The Annual Royal Financial Report

[Bev]

More and more elected office in this country is becoming a career option instead of an honour bestowed by the people.  It was never meant to be a lifetime job with hereditary rights for sons, daughters and wives.  The ideal was to serve as long as your country needed you and then return to private citizenship.

[CHRISinUSA]

The 2008-2009 royal expenses reports are out, and the public is once again howling.  Interestingly, it seems the Queen is mostly immune to the outcry, with the rest of the Royal Family bearing the brunt of the public anger.  At least, that's what the media reporting seems to indicate.  What does our British friends say on that?

I thought it would be interesting to compare the costs of the British monarchy with those of the Imperial Household Agency of Japan.  To keep a comparison in perspective - the UK has some 65 million citizens, Japan has twice that.  However, when you take into consideration the entire Commonwealth, no comparison - the Queen's realms are collectively many times bigger than Japan.

According to the website of the Imperial Household Agency, the finances for 2009 are:

Personal Expenses:  These are the personal expenses to be spent by His Majesty and inner-court members of the Imperial Family(Naitei-Kozoku) in daily living and activities.  Amount is 324 million yen, or 2.03 million British pounds.

Palace-related Expenses.  These are the expenses to be used for the Imperial Family's official duties, including ceremonies, state banquets, receptions, domestic and overseas visits.  The amount is 6.10 billion yen, or 38.2 million pounds.

Allowance for Imperial Family members.  In order that the Imperial Family is able to maintain a life style that befits its position, each member of the Imperial Family, excluding His Majesty and inner-court members of the Imperial Family(Naitei-Kozoku) , is provided with an annual allowance.  The total amount for 2009 is 280.9 million yen, or 1.76 million pounds.

Imperial Household Agency Expenses.  These expenses cover the personnel and operational costs needed for the running of the Imperial Household Agency, which in FY2009 amounts to 10.98 billion yen, or 68.8 million pounds.

Total cost for the Japaneese monarchy in 2009 will be 110.79 million pounds. 

Note - This DOES NOT include the costs of security provided by the National Police Agency Imperial Guard, which has over 900 security police personnel who provide personal security for the Emperor, Crown Prince and other members of the Imperial Family of Japan, as well as protection of imperial properties, including the Tokyo Imperial Palace, Kyoto Imperial Palace, Katsura Imperial Villa, Shugakuin Imperial Villa (both in Kyoto), Shosoin Imperial Repository in Nara and the imperial villas as Hayama, Kanagawa and Nasu, Tochigi. [2] The Imperial Guard also maintains a 14 horse mounted police unit for use by guards of honour at state ceremonies.

So - given the fact that the Emperor of Japan is not even constitutionally the Head of State (although he is generally accorded that role), and he and his family live a relatively cloistered existince for much of the year, he costs the Japanese people 2.75 times as much as the Queen costs the British taxpayer.

And the US Presidency?  It's costs are not even publically available, although certain tidbits are able to be gleaned from public records, such as - the White House travel expenses in 1982 were $185 million (US). In the Executive Offices Appropriations Act, 1997, the "necessary expenses for the White House" alone was $40 million US. 

[Lucien]

Its comparing apples and peers,and japanese don't nag that much as westerners.....

HM cost the sum of 69 pens annually to each and every briton,c'est tout!
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/06/queen-costs-britons-69-p-per-year-.html

courtesy hja

[joan_d]

There has been much coverage in the Press in the UK about Royal finances - not so much the Queen but PofW.   However, as usually happens, something else crops up and it slides off the radar.   

My take on the Royals is that Government is biding it's time until the Queen's demise and then there will be a root and branch cull of Crown properties.  Buckingham Palace is virtually being allowed to crumble as is Kensington Palace.  These Palaces are on prime real estate in London - this particular Government would love to get it's hand on the land.   There should have been a national outcry when the land on which Chelsea Barracks was built was sold to the Qatari Royals.

The UK is bankrupt (as someone recently said "A banana Republic without the bananas" we just can no longer afford this remnant of a bygone Empire.

[Lucien]

There has been much coverage in the Press in the UK about Royal finances - not so much the Queen but PofW.   However, as usually happens, something else crops up and it slides off the radar.   

My take on the Royals is that Government is biding it's time until the Queen's demise and then there will be a root and branch cull of Crown properties.  Buckingham Palace is virtually being allowed to crumble as is Kensington Palace.  These Palaces are on prime real estate in London - this particular Government would love to get it's hand on the land.   There should have been a national outcry when the land on which Chelsea Barracks was built was sold to the Qatari Royals.

The UK is bankrupt (as someone recently said "A banana Republic without the bananas" we just can no longer afford this remnant of a bygone Empire.

What you brits can´t afford are those incompetent corrupt to their roots MP´s and government twits,with fruitcake Brown heading them,that ruine your country sooner then any of the Windsor would be able,let alone think off.The latter are not begging for a refund after they´ve spend pennies and pounds on porn and such,or shouls I go into more details on both your Houses?Leave the House of Windsor out,Elisabeth is flawless,and so is Charles,he is just bashed for bashings sake,spoiled rotten lot,most of the brits...everything is way too easy,most of all bashing,with or without an empty bottle of gin next to them.Bah.
I know just a handfull exceptions here.They at least leave one tiny dubonnet in for me.

[Robert_Hall]

The land sold to the Qatari royal family is not on the  grounds of the Chelsea barracks, but adjacent to it. And I do not see Buck House, or any other royal palace ever being sold off, for any reason. If anything,  a museum might be their fates. I can see a culling of the royal family though. Like most organisations, it is top heavy with too many members and staff.  Having said that, I feel the Queen does merit a raise in her grants, to repair and update the national patrimony that the palaces are.
 And Lucien, I do not know where you get your perspective from [about the Brits] but as many here know, I am personally involved in British life. And,  most people there are struggling just as they are everywhere. Compared to life on the Continent, Britain could be destitute, what with all the cuts in lifestyle and social services. The recent MP scandals have seen  political careers ended [rightly so] and has caused a  rapid decline in confidence.
 Having said all that, I love the UK and will be back  for my winter stay in a few months time. In the meantime, once the MJ frenzy wears down, the  news media will again focus on what is important to  British life- daily finances.

[mcdnab]

Firstly there is always an outcry over the costs every time they are published but that outcry tends to ignore some of the more factual aspects of the civil list (which is in effect the main issue). The civil list has been frozen for some years because the Palace had built up a cash surplus on it in the 1990's therefore as expenses and costs have risen the Crown has been spending the surplus and in effect the current debate is more about the Palace setting out their stall for the next round of negotiations for the new Civil list which will probably be with a different government and will also be in the run up to the London Olympics and the Queen's diamond jubilee. Despite the press reporting the vast majority of the Civil List which is in effect the Queen's salary is spent on salary costs and pensions of those people the Crown employs in order for the Head of State to function. Government penny pinching could be argued to have been responsible for the backlog of repairs to the occupied Royal Palaces which means that those repair costs are now spiralling. I don't doubt that in terms of the number of employees the entire operation couldn't do with a proper look at how many of those staff are essential though. In financial terms the amount we spend is a very small proportion of GDP. As to comments about Britain's financial state well we've borrowed a lot more than many other countries its true but that's partially because our economy, for right or wrong, is more exposed to the current crisis than some of our European neighbours because in the last two decades more of our economy has been based on service industries like the financial sector which has been so badly hit over the last few years.

[joan_d]

Robert, I too love the UK which is why it saddens me beyond belief to see what is happening to this country.  In reality, the Royal Family are the least of our worries.

[CHRISinUSA]

Couple interesting tidbids I came across about the cost of governing Britain.  

First, Britain is hugely over-represented in its legislature, given its population!  The House of Commons has 646 MPs to represent 60 million citizens.  (By comparison, Germany has 82 million citizens but only 600 MPS.  Japan has 127 million citizens but only 470 MPs.  Russia has 144 million citizens but only 450 MPs.  The United States has 293 million citizens and 430 in the House of Representatives.)

The average cost of a Member of Parliament has been estimated at £500,000, covering salary, pension, staff, stationary, second home expenses, travel, etc.   For 646 MPS, this totals £323 million a year.  Totaling the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and all the business of elections, and it costs £1.3 billion a year for legislative business in the United Kingdom.

And, according to various sources I've read, the Parliamentary week presently consists of Monday morning through Wednesday evening; I'm told that on most Thursdays and Fridays the Commons are a ghost town - all the MPs are gone.  And this is during the actual sittings of Parliament, not during breaks or holidays.

It begs the question - if MPs are only working 3 full days a week, for part of the year only, than do you really need 646 of them?  If you cut the number of MPs by only 10%, you would not fundamentally reduce the people's representation, but would save somewhere between £20 million and £30 million a year.  That would pay for the bulk of the monarchy ever year!

[Robert_Hall]

What you say is true, ChrisUSA, and there is serious talk of reducing the number of MPs. However,  MPs usually have 2 days "surgery" in their own constituencies.  I have been to Parliament many times over the years and do not think I have ever seen a full house. Lords is even less well attended. On top of what you mention, the UK civil service is way overloaded with staff and unlike  Parliament, is  seemingly immune to reform and change.  It has been tried  several times and never gets anywhere.
 Sounds pretty familiar here as well.

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

They would be like the Spanish Royals, I read in an old magazine that
they're the cheapest (in Europe)
But some politicians earn more money, even more than the English Queen,
I watched in the news that Tony Blair (When he was Prime Minister)
 had an higher salary than theQueen Elizabeth, in fact he was the politician
with the highest salary of Europe, I don't know anything about Gordon Brown.

[CHRISinUSA]

What you say is true, ChrisUSA, and there is serious talk of reducing the number of MPs. However,  MPs usually have 2 days "surgery" in their own constituencies.  I have been to Parliament many times over the years and do not think I have ever seen a full house. Lords is even less well attended. On top of what you mention, the UK civil service is way overloaded with staff and unlike  Parliament, is  seemingly immune to reform and change.  It has been tried  several times and never gets anywhere.
 Sounds pretty familiar here as well.

Quite true Robert.  Britain has 499,000 fulltime equivalent Civil Servants to serve 60 million people; that's 1 Civil Servant for every 120 citizens.  The United States has 1.8 million Civil Servants to serve 293 million citizens, or 1 Civil Servant for every 162 citizens. 

So, if Britain had the same proportion as the US, the UK Civil Service would employ 128,630 LESS people than it does today.  The median annual income of a Civil Servant is £22,160, so the savings would be £2.85 billion a year.

But I digress....... the point is, the cost of the Monarchy and the upkeep of the royal palaces in particular is a total non-issue in the bigger scheme of things.

[joan_d]

Interesting figures you present, Chris - I would be interested to know your source.  There is no doubt that the public sector is bloated in the UK - never mind Civil Servants, add to that all the public sector workers such as doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, care workers, ( could go on).   Don't forget Chris we have a nationalised health service here paid for out of the public purse.  It was always going to happen under a Labour Government but the profligate waste has to be seen to be believed.  I used to work for the NHS so I know that particular part of the public sector well.

However, I would be very interested to see similar figures for France which has an even bigger public sector workforce than the UK and doesn't have the expense of a monarchy.  Vive la Republique !

[Robert_Hall]

Joan_d_d, I think Chris's figures are all public domain, as I have seen similar reports in the Guardian. I have my own experience with the NHS,  both personal and my best friends, but that is another topic altogether.
 The European republics may not have the cost of supporting a lining monarchy, in most cases, but the republics spend a fortune maintaining the dead ones- palaces, museums, every royal trappings such as guards and patronage. This is a worthwhile investment, as the interest it draws from tourists as well as locals more than compensates for the cost.  I think this may be a direction for the British monarchy.  Personally, I am not all that impressed with Buckingham palace, compared to Versailles, the Vienna palaces, St. Petersburg, etc. it is pretty shabby and is in need of repairs. The expenditure is justified. As the monarchy is still a working institution in the UK government, it warrants this. Especially considering the amounts spent by Parliament for it's own accommodation.
 I am not an avid royalist, but I do believe if the monarchy is working and  shall continue to work, it should be updated and at least oiled to keep it going.

[joan_d]

I really do think that in the current climate it would be unwise to spend huge amounts on Buck House.   However, the Government are in a cleft stick as it appears that building works need to be carried out on this structure just to make it safe.   Large pieces of masonry seem to be falling off at regular intervals.  If you speak to anyone who has visited BP, they will confirm that the overall impression is "shabby".  I would reinterate that re Kensington Palace too.

There was a golden opportunity a few years ago re Kensington Palace when the US wanted to use it as their Embassy.  It would of course have to be completely gutted.  The request was turned down.