Just What Does The Royal Family Cost The UK?

Submitted by: OcelotUK 5 years ago in Entertainment




A brief look into what the Royal Family costs the average UK tax payer since all eyes are focused on England this month.
There are 77 comments:
Male 201
Aaaaand, how did the family acquire that land to begin with? LET ME GUESS! Way back when they were just peasants like everyone else, but they weren`t lazy like those other peasants! They worked HARD and they made their money, acquired their land, and attained their status FAIR and SQUARE (the old fashioned way)! Anyone could have done it, but that`s what separates rich and poor! Laziness... //sarcasm
0
Reply
Male 676
It`s a dumb, by-gone era. Having a royal family is pretty much a slap in the face to all "commoners". They serve no purpose, and if I lived in England I would be a little pissed about it. The "jig" should be up on that.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Angilion

You seem to be rambling incoherantly.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You seem to think tourists come to see the royal family they don`t. Even if they wanted to they can`t really.[/quote]

You seem to be making things up because even you know that you`re irrational.

No, wait. You don`t seem to be doing that. You are doing that. No "seems to be", since you`ve thoughtfully provided proof. Repeatedly.

You are deluded about this issue. I can say that confidently because it makes you incapable of doing simple maths and causes you to see things that aren`t there - delusional.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Cajun247

That`s an Asian cutie I say leave it!!!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Angilion

You seem to think tourists come to see the royal family they don`t. Even if they wanted to they can`t really.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Good grief the spambots are getting more aggressive.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
And along comes fuzzysheep to make a fool of themself by making their ignorance public. I didn`t think anyone would do it, but I was wrong.

[quote]Even if his security would have to be increased, surely it will still be more efficient to increase his security than look after two separate people[/quote]

There would still be two seperate people. One to do the work that the PM does now and one to do the work that the head of state does now. You`d also need some more people to do the work that the other members of the royal family do. Although they wouldn`t be able to do all of it as well - a state visit with the queen carries more weight than a state visit with whoever won the head of state lottery (or however you`d decide it).

So you`d lose ~£230M a year from the crown estate, you`d lose even more long-term from diminished tourism and you might possibly save a couple of million a year by reducing security, maybe.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
Ocelotuk ought to take a holiday to Thailand. Their royalty find this sort of thing hilarious. He could even win the competition, the prizes are awesome!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]so the British tried to save a company they had a vested interest in.[/quote]

Sounds to me like crony capitalism, which is why capitalism has a bad rep these days. Anyways, weren`t there other companies trading in India at the time?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]...By smuggling.[/quote]

In which case such smuggling never should`ve been illegal in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]How were they stealing revenues?[/quote]
...By smuggling.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It`s because of smugglers illegally stealing revenues[/quote]

How were they stealing revenues?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]So why ban the crappy stuff?[/quote]
Now we`re going around in circles. It`s because of smugglers illegally stealing revenues, so the British tried to save a company they had a vested interest in.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Because that is actually legal.[/quote]

So why ban the crappy stuff?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Some people would argue that the average USA citizen is still paying taxes to a government that they don`t have any representation in.[/quote]

Back then it would be true, but now it`s hyperbole and really just misleading considering the circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]but if they want to buy it they can.[/quote]
Because that is actually legal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]discourage people from illegally buy low-grade crap from smugglers. That is so horrible.[/quote]

I see people buy Miller and Coors all the time. Cheapest low-grade beers on the market (german word is pisswasser), but if they want to buy it they can.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I`m not saying everything the British did was right, but the colonists are far from any moral high ground.[/quote]

Right, and everything McGovern mentioned was the reason why colonists sought to further undermine the British ability to govern, because they couldn`t do it properly.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]We threw it in the water because the Tea Act amounted to a bailout of the British EITC, which had a LEGALLY SANCTIONED monopoly on tea in the 13 states.[/quote]


