Keeping the Monarchy Makes Financial Sense
It is almost a certainty that everyone reading this will have known only one monarch on the British throne in their lifetimes and as of this week it is officially sixty years since the death of King George VI and the ascension of his daughter as Queen Elizabeth II. The evolution of the monarchy over the past sixty years has been dramatic, but it is now firmly established as the figurehead and the most identifiable feature of Britain to an international audience. The one visible remainder of a bygone age that many in Britain wish was still existent, the proverbial jewel from a crown that no longer really exists. As a symbol, the Monarchy play an important national role, but also an important domestic one and public opinion of the queen because of this tends err on the side of positivity, however in spite of this is a significant minority in Britain who either publically or privately advocate the end of constitutional monarchy in favour of a republican state with an elected president. In times of economic hardship and recession this idea will inevitably gain wait, not only because of the obvious wealth of the Royal Family, but because of the perceived cost of retaining such an archaic institution.
The government claim the Royal family cost the British taxpayer approximately forty million pounds a year, which they helpfully equate to the equivalent of 66 pence per person per year. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic disputes this figure, sighting it much higher when the costs of security and lost taxes are included, at something like one hundred and fifty million pounds per year, a number which they describe as meaning that the monarchy is not ‘value for money’. This is perhaps the most common argument against sustaining the queen from the public purse; however it fails to take into account a number of facts, the most obvious of these being tourism revenue. The aforementioned flag waving Americans may have invade Middle Eastern nation states on a regular basis to ostensibly protect their own republic, but their love for our Monarchy is nearly as pronounced. Last year’s Royal Wedding saw a fifty million pound tourism boom for London and the expected economic benefits of the combined celebrations of the diamond jubilee and Olympics are expected to far exceed this. Of course the disruptions these events cause have economic consequences as well, but the overall benefit of tourism based upon the monarchy is virtually impossible to calculate. The republican might then cry that the tourism based on the back of the monarchy could exist without the political system itself, arguing that the vast majority of the attractions with royal connections no longer play any role in the modern monarchy. This may be true but it is the reality of the monarchy that keeps the tourism based on it alive and allows for its continued growth. Few people travel to the countries of mainland Europe to see the homes of former monarchs because the German Kaiser, for example, in the minds of most tourists, is no longer associated with anything tangible. The Queen therefore seems to justify her own existence.
The lesser known issue is that of ‘the crown lands’. The estates of the monarch which were, without indulging too much in history, granted to parliament in the late eighteenth century by George III in exchange for the aforementioned annual payment that costs each of us 66 pence a year. The annual profit of the estate is two hundred and thirty million per anum and the overall value of the estates totals in excess of seven billion pounds. If the monarchy were to be dissolved the ownership of such lands must surely end in dispute. Although the land belongs not to the Royal Family, but the ‘crown’, a theoretical entity that would be dissolved by the formation of a republic such a situation would surely lead to an ownership dispute. Regardless of this the rent which the government takes from these lands is far higher than even the most liberal estimates of the cost to the taxpayer of sustaining the monarchy and is always likely to remain so.
In the year of the Diamond Jubilee, while celebrating a lifetime of service to Britain from her queen, few people would raise the question ‘worthy is the head that wears the crown’, and realistically such a debate is no longer relevant. What we must continue to ask is ‘profitable is the head that wears the crown’, for it is now its ability to benefit Britain in an economic sense as opposed to a military own which calls for the sustainment of Britain’s monarchy.
Keeping the Monarchy Makes Financial Sense
Saved under Comment
Tags: monarchy
Share
It is almost a certainty that everyone reading this will have known only one monarch on the British throne in their lifetimes and as of this week it is officially sixty years since the death of King George VI and the ascension of his daughter as Queen Elizabeth II. The evolution of the monarchy over the past sixty years has been dramatic, but it is now firmly established as the figurehead and the most identifiable feature of Britain to an international audience. The one visible remainder of a bygone age that many in Britain wish was still existent, the proverbial jewel from a crown that no longer really exists. As a symbol, the Monarchy play an important national role, but also an important domestic one and public opinion of the queen because of this tends err on the side of positivity, however in spite of this is a significant minority in Britain who either publically or privately advocate the end of constitutional monarchy in favour of a republican state with an elected president. In times of economic hardship and recession this idea will inevitably gain wait, not only because of the obvious wealth of the Royal Family, but because of the perceived cost of retaining such an archaic institution.
The government claim the Royal family cost the British taxpayer approximately forty million pounds a year, which they helpfully equate to the equivalent of 66 pence per person per year. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic disputes this figure, sighting it much higher when the costs of security and lost taxes are included, at something like one hundred and fifty million pounds per year, a number which they describe as meaning that the monarchy is not ‘value for money’. This is perhaps the most common argument against sustaining the queen from the public purse; however it fails to take into account a number of facts, the most obvious of these being tourism revenue. The aforementioned flag waving Americans may have invade Middle Eastern nation states on a regular basis to ostensibly protect their own republic, but their love for our Monarchy is nearly as pronounced. Last year’s Royal Wedding saw a fifty million pound tourism boom for London and the expected economic benefits of the combined celebrations of the diamond jubilee and Olympics are expected to far exceed this. Of course the disruptions these events cause have economic consequences as well, but the overall benefit of tourism based upon the monarchy is virtually impossible to calculate. The republican might then cry that the tourism based on the back of the monarchy could exist without the political system itself, arguing that the vast majority of the attractions with royal connections no longer play any role in the modern monarchy. This may be true but it is the reality of the monarchy that keeps the tourism based on it alive and allows for its continued growth. Few people travel to the countries of mainland Europe to see the homes of former monarchs because the German Kaiser, for example, in the minds of most tourists, is no longer associated with anything tangible. The Queen therefore seems to justify her own existence.
The lesser known issue is that of ‘the crown lands’. The estates of the monarch which were, without indulging too much in history, granted to parliament in the late eighteenth century by George III in exchange for the aforementioned annual payment that costs each of us 66 pence a year. The annual profit of the estate is two hundred and thirty million per anum and the overall value of the estates totals in excess of seven billion pounds. If the monarchy were to be dissolved the ownership of such lands must surely end in dispute. Although the land belongs not to the Royal Family, but the ‘crown’, a theoretical entity that would be dissolved by the formation of a republic such a situation would surely lead to an ownership dispute. Regardless of this the rent which the government takes from these lands is far higher than even the most liberal estimates of the cost to the taxpayer of sustaining the monarchy and is always likely to remain so.
In the year of the Diamond Jubilee, while celebrating a lifetime of service to Britain from her queen, few people would raise the question ‘worthy is the head that wears the crown’, and realistically such a debate is no longer relevant. What we must continue to ask is ‘profitable is the head that wears the crown’, for it is now its ability to benefit Britain in an economic sense as opposed to a military own which calls for the sustainment of Britain’s monarchy.
Author