UK Monarchy costs us at least £150M says REPUBLIC

BBC NEWS reports the royals cost us £37M a year

Republic has today challenged Buckingham Palace to come clean on its
finances, due to be reported at the end of this month. For the past few
years the palace has attempted to distract people from the full cost of the
monarchy by talking in terms of ‘pence per person’.

Spokesperson Graham Smith said:

“The palace spin is that the monarchy costs a little over 61p per person.
This is a shameful piece of propaganda – no government department would get
away with justifying waste by dividing the cost by the entire British
population. By that logic MPs salaries and expenses can equally be
justified as costing us just £3 per person per year.”

“The palace will tell us that they cost around £37m a year, but this
ignores security costs, unpaid taxes and costs to local councils for royal
visits. The real figure is at least £150m a year.”

“The big question we need to ask the palace is ‘what’s not included?’
Royal security – much of it unnecessary – is estimated to cost over £100m
a year, royal visits around the UK can cost local councils as much as £60k
a trip.”

“Comparable European presidents cost as little as £1.5m a year.”


Full details of our calculations can be found at

A visit to Romsey by the Queen last year cost the Romsey Town Council more
than £58,000, including £5000 spent on a new toilet for the Queen.

Total salary and expenses bill for 646 MPs is £155m a year, compared to
£150m a year for 15 working royals.

The Crown Estates do not offset the cost of the monarchy as the Crown
Estates would remain state property if the monarchy were abolished. It is
not the property of the Windsor family – see for details.


3 responses to “UK Monarchy costs us at least £150M says REPUBLIC

  • bill

    maybe the royal family should reverse it’s agreement with the government, then all you anti-royalists could be sent to the tower for execution at the queen’s pleasure.

  • Carole Heath

    I have read this article with interest, i myself do not agree with the monarchy, not even the constitutional type of monarchy Britain has. I think that a republic would be more democratic, we have no written constitution and we have no say in electing our head of state ie the monarch. And church and state should be separate. And the house of Lords should be an elected chamber not through a right of birth. I

  • Carole Heath

    I have read this article with interest, i think that Britain should have a republic, the system of monarchy smacks of class and i don’t really see why the tax-payers in this country should pay for the monarchy through the civil list. The queen i think has done a good job since coming to the throne in the 50’s but after her it should go. The consitutional crisis in the 1930’s when Edward V111 stepped down should have put an end to this outdated system i my opinion. A republic would be more democratic as up to now we have no written constitution and no right to elect our own head of state, and church and state should be separate and political and social reforms should extend to an elected house of Lords not just members right of birth. The government says about the big society and pulling in our belts (austerity measures) etc but i don’t see any sign of this regarding the royals. The old saying one law for the rich and one law for the poor still stands even in 2011 in my book.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: