Don't expect civility when it comes to negotiating the Civil List
Regina v Darling, or more likely v Osborne, will be one of the more fascinating departmental spending struggles of the coming years. Next summer the Queen's senior courtiers lock horns, or perhaps tiaras, with Treasury mandarins over the future funding of our Head of State.
It could be a defining moment for how Britain wants to run its Monarchy. The annual Civil List, the public income used to pay for the Queen's daily costs, mostly staff salaries, has been set at £7.9 million for the past 20 years. It now only covers about half of her spending, the short-fall made up from reserves. Those reserves are almost depleted now and will be down to just a few million by the time the Queen's next 10 year financing cycle starts in Spring 2011.
Just to keep the Queen's way of life at current levels would mean increasing the Civil list by at least £7 million and more realistically probably £10 million a year.
The claim will come against one of the bleakest public spending backdrops in British history. It also comes in a new era when hostility to the taxpayer funding the lifestyles of public servants is more intense than ever.
The Queen cannot be compared to "flipping" MPs of course. The public expects a little Majesty from their Monarch, but prefers humility from their political representatives. Nonetheless the case for the extra money is going to be an unbelievably hard one to make.
If anything the public mood could harden over the next two years as the grim reality of deep public spending cuts takes hold. It was anger over alleged Royal profligacy that forced the Queen to start paying tax on her income during her annus horribilis in the last recession in 1992.
We could be approaching the moment when the Monarchy takes another lurch towards a pared down Scandinavian model. Less Majesty it may be but the Queen has finely tuned political attenae. If the alternative means stoking up Republicanism she will happily accept more tupperware and less flummery at the Palace.
We can pay the queen and Prince Phillip but all the rest should work and support themselves.Prince charles has his own income.we have to cut all the others out and no security to be provided for young royals,unless the queen wishes to pay.
Posted by: Jean | 30/06/2009 at 09:20 PM
We can pay the queen and Prince Phillip but all the rest should work and support themselves.Prince charles has his own income.we have to cut all the others out and no security to be provided for young royals,unless the queen wishes to pay.
Posted by: Jean | 30/06/2009 at 09:20 PM
Her Majesty might begin by making air miles Andy seek gainful employment and pay for his helicopter and private jet travel out of his own pocket. It is time also for him to accept parental responsibility for his two parasitic daughters and stop expecting tax payers to pay for private protection for them as they go pub crawling every night. What do the Kents and the Gloucesters do apart from spending tax payers money? Currently we are having to pay the expenses of the most corrupt government in modern history, have had to bale out the banks and pay their executives millions, and to add insult to injury we are being made pay for Coe's olympic gravy train. A reduction in the civil list of 50% might go some way towards lessening the anger currently felt by her subjects.
Posted by: R.F.York | 30/06/2009 at 09:25 PM
Why not sell off the crown jewels,Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace while we are about it-OR close down a couple of useless quangos and give the money saved to our exemplary Queen who has served our Country so well .
Posted by: tim Hardacre | 01/07/2009 at 08:47 AM
Would it not be more honest to add to the article, how much this country earns from tourism, directly connected to maintaining royalty.
Unbalanced journalism is not an asset to this Country.
Posted by: george hants | 01/07/2009 at 10:30 AM
May I say that any blog where the comments are "moderated by the author", seems a little like, the prisoner picking the jury.
Posted by: george hants | 01/07/2009 at 10:33 AM
Better the Monarchy get the money than the State: at least the Monarchy isn't forever setting up new social programs to screw up peoples lives, or legislating our freedoms into the gutter. Kick out the politicians, not the monarchy.
Posted by: Steve Massey | 01/07/2009 at 12:15 PM
Its a good job she doesn't have to live on a State Pension, if she did her crown jewels would already have been pawned years ago.
Lets hope she doesn't have to go in an old people home and eat the plastic food they give you there.
Posted by: mickinlondon | 01/07/2009 at 01:06 PM
The Queen is well worth a rise and does a lot of good for Britain and probably earns the country more than anyone.
Why should we give the spongers money for nothing they should be given a task and pay them the minimum rate. If they can't afford to live in a house then it's their fault.
Why does Brown keep giving cash to the Africans and the like. Use it for the people of this country.
Posted by: prbell99@btinternet.com | 01/07/2009 at 01:16 PM
I believe the total will be 69p per person per year.
An absolute bargain! The Queen is the most trusted pulic figure in Britain acording to recent polls and she works much harder than any of the ploiticians. Anyway, having a monarchy probably earn the UK 10 million or so every week in revenue from tourists etc.
If the Queen needs it, give it to her!
And before any of those "we don't need or want to pay for a monarchy" lefty hippes replublicans show up, whic they somehow always do...
STFU! Go buy your single can of beer with your 69p. I'll pay it for you.
Posted by: MEK | 01/07/2009 at 02:49 PM
The British public are getting sick an tired of the expensive flummery which is practiced by the so called Royals. It is time that we moved in to the 20th Century and dispensed with these outdated ornaments. The British public have enough to contend with, without funding the lavish lifestyles of theres parasites. It has been reported that the Queen of Spain traveled recently by Ryanair. Why cant ours.
Posted by: Thomas Hayes | 01/07/2009 at 03:07 PM
I would feel better if the lesser royals worked and supported themselves.
Posted by: shallotman | 01/07/2009 at 04:04 PM
Let the minor Royals stop swanning around the world at the taxpayers expense and then maybe there will be a little money left over for other things.
Also stop the Princes flying all over the world on private planes and use commercial aircraft with a big saving over the pampered life style.
Posted by: john w | 01/07/2009 at 05:48 PM
These public funds are the natural inflationary costs of maintaining a Monarchy. It is grossly unfair and decietful for this increase to be spoken of as though the British public was financing the personal luxury of the monarchy. You have a monarchy which, make no mistake provides very good value for money. More importantly,seen from the viewpoint of the outside world, the monarchy is perhaps Great Britains most valuable asset. God knows a parliament full of crooked politicians grabbing all they can get hand over fist is certainly not doing anything to bolster or improve the worldwide perception of a country which appears to be slowly imploding upon itself.
Posted by: Exumab | 01/07/2009 at 07:20 PM
I think that the Royal family and the Queen as head of state is worth more money than you can imagine, our tourists who come to the UK dont come to see the PM they come to see the pageantry, our Royal family and all that goes with the rich heritage our counties envy.
the President of France to keep him cost the French 35 million a year. our royal family at 10million is a snip. The queen does her duty and has done so for almost 60 years, the article today is as old as the queen is brought out on a bad news day and aired.
Posted by: J B Arnold | 01/07/2009 at 08:39 PM
The Royals always back down if the family business is on the line. The worst thing though, is that the Queen never says boo when there are real issues at stake. This is cowardice or ignorance dressed up as convention. If the Queen realy wants to keep her place she should actively participate in governing the country. And if that is a risk for her and the family business, all the more reason to make her contribution meaningful.
Posted by: Sandy | 02/07/2009 at 10:01 AM
Its really quite simple if seven point nine million equals half what is required, get rid of the tribe of hangers on, restrict the remainder, including air miles andy, to regular transport by flight, train or car, its just an outrage to permit air miles to burn fifty five thousand pounds on a jaunt to Egypt then cry they have no money. Then reduce the army of flunkies to managable levels, its time to get into the real world and times are hard, and i would think that doing the above will balance the books.
Posted by: Alan Davey | 02/07/2009 at 02:00 PM
The Queen is worth every penny. We should certainly be giving her more. I love her hat, her love of horses, her son's sticking it lord rogers, the whole shebang. Long live them all. Any chance she will encourage Gordon to apply for a nice teaching job?
Posted by: ladywholunches | 02/07/2009 at 04:36 PM
"YES" "YES" a thousand times "YES"....if you consider the alternative.
Do YOU want an unelected President Brown lording it up at Buck House because I most CERTAINLY do not????
Posted by: Michael Coventry | 02/07/2009 at 05:05 PM
It is not about the Queen's "way of life" and certainly not "less flummery at the Palace (whatever that means)". The fact that the Civil List and the Grant-in-Aid for the maintenance of the Royal palaces have been frozen for years, is extraordinary, and unique among western demoracies- who all support their Heads of State, their buildings and staff expenses (and most give them a salary as well, which the UK doesn't). And they don't spend much time whingeing and complaining.
Those are specific British traits which, when accompanied by money envy and a large dollop of hypocrisy, will make for a distinctly unpleasant spectacle. The entire cost of the Royal 'establishment' is about .02% of the total outlay of the Consolidated Fund each year (which next year will be about GBP200 billion)...a pittance. I don't know how the Queen and her advisers put up with it. Well actually, I do; they know the nature of "the People".
Posted by: Thomas Rex Campbell | 02/07/2009 at 07:50 PM
Her Majesty is well worth every penny! After seeing what MP's are costing us and the vast expense of the U.S. presidential election the British public should thank God that they have such an economical and untroublesome Head of State - and so should Commonwealth members who recognise Her as their leader! How much more would the likes of presidents Blair, Brown or Cameron cost us in hard cash and bitter division?
