Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

the royal family should be net contributors

70 replies

nettlewine · 04/05/2015 07:12

The change in their funding gave them a huge raise recently.

I just can't understand why they get given so much money, I know they have buildings to upkeep but at the same time they own billions in assets and have an income, why can't they mortgage and use the income to pay for themselves and make a contribution ?

They own most of rengent street, Cornwall, mineral rights, offshore wind farms. What happens when the dutchy inherits someone's property in Cornwall who didn't make a will? I doubt its given over to social housing.

OP posts:
Charis1 · 04/05/2015 07:28

As far as I am aware, they are net contributors. Control of their estates was handed to parliament early last century, in return for a more modest income paid to them out of the profits.

I don't really see your problem. There are expenses to having a royal family, security and so on, but actually, these expenses are lower than some individual families cost the state in benefits and social care!

30 years ago, we used to nickname families with higher social expenses "Wales" families, because they got through more money than the Wales's!

EdithWeston · 04/05/2015 07:35

They are net contributors.

The revenue from the Crown Estates is about £250m. The Sovereign Grant is about £36m.

So that's a contribution of £214m.

Charis1 · 04/05/2015 07:50

That's what I though Edith, I'm not sure of all the ins and outs and how it works, but I'm fairly sure they are net contributors

Sansarya · 04/05/2015 07:50

Their expenses are lower than some families on benefits? Somehow I'm not sure that that's right.

Superexcited · 04/05/2015 07:55

They are net contributors. You only need to do a Quick internet search to find that out.
In addition to the figures mentioned by Edith above they also contribute to the economy indirectly through the amount of money made by tourism as for some reason people from other countries love our royal family and spend money visiting Buckingham palace and buying royal souvenirs.
If we were all able to contribute even 1% of what the royal family do to the economy we would have a very rich country.

Charis1 · 04/05/2015 07:55

yes, sansarya, when I was working in social services, there were certainly families getting through more money. Think about it, diabetic mother, father and older teen in prison, disabled child and/or child in foster care, younger child with 1:1 teaching assistant, it can all add up to massive amounts,

Of course the difference being the Wales funded themselves with their own money, not taxes.

Waswondering · 04/05/2015 07:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sansarya · 04/05/2015 07:59

Hmm, the Republic campaign released a report a few years ago that showed that with security costs, the Windsors cost nearly 300 million. Much more than the figure of 50p per person that is always trotted out!

And I don't mind subsidising disabled children etc but why should I subsidise someone who is perfectly healthy yet has barely done a day's work in their life? I don't buy the "they work so hard" argument. I'm sure they do work hard. For a few hours, maybe three times a week!

Superexcited · 04/05/2015 08:00

Problem families are estimated to cost a total of £30bn a year (for half a million problem families). I dont think that figure includes benefits or health care, I think it is just the additional social care, intervention and costs associated with crime. So whilst no individual family probably costs more in intervention that the royal family costs in security those half a million families are not likely to be net contributors either so they are disproportionately expensive.

Sansarya · 04/05/2015 08:00

As for the tourism argument, I'm sure royal properties would make money even if there was no monarchy. That hasn't stopped Versailles being a big money spine for the French!

Charis1 · 04/05/2015 08:06

Hmm, the Republic campaign released a report a few years ago that showed that with security costs, the Windsors cost nearly 300 million

A very questionable figure.

but anyway, you would save nothing in security by abolishing the royal family, as any elected president and their family would also need full security for life, which might in the end be far more than one family of royals, as it would be a different full family added to the list of those needing life long protection, every 4 years.

DinosaursRoar · 04/05/2015 08:07

Re the crown estates, apparently each monarch has to re-sign it over, so Charles could well say "you don't like the civil list? Fine, let's not bother then." And we'd be about £200mil down on that deal....

But another thought, they are effectively public sector workers, do we feel that other public sector workers should be net contributors if they have private income/investments?

Also, does anyone think we'd be better off without them? Does anyone think the US president pays out if his own pocket if the White House roof leaks?

There are good democratic reasons to object to the queen being the head of state, but the numbers do stack in our favour.

Charis1 · 04/05/2015 08:08

That hasn't stopped Versailles being a big money spine for the French!

there is absolutly no comparison, Sansarya.

And I'm not even a supporter of the royal family in any sense, or have any interest in them, just interested in the plain truth.

Sansarya · 04/05/2015 08:11

Really? There's no comparison with tourists visiting Versailles to tourists visiting Windsor Castle?

Republic's report is available online if you search for it. I understand that they have an agenda but they appear to have done their research and provided evidence for their figures.

EdithWeston · 04/05/2015 08:14

When it was the Civil List (forerunner of Sovereign Grant), it was about £8m.

When it became the Sovereign Grant (including security costs, and other items that had previously been absorbed in other budgets) it jumped to around £36m.

There's a typo in that Republican report adding an extra zero.

EdithWeston · 04/05/2015 08:18

Sorry for omission, I think the Sovereign Grant excludes costs of Armed Forces personnel on ceremonial duties.

Charis1 · 04/05/2015 08:30

they appear to have done their research and provided evidence for their figures.

No they haven't it is pure spin, and like I said, I don't care either way, I'm not "royalist" at all, but can't be bothered with people posting untrue crap on an internet forum like this. What is the point?

If you want to discuss republicanism, I suggest you do so from a point of truth and reality, rather than vitriole, because otherwise you just look ignorant and silly.

Sansarya · 04/05/2015 08:34

Keep burying your head in the sand...

SirSpamalot · 04/05/2015 08:45

Well, missed NHS appointments cost us £160m a year, so if we knocked those on the head overnight, that's half of the (worst case scenario i.e. Republican) cost paid for already.

EdithWeston · 04/05/2015 08:46

It includes "lost" revenue from private estates (though income tax and CGT are paid), ignores that SO14 doesn't only protect the Royals (they do visiting Heads of State too, plus various other duties), and includes conspiracy theory items such as 'cost of maintaining royal secrecy'.

It doesn't seem a well researched report.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 04/05/2015 08:49

It tickles me when people argue that the civil list is actually really small and prince Charles is actually independently really wealthy. From what: his years trading in the city? Came from the same place to start with!

They're an expensive and frankly distasteful anachronism.

gabsdot45 · 04/05/2015 08:55

I don't think it's fair to say that the royal family have never worked a day. The queen seems to be out and about meeting, greeting and waving very regularly and she's in her 80s. Plus no one sees what she does behind the scenes. William and Harry have military careers.

Original poster
nettlewine · 04/05/2015 08:59

No one believes the 36m figure do they?

If we turfed them out of the palaces, allowed more people to visit them, hired it out for weddings, some rooms as a hotel we could make a lot more money.

You can only visit a few of the rooms at certain times of the year, no wonder the french one gets so many More visitors.

The point is with all that wealth why are they even getting a penny?

Grab all the crown estate and use it to create a sovereign wealth fund IMO.

OP posts:
SirSpamalot · 04/05/2015 09:02

The point is with all that wealth why are they even getting a penny?

That wasn't the point of your OP though, was it?

The true figure lies somewhere between £36m and £300m I'm sure.

I wonder what the true cost of a Republic would be?

AuntieStella · 04/05/2015 09:06

OK, the queen is booted out of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. They become theme parks.

Where does Head of State (whoever that is) do all the functions that currently take place there?

Or would they continue in those locations, or at least in Buckingham Palace? In which case, it cannot become a theme park, and amount its open would stay pretty much the same. Because it would (probably) need to be at least as secure as Downing Street or Chevening, wouldn't it?

Swipe left for the next trending thread