Does Britain need a Royal Family? | Royal spending falls to 36.7m - TennisForum.com
View Poll Results: Should Britain have a Royal Family?
Yes. 25 58.14%
No. 18 41.86%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 08:55 PM Thread Starter
Beware Of The Dog, Bitch.
 
!<blocparty>!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LAX, JFK & LHR.
Posts: 21,942
                     
Does Britain need a Royal Family? | Royal spending falls to 36.7m

Royal spending falls to 36.7m

Simon Jeffery
Wednesday June 22, 2005

Details of the Buckingham Palace finances were released today, showing a 100,000 decrease in overall spending but a rise three times that amount in the cost of royal travel.
The Queen's expenditure as head of state, which relates to her official duties, fell from 36.8m in 2003-04 to 36.7m in 2004-05 - a drop of 0.3%, or 2.3% in real terms.

Civil list funding for the Queen's staff and her household running costs accounted for 10.6m of the total expenditure but the bulk of the spending came as grants-in-aid - 14.7m for the maintenance of occupied palaces, and 5m on royal travel.


The travel spending - up from 4.7m in 2003-04 - included an official trip by the Prince of Wales to Sri Lanka, Australia and back from Fiji on a chartered plane that cost nearly 300,000.
The Queen's aides insisted the report showed the monarchy was value for money. Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royal family cost each person in the country 61p a year.

"We believe this represents a value for money monarchy. We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy. We're looking at one of good value and good quality," he said.

Mr Reid, the accounts reveal, is the Queen's highest paid executive out of the civil list, and a 7,000 pay rise in 2004 took his salary to 172,298 a year.

Savings in overall expenditure came from a 1.8m reduction in property spending, arising largely from a business rate rebate on Buckingham Palace of more than 1m after officials fought off a 100% increase in the building's rateable value from Westminster council.

Accountants at Buckingham Palace also managed to reduce the royal insurance bill by 50%.

But the financial report said these savings, and others relating to the completion of large maintenance projects, were offset by increases in employment costs, visits from heads of state and major overseas tours.

Differences in travel costs between members of the royal family were also apparent.

A scheduled flight by the Duke of Edinburgh to Toronto to attend a gala celebrating his International Award Association came to around 12,800.

But when Charles flew to Washington for former US president Ronald Reagan's funeral, the chartered plane was priced at 85,000. Aides said it was hard to keep costs down when royals attended funerals because of the short notice.

A 400,000 increase in the amount spent on aeroplanes from 2003-04 to 2004-05 was put down to transferring the cost of the Duke of York's travels to promote British industry from the Department for Transport to the royal travel grant. In the year to March 2005, 1.2m was spent on aeroplanes, 2.1m on helicopters and 700,000 on trains from the fund.

Catering and garden parties were priced at 900,000, with the Queen's assets including 400,000 of wine held in stock to age.

The Queen also has assets of 200,000 in books on the balance sheet and 300,000 in "horses and liveries". Animal lovers will be pleased to note the accounts show no "disposals" in this column for the 2004-05 financial year.

____

Eek. IMO, they equal waste of space. Except William

Women's tennis sucks.
~


Go Rafa.

!<blocparty>! is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 09:00 PM
Senior Member
 
CondiLicious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: In bed.
Posts: 6,854
                     
Well... I don't like the Windsors but they bring in the tourists! Which is good for the economy and yeah... They're good to laugh at.
CondiLicious is offline  
post #3 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 09:01 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,280
 
Britain does not need a royal family, but I have no problem with them being there.

Unlike many who seem to think that 'dethroning' them would free us from some major dictatorship .

Maintaining them is nothing compared to the wastage of money in the NHS for example.
Kart is offline  
post #4 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 09:33 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
-Ph51-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Migrating!
Posts: 10,779
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiVaMoNiCaSeLeS
Well... I don't like the Windsors but they bring in the tourists! Which is good for the economy and yeah... They're good to laugh at.
Their real name is Hannover

L'important, c'est la rose...
-Ph51- is offline  
post #5 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Josh B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Little Havana
Posts: 10,676
                     
The royal Family went down hill centuries ago!

BRING BACK EDWARD 1st

MARIA SHARAPOVA

MANCHESTER UNITED


VICE BOSS OF THE GOOD REP FAIRES AND CO-FOUNDER
Josh B. is offline  
post #6 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 10:13 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
-Kieron-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leeds - UK
Posts: 3,187
                     
Yes we do. Britain wouldnt be Britain without them.

And William nice? He looks more and more like Charles everday.
-Kieron- is offline  
post #7 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2005, 10:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,389
                     
I agree, as an outsider Britain wouldn't be Britain without the royal family
CJ07 is offline  
post #8 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 12:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 10,798
                     
I could not imagine an England without a Royal Family. It just would seem wierd. Plus, it would be a shame to not see all those cool titles some of the citizens get like Baron, Lord and Dame.
Jakeev is offline  
post #9 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
tennislover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,357
                     
well that's an important touristic and media attraction.....


Martina Navratilova



Most career titles (singles+doubles):Navratilova
Most Wimbledon singles titles: Navratilova
Most Wimbledon singles and doubles titles: Navratilova
Most WTA Tour Championship singles titles: Navratilova
Most WTA Tour Championship doubles titles: Navratilova

Last edited by tennislover; Jun 23rd, 2005 at 12:41 PM.
tennislover is offline  
post #10 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
fifiricci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 8,570
                     
The individual members of the Royal Family are, almost without exception, tossers and very few Brits really respect them or take them at all seriously (they have nothing really serious to do anyway).

However, I voted to save the RF in this poll purely because the monarchy in the UK is an ENORMOUS tourist attraction and worth much more than the money the government spends to keep Prince Andrew in executive travel. The citizens of even die hard republics like the US and wannabe republics like Australia can't seem to get enough of our monarchical institutions when they visit and the same fascination seems to extend to a lot of European countries too.

Keep it going while all that is profitable, would be my advice!

Patiently waiting to join the silver surfers
fifiricci is offline  
post #11 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 12:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,353
                     
I'm no lover of monarchies but if the British monarchy ends then that will spell the end of Great Britain. Scotland became part of Great Britain when King James of Scotland succeeded the childless Queen Elisabeth I of England and the union of England and Scotland (along with Ireland and Wales) came to be known as Great Britain. I think that the monarchy system also solidifyed the Spanish union. Without it Catalonia may be as aggressive as the Basque regions to get out of Spain. If Yugoslavia had a monarchy system after WWII then I think that Yugoslavia would still exist today.
Lord Nelson is offline  
post #12 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 01:00 PM
Senior Member
 
tennislover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,357
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifiricci
because the monarchy in the UK is an ENORMOUS tourist attraction and worth much more than the money the government spends to keep Prince Andrew in executive travel. The citizens of even die hard republics like the US and wannabe republics like Australia can't seem to get enough of our monarchical institutions when they visit and the same fascination seems to extend to a lot of European countries too.

Keep it going while all that is profitable, would be my advice!
you read my mind


Martina Navratilova



Most career titles (singles+doubles):Navratilova
Most Wimbledon singles titles: Navratilova
Most Wimbledon singles and doubles titles: Navratilova
Most WTA Tour Championship singles titles: Navratilova
Most WTA Tour Championship doubles titles: Navratilova
tennislover is offline  
post #13 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
wurzelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 4,960
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Ph51-
Their real name is Hannover
No, it's actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

TATIANA GOLOVIN

All the best to: Serena , Nicole, Ana, any other young players.
And all the Brits.
wurzelman is offline  
post #14 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 01:23 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,370
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurzelman
No, it's actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Yeah I was just going to say that.

House of Hanover ended with Victoria.

Oh and yes BRITAIN needs the monarchy. It's a part of its history. It needs it like it needs the "Church of England" even if you're not Christian or religious. Except, it's more important.

Britain has the oldest monarchy in Europe aside from the Papacy. So it's pretty special.

The problem is I don't like the new royals like Prince Charles, William et al.

Queen Elizabeth II is the last of her kind. The world has changed too much in the last 50 or so years for me to really admire any contemporary royals anymore.

Unless, if they happen to be VERY, VERY old-fashioned.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
post #15 of 37 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 02:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Halardfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Japan
Posts: 5,880
                     
No, I think its time to get rid of them, though it won't happen...

Doubtless the tourist industry would take a knock but that is a minor thing really...this is an issue about whether Britian today is about merit or foolish notions of class and breeding...

What did those centuries of kings and queens bring us anyway? Wars and conflict often with little reason, thousands dead and endless war thanks to royal whims and petty feuds.

The Queen and her family are no better than me, and I won't bow and scrape to her and her ilk.

Manchester City 2011 FA Cup winners! 2012 Premier League Champions! 2014 League Cup winners and Premier League Champions! At last!!!!!
Halardfan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome