Is it time to "refudiate" the monarchy? Has any chartered accountant undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of a King and Queen?

I was just listening to the McLaughlin group on television here in the United States and it was estimated that the monarchy is costing the Brits as much as $300 million per year!  With all of the financial problems in England, and with another royal wedding about to cost the Brits $60 million, isn't it time to "refudiate"--a word recently coined by Sarah Palin and recognized by your own Oxford Dictionary (so perhaps it's time to refudiate the Oxford Dictionary along with Sarah Palin, too)--the monarchy's existence?  Incidentally, are not the bride's parents suppose to pay for the wedding?  Why are the British citizens picking up a $60 million tab when the Walkers should pay for the wedding and receiption?  And please allow me to ask you:  what do the Brits get from having a monarchy other than a big tax bill?  Royal scandals?

It is true that we in the United States have our own idols, who are much less regal than yours.  For instance, Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin's daughter, has had a bit of success on the television show, "Dancing with the Stars".  Of course, I have never watched "Dancing with the Stars", "American Idol", or any reality TV show:  quite frankly, I am old, and prefer the stars of Hollywood in its golden era of the 1930s and the early 1940s, when English writers lived in bungalows in Beverly Hills, crafting the scripts of witty couples in romantic comedies.  OK, I am an anarchronism, so be it.  But Bristol Palin is not costing the American taxpayers $300 million!  Hello, is anyone at home in Britain monitoring the cash register?!

Don't get me wrong:  I'm an Anglophile.  The Battle of Britain was the turning point of World War II, and we Americans disgracefully sat out of that crucial battle.  As soon as Poland was attacked, we should have declared war on Germany and entered the war.  And most of the great literature that has been written in English emanated from your islands...certainly not from our shores.  But your very expensive fascination with a regal family, a superior family, a very costly family, has me dumbfounded.  I would like to see an intelligent cost-benefit analysis of having a royal family in England, a family exempt from taxation. 

I know that many, if not all, of our idols here in the United States may be vulgar and unworthy of fame and fortune.  But I am not being taxed to support the livelihood of many of them.  I do confess, however, that I resent the salaries and expense reimbursements of all of our government officials.  And I do admit that our President and First Lady do attempt to imitate the figurehead of a royal family; but I oppose that as well, preferring a true Athenian democracy.  But at least President Obama punches a clock everyday.  Frankly, what does Prince Charles do everyday?  Does anyone know?

Please allow me to apologize to all in England.  I love and respect the British and England.  But I truly think it is time for someone to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of a monarchy, leaving out that nonsense about its intangible and symbolic value.  During these austere economic times, with many suffering so dearly, I would think that it is time to do away with all trappings of royalty and invest in the education, healthcare, and advancement of Britain's subjects.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

The Barefoot Accountant

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Comments

The Royal Family are excellent value for money (I think)

Roger Peak | | Permalink

They are one of the reasons tourists come to visit our small island.

They also save us from the cost of a president (and security for past presidents).

The real benefit of having the Queen as head of state with sweeping powers (with the ultimate power to dissolve parliament) is that she doesn't use that power (unlike a president).

Our "honourable" politicians know she won't use those powers, but the power remains real.  It remains a "nuclear option" should they start to abuse their position.

cardinalcall's picture

Tourists

cardinalcall | | Permalink

Thank you for your eloquent comment.

I visited London in 1973.  I really didn't have any desire to see the Queen.  I did visit the theatre every night, paying merely $7.00 for orchestra seats to see Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, Wendy Hiller, John Mills, Alistair Sims, et al perform.  Ironically, Wendy Hiller was performing in the "The Coronation Affair", depicting when Edward abdicated the throne.   The theatrical tradition in England is unrivaled. 

Of course, I visited the Tower and other historical sites, but whether there was a Queen or King or not, it would have made no difference to me.

I did see two American Presidents, however, in my lifetime:  President Eisenhower, whom I admired and respected; and President Ronald Reagan, upon whom I would rather not comment.

I did not know that your Queen had that power to dissolve Parliament.  I wish our President had that power, since our country suffers from perpetual gridlock, earmarks, corruption, bombast, etc.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

cverrier's picture

Not sure about the figures either...

cverrier | | Permalink

I won't claim to be a monarchist (or a republican - small 'r'), but if you're going to have a Head of State (as opposed to a Head of Government), then she seems to do a pretty good job - specifically because she is apolitical and can act as a long term figurehead over decades.