They wouldn`t have had to bail them out if colonist smugglers hadn`t stolen all their revenues in the first place. Britain gave them an exclusive deal to sell their high quality tea cheaply to the colonists. Then, the British bundled it with a smaller import tax. Yes, it was like having to buy every Wii bundled with a copy of Let`s Lotion Stuff 2, but the whole damn thing would only be 25 dollars, so it sounded like a fair compromise. Britain just wanted the Tea Tax in there to a) show they still were running sh*t at least a little bit and b) discourage people from illegally buy low-grade crap from smugglers. That is so horrible. Smugglers like John Hancock don`t like being told they can`t smuggle, plain and simple.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]BWUAHAHAHAA!! Ya France and Britain were great buddies...[/quote]
That doesn`t mean they wanted another war. In that case the colonists were like the loud-mouth friend that picks a fight at a bar and his friend is obliged to come in and help him.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Then when the Brits made the Tea Act of 1773 to give you cheaper, better tea than smugglers could provide, you threw it in the water.[/quote]

We threw it in the water because the Tea Act amounted to a bailout of the British EITC, which had a LEGALLY SANCTIONED monopoly on tea in the 13 states.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Wars are seldom fought without reason[/quote]
Like the aforementioned French and Indian War the Virginia colonists dragged Britain into by claiming fur trade territory in Ohio AFTER the French had already claimed it, then a colonial militia ambushed a French military delegate and his party who were there to talk to those in charge of the Virginia colony? Then to make matters worse, the colonial smugglers supplied the French illegally throughout that war against the British, who were fighting FOR you in the first place? You act as if colonists were all little angels with halos over their heads, which is just ignorant. I`m not saying everything the British did was right, but the colonists are far from any moral high ground.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]After they tried to tax you for the French and Indian War (which colonists dragged Britain into in the first place)...[/quote]

BWUAHAHAHAA!! Ya France and Britain were great buddies...
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

It was more than taxes though. The colonists also had to house british soldiers. We were also being forced to give up our firearms and had been fired upon during protests. Wars are seldom fought without reason but keep assuring yourself that`s what it was. I`m sure you already knew all this though with you massive cranium and superior education......
0
Reply
Male 5,811
...they repealed all the taxes (except the ones on tea) simply because YOU DIDN`T WANT TO PAY THEM! What government today would repeal taxes just because people got angry that they had a new tax? Then when the Brits made the Tea Act of 1773 to give you cheaper, better tea than smugglers could provide, you threw it in the water. This was in part thanks to a smuggler who didn`t want his smuggled tea revenue cut into, and that man was John Hancock.
0
Reply
Female 8,045
I reckon we get damn good value from the Windsors... they are part of a heritage which earns us a lot- and because they are alive that heritage stays live. Much more interesting that monarchs long past.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]t was more specifically taxation without representation and the outright abuse of colonial people and resources that caused the revolution.[/quote]
This is hogwash perpetuated by an education system that gives you cliffsnotes. Yes, there was technically taxation without representation, but the truth is that they rarely collected those taxes! Your ancestors were basically living rent-free at home. British taxes were only on trade, and smuggling was laughably easy. They also didn`t give two sh*ts about their colonies if it was peacetime and the colonies were prosperous and appeared to cooperate with the loosely enforced trade and navigation acts, their policy was one of salutary neglect. Even when it was necessary to collect taxes, they were unable to do so effectively anyway, because colonists would throw a sh*t-fit and the Brits would acquiesce. After they tried to tax you for the French and Indian War (which colonists dragged Britain into in the first place)...
0
Reply
Male 161
and then i scroll down...it HAS descended into that lol. i can`t get over how insecure the europeans are. so fooking funny. they dish it out over and over again, then the second there is something negative about them they flip out like toddlers. bwahahahahhahah!!!
0
Reply
Male 161
america, this is why you`re fa...wait, why aren`t we bashing america? surely this is our fault somehow yes?
0
Reply
Male 92
She is the spitting image of George H. W. Bush or, George H. W. Bush is the spitting image of her?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
OH wait I mean princess william was promoted to top rank probably just like his daddy.
0
Reply
Male 187
We owe the Royal family nothing, they are a relic of an unpleasant past when who your parents were mattered more than who you are. They are the embodiment of the opposite of the American dream. It`s offensive that there are people born in the world who, by birth, are considered better and more important than others.

I`m not an idiot, I know the world is an unfair place and it`s always going to be unequal because good parents try to do their best for their children but to have a royal family is to endorse the idea that some are born better than others.

Angillion, you think that if the prime minister was head of state he would require more security? Why? Does him being head of state make him a bigger target than he already is? Doesn`t being the prime minister already mean far more than an honorary title that has no power? Even if his security would have to be increased, surely it will still be more efficient to increase his security than look after two separate people
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Your country`s land theft is much more recent.[/quote]

The majority of that land is now owned by people who have worked for it. The royal joke had it handed to them. Seeing a difference yet? A people elected not by the people but by "god" LOL!
0
Reply
Male 653
Hva faen indeed. However, the Norwegians have an rainy day oil fund with which to buy mercenaries to ward off attack from Her Maj.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes.[/quote]

You should brush up history it was taxation without representation. Not no taxes.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
No tourists see the royal family terrible point. What`s princess charles salary now he holds the highest military rank possible thanks to grandmumsy. You know for a country chocked full of pompus know it alls that love to tout socialist policies you sure like to support something far from socialist. In fact it epitomises everything wrong with the planet.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m not proposing executing them, just cutting their government funding. They can keep calling themselves the royal family and living in their castles but do it off their own back. They have business interests and large bank accounts, they will be fine.[/quote]

Why do you think it`s a better idea for the UK to pay ~£200M a year to keep the same system we currently have?

Seriously, how does that make any sense?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]£40M is nothing like what they really cost us, that is the figure published which doesn`t include the cost of their security which are somewhere in the region of £100M, it`s by far their biggest expense.[/quote]

An expense which would be required regardless of who was head of state, so it has nothing to do with a monarch.

If you think that it could be folded into the PM`s job without any additional expense, do yourself a favour and don`t make your ignorance public.
0
Reply
Male 653
@Amen QueenZira. Proper bint. Even in death she haunts us by far too many mentions in the media.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes. Oh, that`s right. You still pay taxes. That worked out well, didn`t it?[/quote]

The official issue about taxes was with paying taxes to a government they didn`t have any representation in, not with paying taxes per se. Although no doubt some of them thought it was about not paying taxes at all - there are always people who get misled or just don`t understand.

Some people would argue that the average USA citizen is still paying taxes to a government that they don`t have any representation in.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]So the royal family has tons of land to get rent from because they keep inheriting it? That`s how I kinda figured it worked. So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?[/quote]

The Anglo-Saxon kings, who stole it from the Norse kings, who stole it from the Anglo-Saxon kings, who stole it from unknown rulers after the collapse of the Roman empire left the province of Britannia fragmented, who stole it from the Roman empire, who stole some of it from various British tribal monarchs and inherited the rest from other British tribal monarchs, who stole it from unknown tribal leaders in prehistory (the earliest Roman records state that oral British history at the time recorded multiple conquests from Europe over an unknown amount of time).

Do you want to go back before the last Ice Age? Or before homo sapiens - this island was inhabited before any humans "stole" it.

Your country`s land theft is much more recent.
0
Reply
Male 187
Bataleon my wording was thus: "I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals". They`re not going to disappear, people can still buy mugs with the queens face on. I`m not proposing executing them, just cutting their government funding. They can keep calling themselves the royal family and living in their castles but do it off their own back. They have business interests and large bank accounts, they will be fine.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
From what we read in the press recently, it appears to me that we have far better value from our head of state than the US. For example take Mitt Romney; How can the US afford to start another bunch of wars caused by diplomatic goofs and blunders? Still a prospective candidate though. Look at the Flack Barak Obama gets on a regular day to day basis.
The Queen is our `token` ruler / head of state. It is the government that runs the country.
Anyone with a smattering of intelligence and the ability to carry out basic maths knows the national income the royal family generates.
A percentage of the population are unable to grasp this concept of `investment to earn`. They think the world owes them a loving. In the UK they are the people who earn the same wage as you; they spend it on smoking, booze and holidays while you are carefully saving for a rainy day. When broke, they demand a share of you savings, calling you the rich and privileged upper-class.
0
Reply
Male 15,259
At least she`s cost less than Dubya or Bazza
0
Reply
Male 1,178
@fuzzysheep re- "Re. the tourism thing, I can`t believe he implied that the royal family were responsible for all of the tourist money coming into the country. People bloody love castles, queen or not. I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals. "

