THE Queen and the Royal Family cost each taxpayer 62p last year, Buckingham Palace says.
The annual public accounts show the total cost of running the monarchy was £37.3m - a fall of 0.3 per cent from last year. The cost includes £1.1m spent on hospitality and £2.2m on helicopters.
The cost of royal travel rose by £100,000 compared with the previous financial year to £5.5m. The most expensive official overseas trip was a chartered flight made by Prince Charles and Camilla to the Gulf and Bosnia which cost £345,710.
The Royal Family made 11 journeys on the Royal Train compared with 14 in 2005/06. They made 49 journeys by scheduled rail.
The accounts reveal that Charles and Camilla's scheduled flight to Philadelphia and New York in January so he could collect a Global Environmental Citizen prize, cost £59,045.
The accounts also reveal the Royal Household is following the `leadership' of Prince Charles and has started to calculate its carbon footprint and ways to reduce it.
The report included for the first time Prince Charles' carbon footprint, which was found to be 3,425 tonnes of CO2.
The cost of royal travel rose by £100,000 compared with the previous financial year to £5.5 million.
Critics claimed the true cost of the royals to taxpayers was much higher. Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, said £37m was `fantasy' and said the real figure was £150m. Campaign spokesman Graham Smith said the Royal Family had not included security costs or tax breaks in their calculation.
Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said of the figures: "This blatant spin would put Alistair Campbell (former Labour Party aide) to shame.
Mr Smith said: "It is absurd that the royals still manage to spend tens of thousands of pounds on individual journeys.
"A first class rail ticket or even a private car would be a tiny fraction of the cost to the taxpayer and better for the environment."
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Isn't it about time that Britain did away with this old age institution? Either that, or make them pay there own way in the world like the rest of us.
not bad, just over the cost for 1 big packet of crisps each year. When you consider the amount of tourists they bring in, its well worth it.
£37.3m is peanuts compared to the amount paid out by the DWP on fraudulent benefit claims.
It's a small price to pay for something as ancient, uniquely British and beneficial as the monarchy.
Long may they reign!
Sam, once the royals are gone, they're gone. What right do we have to take them away from future generations just because they are a bit unfashionable at the moment? And for what? 62p per year. You pay well over £100 on a TV license.
Its living heritage and good for tourism. Just ignore the tabloid stories on the skiing holidays and you'll have no problem. Look at them as figureheads rather than personalities. The people will change but the role always remains.
I don't want to get into a bun fight here, it's just my opinion. But it's the same old argument - the royals bring in tourists. Who knows this for sure? Where is the evidence? They may attract some Americans - but these days they are too scared to travel anywhere!
I know it's only 62p, but thats not the point. Other royal families for example, the Norweigan royal family, the principality of Monaco and many others are self sufficient. Why aren't the British royal family? Who are the mugs, us or them??
I also believe that the money that goes into the complete pomp and ceremony where ever the Royal Family go, is completely unecessary and could be spent on better things. Add that to the resources that goes with it in terms of security, police etc - I believe their time could be spent better elsewhere too, that's all.
Sam: my argument wasn't that they bring in tourists, it is simply that they are unique and we should treasure the institution. As the previous person said, what right have we to do away with something that future generations may value. Another very interesting argument is that put forward by the British Israel brigade, that the British Crown will be inherited by Jesus at the second coming. Not sure it's true but it's a ripping yarn.
Moodyblu, you are right - they are unique - in that we are the only nation in the world that financially supports their monarcy!!
Sam, is that a fact or have you assumed it for the sake of your argument?
As a tax payer, I subsidise millions of people in this country by much more than 62p by way of tax credits etc.
The royal family are no more scroungers than most folk on benefits. At least they do something for their handout.
If we all agree to tip up a pound can we get rid of them .Its a outdated system that belongs in the dark ages ,make them pay their own way open up their palaces as museums ect.get rid of the outdated knighthoods ect .lets get into the new century instead of trying to keep a outdated system running that costs the ""SUBJECTS"" a fortune each year under the guise that it only costs 62p...
No moodyblu, I haven't assumed it and it is a fact. I too subsidise the scroungers on benefits and have done all my working life, only they don't live the life of luxury that the royal family do.
I am getting bored now so lets just agree to disagree, you are clearly a royalist, and I am not!
it would be nice if they did something for each member of the public once a year to earn that 62p. like cleaning one window per house or shining one shoe per person.
Can I ask a question? If we did not have a Royal family would the tourism stop?
Sam - what about the Norwegian monarchy, they are fully financed by the Norwegian populace. I couldn't be bothered to look up any other monarchies but I'm sure that Britain and Norway are not the only countries to financially suppoer their Monarchies. Have you taken your pills today?
i would gladly pay a pond to get rid of royalty,then turn all the residencea into homes for down and outs,i dont think you would notice much difference both are parasites.
Strange that in the UK we have anti-european feelings and yet we have a German royal family and a French class system. Perhaps we are more European than we think.
Why do I (NOT the richest man on the planet) have to pay 62p a year to the richest women on the planet? Her son and heir has a business with a turnover in the millions and I still pay for a part of his expenses? Why? So I can say I have a 'Royal Family'! My family is all the royalty I need thanks, so can I have my 62p back?
The Royals!No Thank You.
I have to say (and I may not be popular!) that I'm quite happy to pay 62p per year to keep the Royal Family.
Without them, would we still have the same amount of tourist's?
When I think of the amount of tax that goes towards people who can't be bothered working and certainly don't bring in tourist's it doesn't seem quite so bad!
It's not even 1p a day!
Only 62p? For that price you should get another royal family. Maybe the Swedish don't want theirs.
Napoleon I completely agree with you.