I'm not sure where the figure of $300 million per year came from though.

The sovereign received about £41m of taxpayers money in 2009 (Including the Civil List and other payments for travel and admin costs).  I make that about $65m at current exchange rates.   You can argue about the hidden costs of security, etc, but even so, it can't be that much.  Royal security is tiny compared to, say, the security apparatus surrounding a US President.

Is she directly responsible for increased tourist income?  Who knows?  The monarchy probably adds a bit of glamour that wouldn't be there if Buckingham Palace was just a big government office with a nice art gallery.

£41m - in the scheme of things - isn't very much money - less than the cost of hosting a single G20 summit, for example, or a fraction the cost of a single F-35 strike aircraft.   UK is in recession, but we're still one of the richest  nations on the planet - we can still afford to spend money on non-essentials if we want them enough.

..but, yes, I do think taxpayers' shouldn't pay for the wedding.  Off to Vegas with them!

 

 

cardinalcall's picture

LOL! To Shades of Elvis Land!

cardinalcall | | Permalink

Thanks for the figures.  I got mine from the McLaughlin Group.  So perhaps I should request a transcript of the show for further details.

I think the Walkers can afford to pay for the wedding.

Thanks for your reply.  I appreciate it.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Crown Estate

CarolaMorgan | | Permalink

You should also note that since George III the Royal Family receive the Civil list of £7.9 million in exchange for Parliment receiving the income from the Crown Estate which last year was £210.7 million. So I think the state actually gets the better side of the deal.

Also you can't really compare some of the attention seeking power hungry politicians with the Queen who has devoted her entire life to this country.

Cost is only one side of the equation

jgp | | Permalink

I don't class myself as a royalist, though I would be sad if UK ended up being a republic. I'm not sure I could bear being ruled by self interested and self-publicising ladder climbers. We are privileged to have such balanced people in the royal household. Would I really want Maggie, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron in such a role... god forbid! Just look back a few hunderd years to Cromwell and the anarchy around that time.

It is interesting how easy it is for people to focus on cost, with very little aknowledgement of the benefits. Tourism is already mentioned and challenged. What about a list of the things that generate value

Publicity for UK plc: Will's and Kate's wedding apparently seen by >2billion people... WOW! What better advert could there be around the world. Anyone care to put a dollar value on that kind of publicity?

International relationships: there is stability in most of UK international relationships. Some part of that is down to the persistence and consistency of our head of state. Do whole nations rejoice when the latest Prime Minister happens by to sell <insert product here>? Do they rejoice when a senior royal visits?

Education: Duke Of Edinburgh & Princes Trust come right to mind. These have been going for decades and thousands (millions???) of youngsters have benefitted.

Ecology: Prince Charles is reknowned for Championing sustainability

Charity: The royal family are sponsors of hundreds (thousands???) of charities. Their support helps those groups in very tangible ways

Stable figureheads: The monarchy doesn't suffer bipolar politics disease.

You know, listing the things above... maybe I should become a royalist. When you look at the whole balance, the UK would not be the UK if it became a republic.

 

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
This blog

William BrighentiThe Barefoot Accountant—is a Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor,  operating an accounting, tax, and QuickBooks consulting firm in Berlin, Connecticut, Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC.  Bill has instructed graduate and undergraduate courses in Accounting, Auditing, and other subjects at the University of Hartford, Central Connecticut State University, Hartford State Technical College, and Purdue University. He also taught GMAT and CPA Exam Review Classes at the Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center and at Person-Wolinsky, and is certified to teach trade-related subjects at Connecticut Vocational Technical Schools. His articles on tax and accounting have been published in several professional journals as well as on several accounting websites. William was born and raised in New Britain, Connecticut, and served on the City's Board of Finance and Taxation as well as its City Plan Commission.  Bill is a crazed animal lover, feeding birds, squirrels, chipmunks, skunks, possums, stray cats, and any two-legged or four-legged critter traversing through his yard.  His backyard in Berlin, Connecticut has been certified as a habitat suitable for wildlife by the National Wildlife Federation.

Bill also writes an Accounting, QuickBooks, and Tax blog:  Accounting, QuickBooks, and Taxes by the Barefoot Accountant.  For entertaining articles, please see his listing at The Amazing Brighenti.