its usefulness, perhaps we should start going the other way with the House of Commons. We would do better with a stronger Monarch supported by the short term views of the politicians in the Commons and the long term views of the best from different fields of activities of the Nation, by the way government of the best is also called aristocracy, sadly not what the Commons have turned the House of Lords in to.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 16 July 2010

    Our Royal family is the most expensive in Europe. Prince Charles is independantly wealthy from his Duchy of Cornwall. I do not want a Republic - can you imagine someone like Tony Blair as our President? However, I do believe it is ridiculous that ordinary working people have to pay them huge amounts of money so that they can persist in their belief that they are better than the rest of us.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Most Popular

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.