Wilst I agree that not all London`s tourist attractions are derived from the royal family, you are a fool to say that tourism would hardly be affected. The royal family are at the heart of so much of the desire to visit the Capital, the palace, to buy the crappy trinkets with the queens face on. Sure, we would still get a lot of revenue from tourism, but the royal family indirectly contribute to a huge proportion of this.
0
Reply
Male 187
£40M is nothing like what they really cost us, that is the figure published which doesn`t include the cost of their security which are somewhere in the region of £100M, it`s by far their biggest expense.

Re. the tourism thing, I can`t believe he implied that the royal family were responsible for all of the tourist money coming into the country. People bloody love castles, queen or not. I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals.

The royal wedding cost £20m to put on and the extra bank holiday has been calculated to have cost the bristish economy £5Bn in lost growth.

The idea that they still deserve this pay because they technically still own all this land is crap, their ancestors were dictators who took that land from the people of the UK unjustly. Could Uday Hussein claim that all the palaces his dad built are rightfully his and charge rent for their usage?
0
Reply
Male 1,509
"Im never going to the US. I heard they keep Uzis in their underpants!!!"

So THAT`s what that loud report and burning sensation was when I sat down.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@burbclaver

"Does this count the billions in lost GDP from everyone taking two days holiday to celebrate the jubilee?"

Money in your pocket doesn`t mean much if you have no time off to spend it, does it?

@Andrew155

"And Europeans were the ones who colonized the new world, not Americans. We are native to this land."

Correct. You just inherited it. Juuuuust the same way the Royal familiy inherited their land.

Which is exactly my point. Why should either of you be forced to hand back something you innocently inherited?
0
Reply
Male 369
The Queen`s not grumpy. She once said that she doesn`t smile loads because if she smiled all the time for everyone, her face would ache, and indeed it often did when she tried to smile all the time like people want.

The Olympics thing was like 3 hours long, should she, as an 86 year old great grandmother, sat out in the cold in one spot for 3 hours late at night, and randomly focussed on throughout by various people, have to smile the whole time? She`d probably rather be at home watching it on TV with a cup of tea and a corgi in her lap!

She does a HELL of a lot for an old lady her age, and does stuff every single day. Just look at the Royal Flotilla... she had to stand on a boat in the rain for 4 hours to watch a bunch of ships go past. She probably didn`t want to be there!

Same with the Jubilee concert! Late night, cold, wet, music she`s never heard of for hours and hours, AND her husband was in hospital at the time, but she was still there!
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"Old ladies always look a bit grumpy.
She`s not and stop picking on her."

Sure thing, Mr. Chris Crocker.
0
Reply
Male 39,890

Old ladies always look a bit grumpy.
She`s not and stop picking on her.
The video was good except she doesn`t drink gin straight, that was the Queen Mother who poured gin stright out of her teapot into very fine china tea cups. Not Her Maj drinks a Dubonnet roostertail {2 parts dubonnet to 1 part gin, lemon slice & 4 ice cubes hand selected to be the perfect shape}
0
Reply
Female 8,045
Diana was a wet hen- hard to see how she could have had less backbone while remaining a vertebrate. Read too many of her step-grandmothers books maybe.... Camilla is ( and probably always was) and much better bet.
0
Reply
Male 251
The whole "no taxes" thing was just a rallying cry, one which is still used today due to its effectiveness. Everyone in gov`t knows (and knew back then) that taxes are a necessity for gov`t to operate, though conservatives at least acknowledge it`s a horrible necessity. It was more specifically taxation without representation and the outright abuse of colonial people and resources that caused the revolution. Even with all that, most noted colonials still considered themselves to be English, and would have preferred not to have to go to such lengths to be accorded the same liberties as the non-colonial English enjoyed.
0
Reply
Male 2,513
The Olympics are great.

Never mind the gaffes and the competitions are as wonderful as always.

Good job London, next time don`t loose the keys to the stadium though >.<
0
Reply
Male 325
The Royal Family do not pay inheritance tax. If they did they would not still own all this land
0
Reply
Female 2,228



Gee wiz people, leave the most noble House of Windsor alone. As you can see this Olympics is hard enough for them as it is ;-)

But seriously, the only real bugaboo I have with any of them is Charles` unforgivable, all around douchebaggery (Lady Di). Can I get an Amen from the choir!?
0
Reply
Male 364
@Andrew155 - spot on. Which makes the ignorant anti-Israel brigade hillariously hypocritical
0
Reply
Male 364
"I`m never going to Great Britain.I heard they keep razors in their socks!!!"

Im never going to the US. I heard they keep Uzis in their underpants!!!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
In case you guys don`t know: both Hungarians and Turks came from the Steppe in Asia. The English came from Germany and Denmark, the reason England speaks a Germanic Language. And the French come from the Franks, a Germanic tribe that wiped out the Romans there.

There are numerous other examples.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Bremir, I`ve never heard of any Americans making a video like this before. Moreover, this particular American lives in Great Britain.

And Europeans were the ones who colonized the new world, not Americans. We are native to this land.

Regardless, there were only 4 million Native Americans in all of the US and Canada before Europeans came. 80-90% died of disease. The rest were assimilated into the population. I think you have to realize how much empty space there was. The prospect of empty land (it was virtually all empty) was irresistible to poor, starving Europeans. That`s what happened.

And this process happened in other countries, even in Europe, too. You think Hungarians come from Hungary? Turks from Turkey? The English from England? French from France? No, they all invaded and took the land from the previous occupiers. It`s the story of human history. It`s nothing that unique.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
They`re basically costume characters in a tourist attraction that makes $billions for the country.
0
Reply
Male 878
Does this count the billions in lost GDP from everyone taking two days holiday to celebrate the jubilee? When she dies, why not thank her for her service and get rid of this anachronistic system?
0
Reply
Male 2,737
I`m never going to Great Britain.I heard they keep razors in their socks!!!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I know right Bael?

The Obama`s have rang up over $200 million in taxpayer expenses since they took office.

His salary is $400,000.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
40 million pounds? A PITTANCE compared to what our royal families cost us...
0
Reply
Female 373
Bremic- cppgrey is his you tube name. He also did that video that got posted recently about the secret history of the City of London. From what I worked out he is an American living in the UK, thus his interest in UK history and politics. Personally I like his videos, as they are fun and informative.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
0
Reply
Male 286
this was posted for the Royal Wedding as well
0
Reply
Male 392
It`s funny, because whenever there`s a video about this subject, it`s always made by an American.

Maybe Americans should start looking a little closer to home, looking at how pathetic their Presidential candidates actually are. The Royal family actually has nothing to do with America, or Americans. So I`d love to know why they feel they have the moral high ground, and make moronic videos like this.

The number of times Americans make these videos, and I just have to stop and ask myself "why?". It has nothing to do with you any of you. Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes. Oh, that`s right. You still pay taxes. That worked out well, didn`t it?

And thelonious, really? You weren`t the first people living on that continent. You`ve got no room to talk.
0
Reply
Male 1,810
God Save The Queen !!!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@thelonious

If you can identify the descendants of the rightful original owners of the land, I`m sure the Royal family will be very happy to hand the land back to them...

...right about the same time you hand back the land beneath your feet to the native American tribes who once lived on it.

Glass houses, stones, and all that.
0
Reply
Male 813
Good video. Owned bitches.
0
Reply
Male 21
"So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?"

Exactly. Is this guy really that stupid?
0
Reply
Male 4
I had to log in just to reply to thelonius, here goes:

really? which was a country in 1600? where did the States` land come from? was it freely given to to `muricans?

also that gif of the queen flipping me off got funnier and funnier as the video went on.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
So the royal family has tons of land to get rent from because they keep inheriting it? That`s how I kinda figured it worked. So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?
0
Reply
Male 85
Link: Just What Does The Royal Family Cost The UK? [Rate Link] - A brief look into what the Royal Family costs the average UK tax payer since all eyes are focused on England this month.
0
Reply