Royal funding changes become law

 
The Queen The changes to the funding of the Royal Family have been attacked by campaigners Republic

Related Stories

The biggest change for 250 years to the way the Royal Family is financed will be passed into law later.

The Civil List, which dates from 1760, and the grants paid for travel and upkeep of palaces are to be replaced by a single Sovereign Grant from 2013.

The size of the grant will be 15% of the profits made by the Crown Estate.

Buckingham Palace has called it "a modern, transparent and simpler way of funding the head of state", but critics say it is economically indefensible.

BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said: "The last significant parliamentary debate about royal finances took place in the year the current chancellor was born, and after Prince Philip had declared on American television his family was in the red and might have to move into smaller premises.

"Four decades on, the Queen's husband has remained silent while her nineteenth chancellor, George Osborne, has introduced a new Sovereign Grant."

After announcing the change in his Spending Review late last year, Mr Osborne said it should ensure "my successors do not have to return to this issue as often as I have had to".

Property portfolio

The Sovereign Grant Bill introduces a single payment given to the monarch based on 15% of the Crown Estate's revenue from two years previously.

Starting from 2013-14, this funding arrangement will last seven years before it is reviewed.

The Crown Estate has a property portfolio which includes, among other things, Regent Street, Windsor Great Park and much of the UK coastline.

The grant is expected to be £34m in the first year, in line with recent royal spending, our correspondent added.

In the past, the monarch received money from three different government departments: funds for the Civil List from the Treasury; a Department for Transport grant for travel costs; funds for maintenance of royal palaces and communications from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

The campaign group Republic, which calls for an elected head of state, has described the changes as economically and morally indefensible.

"Pegging royal funding to Crown Estate revenue makes no sense at all," it has argued.

"The two are not related. Crown Estate revenue has always been there to provide funds for the government."

It wants the monarchy to be subject to an annual budget, just like government departments.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 422.

    372.Bob_Carolgees

    "How about President Attenborough? Or for a younger option, President Fry?"

    Two very good television entertainers in their own way, but as an International figure representing this country? What training have they had for such a role? No thanks, I'll stick with the Professionals, they've been trained for the job, they are not amatures!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 421.

    412.The_Squirrel
    The estimated police cost was 20mil - the royal family paid the rest. PWC estimated hotels in london received a boost of 107mil while visit britain estimated a 2bil boost to the economy.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 420.

    416.The Gentleman

    Do they do good when you take into account the fact that they hold a principle true that disrespects you, and everyone else in the country? That they are born better, and have a divine right to be sovereign?

    You don't think perhaps you're just used to it, and don't notice this blatant affront to democracy?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 419.

    ManUtd77

    1 Minute Ago

    412. The_Squirrel

    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110429073219AAG48Sk

    Have a look at the second post down and then look at the sources listed underneath. This should give you some idea. And you are very welcome!

    Thanks, but they're all estimates, rather than proof of income generated. Interesting reading though!

  • Comment number 418.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 417.

    412. The_Squirrel

    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110429073219AAG48Sk

    Have a look at the second post down and then look at the sources listed underneath. This should give you some idea. And you are very welcome!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 416.

    "I get no benefit at all from the monarchy"

    Apart from the massive amount of tourisim it generates for this country. Yea nothing at all!

    £34 millions is a small amount of money in this day and age and I have no qualms about allowing them to have it as I believe the Monarchy, in recent decades, has done much more good than a lot of people give them credit for.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 415.

    mofro

    400.The_Squirrel

    ManUtd77
    The Royal Family brings in a fair bit of income in tourism
    ...
    When I went to Paris, I still visited The Louvre eventhough it hasn't been a royal palace for over 200 years!

    That maybe so, but it is still a very famous Art Gallery, and it is for that reason that 1000s of people visit it.

    So we could do the same with Buckingham Palace...

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 414.

    411.ManUtd77
    I went to the pub on the day of the wedding. It was on TV in one bar and about 5 people were in there watching it. The other bar was rammed, the concensus being that people were in there to escape it all.
    It is a myth that the majority of people support thye monarchy. They either oppose it or couldn't care less - oh but I forgot, you don't know what majority means do you...?!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 413.

    409.TheSkyisBlue

    I apologise over my obviously careless use of the word 'majority' - I merely meant that the Conservatives as a party had more votes, and therefore more seats in Parliament, than any other individual party. Please do note that I did try to distinguish between the two different uses of the word 'majority' within my last post.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 412.

    411.ManUtd77

    Look how much tourism and therefore income that brought to the UK economy.

    How much income did it bring in? And how much did it cost to put on? I don't know the answer to this, but I like to learn something new each day, so if you can point me off to a report, that would be most helpful. Thanks in advance.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 411.

    I think we should all look back at the marriage of Prince William and Princess Catherine in April this year. Look how much tourism and therefore income that brought to the UK economy. Look at how widely it was broadcast, and how much support there was for it in other countries as well as our own. This wouldn't have happened without a Royal Family.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 410.

    400.The_Squirrel
    ManUtd77
    The Royal Family brings in a fair bit of income in tourism
    ...
    When I went to Paris, I still visited The Louvre eventhough it hasn't been a royal palace for over 200 years!

    That maybe so, but it is still a very famous Art Gallery, and it is for that reason that 1000s of people visit it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 409.

    403.ManUtd77
    They did have the most votes but that is NOT a majority - a mojority means more than all the rest put together. They did not acheive this and hence had to form a coalition in order to have a MAJORITY.

    look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me....

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 408.

    @402 Mofro, I refer you to my post 356

    By Great Britain you mean England. Scotland was an independent kingdom at the time and immediately proclaimed Charles II, later crowned by the Duke of Argyle at Scone 1651. Scotland was later invaded by The Commonwealth and illegally annexed until the return of Charles II in 1660. Scotland despite it's historic egalitarianism has never been a republic

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 407.

    400. The_Squirrel

    I fail to see your point. The Royal family still bring in tourists, and therefore money into the economy, and without them there would be less income than there is now.

    I know, that's why you marked me down! My point is that Royal Family or not, people will still visit palaces, etc. I like to visit castles and I'm not put off because I may not see a Duke or Prince!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 406.

    400. The_Squirrel

    I fail to see your point. The Royal family still bring in tourists, and therefore money into the economy, and without them there would be less income than there is now.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 405.

    man utd 77 - Would @ first breathe a sigh of release,then have a very loud cheer,then embark on reviving the time & money that is being wasted on these wasters by going for a presidency,its possibly the only way out of the mess this wonderful 'tory led coalition has led us all into,might save a lot of future political embarrasment & money.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 404.

    While I might not be a fan of Queen Elizabeth II, I believe that the monarchy as a whole is a good thing. After all, it was the King back in 1760 that handed the Crown Estates to the country and in return was paid a small amount back. Is the monarchy paid too much? Probably, perhaps a more modest grant could be paid. We have a rich history in this nation, and the monarchy is part of that!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 403.

    399. TheSkyisBlue

    Actually the Conservatives did have the majority of the votes cast (ie the most seats in the House of Commons compared with any other party), just not enough of a majority to form a government in their own right, hence the coalition.

 

Page 10 of 31

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.