Posted by: Ralph Smith | 02/07/2009 at 09:44 PM
I'm a republican by nature and opposed to such outmoded ideas as having Kings and Queens. However, I'm aware that a majority of my compatriots like Her Madge, and therefore I'm happy to spend a little on this Queen. I'm not happy about spending money on all the other Queens that surround her, or her truly dreadful family. There isn't one of them with the slightest charm or integrity.
A scandinavian Monarchy if we must have one, no civil list, she can afford to be Queen, no paid for servants, no honours list, no earls/Barons/Viscounts etc. Just her Madge riding around on a bike opening fetes and funfairs and scmoozing visiting firemen from the dark continent, that'll do for me.
Posted by: Kerry | 03/07/2009 at 01:10 PM
Given as to whether the Government will pay the Royal household sufficient monies due for worry free Reign or pay RBS Chairman £10M yearly wages.
Difficult choice for PM Rt Hon Mr Brown, as he has to go against the Military Industrial Complex that caused this present day recession. Or take the easy option against the Monarchy that cannot fight back.
So difficult.
Posted by: William | 03/07/2009 at 03:38 PM
as the secret son of a very senior royal possibly prince charles and a very senior royal lady the cost of keeping me for the last seven years in my own filth and wet and isolated by remote control detrimental and injured to my health the only persons that i know are the persons they want me to know will a financial lawyer evaluate the public purse in its support of this out rage.
Posted by: anthony armodio john brucciani | 04/07/2009 at 12:03 PM
We are about to give another 1bn to foreign countries, I think £10 million a year to support the royal establishment is peanuts considering the Queen is head of state and performs her duties flawlessly - year after year and provides a pivotal role in our democracy - not to mention being head of state for over 1 billion people. Sure - rethink it when she has gone but not whilst the Queen is still serving us.
Posted by: Curtis Morris | 06/07/2009 at 08:43 AM
When a family finds it hard to make ends meet they usually try to economise in what they have to spend their income on so, why is it necessary for this Queen to have such "staff" as ladies in waiting, and of the bedchamber, flunkey's to open doors etc. Even she, can open a door. Time to get rid of these unnecessary expensive ornaments. This woman should be told that we all have to make do, and mend.
T H Leeds
Posted by: Thomas Hayes | 06/07/2009 at 12:07 PM
Maybe the lesser royals should be told to enter the real world, and get a job.
Posted by: shallotman | 06/07/2009 at 02:12 PM
It is unbelievable how journalist can mix things up. The Pound 10 million is not for daily food intake or swinging along in nightclubs but for upkeep of all the royal palaces and maintaining the standard of living for all personnel paid for by the Royal Household. With the present financial squeeze in GB there is of course nothing to preclude the Queen and her advisors to discuss and implement ways and means to reduce the over-all expenses.
Posted by: John | 06/07/2009 at 02:49 PM
Far better to spend the extra money housing, feeding and providing legal aid for another 100 illegal immigrants.
Posted by: adrian murray | 06/07/2009 at 03:25 PM
Not any longer.
She has let down the average Brit in a big way.
Posted by: ex London | 06/07/2009 at 05:08 PM
She, they are worth every Penny, how much s it per person, about 60p per year, how come you never mention that the EU costs us £40 Million per day.
Posted by: Adrian P | 06/07/2009 at 07:09 PM
Increase the Civil List by chucking out the necessary amount of sponging illegals. Simples.
Posted by: Squiz | 06/07/2009 at 08:00 PM
They are worth every penny just for tourism alone.
At 69p per person in the UK - it's an inexpensive gift to the country.
At one pound per person - it's still a gift.
When quoting these huge million pound figures they should ALWAYS include this bottom line figure - cost per person.
If the political parties can wildly fudge their expenses while scrutinizing the Queen's, they should feel a little more obligated to give her a raise. After all, visitors to Windsor alone would pay for the roof repairs - so shut up and cough up Brits !!
Posted by: Rosie | 07/07/2009 at 06:26 AM
When will Britain wake up and rid itself of this plague -- the monarchy? If it seems out of control now, just wait until old Camilla and Charles take over! Wow! What a pair to set the example for the Country and the World? I don't think so. Off with their heads! Get rid of them now.
Posted by: Al Reasor | 07/07/2009 at 11:08 AM
Much better to have the Queen; rather than Preident Blair, Brown or any other grubby politician.
Posted by: Frank | 07/07/2009 at 11:40 AM
Answer this question:If you take away the Royal family,how much would Britain lose in tourism?
Posted by: David Nigel Braham | 07/07/2009 at 02:39 PM