People in GB please explain this to me.

Why do you pay to support one of the wealthiest families in the world?


LONDON (June 22) - Britain's royal family, often criticized for excessive spending, costs each taxpayer just 61 pence, or $1.12, a year, about the same as a loaf of bread, Buckingham Palace said on Wednesday.

The Royal Public Finances annual report, which details public spending on the monarchy's property and travel, said Queen Elizabeth's household cost taxpayers 36.7 million pounds in 2004-2005, a 100,000 pound saving from the previous year.

"We believe this represents a value-for-money monarchy," said Alan Reid, the "Keeper of the Privy Purse" who looks after the queen's finances.

"We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy. We're looking at one of good value and good quality," he added.

Reid said the total cost of the monarchy was less than in 2001 when the royal family first published details of its finances in response to public demands that it become more open and accountable.

Greatest criticism of royal family spending is usually reserved for high transportation costs.

This year's report showed that chartering a flight for heir-to-the throne Prince Charles's trip to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji had cost taxpayers over 292,000 pounds.

The monarchy has made efforts to curb its outgoings, most notably decommissioning the royal yacht Britannia in 1997, and the report said the cost to the taxpayer was 60 percent lower than in 1991-1992 when it amounted to 87.3 million pounds.

"The further reduction in the amount of Head of State expenditure reflects the continuous attention the Royal Household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure," Reid said.

The report said the largest area of public funding was the 20 million pound Property Grant-in-Aid, which meets the costs of maintenance, utilities, telephones and related services of the royal palaces.

 

We pay because it's part of our heritage.

...Go back to the middle ages, and onwards, and you will find that we actually had King's that fought to 'provide' a country. In other words they were 'crucial' to leading a kingdom.

Having a monarchy brings in money to the country that far outways the outgoing's.

Btw, I'm not a royalist or 'royal fan' it's just a fact that the royal family is regarded in general as being 'worth it' even if on paper it would appear not.

...The beauty with figures on paper is that you can make them appear as you like

 

How much tourism in London would decline if there was no changing of the guard/royal crap? That much? While I think it brings in money in tourism, I would say it's debatable how expendable they are. The heritage argument is much better.

What I still can't figure out is how Britain fucked Canada and Australia into being common wealth. What does either country get other than easy visas in the UK?

 

If we dint pay them a single penny how many of you here think that they would "Leave" their possition?

Fuck me would any of them move out of where they are living or take away any of their status. They get to sit around all the time with butlers.... plus if the Queens really desperate for cash she can always get sponsored by coca cola!

And damn where do you buy a loaf of bread for 61pence?!

 

The royal family is more like a tourist attraction that the taxpayers pay to keep running, isn't that right?

 

We pay because we have no choice, same as we have to pay for a TV licence that is supposedly "a licence for watching TV and maintaining the services etc etc" when more than %90 goes to the BBC who make millions selling their shit overseas for people to watch for free. We pay for the rest of the world to watch "our" shows for free.

 

Yeah, and if you live near Northern Ireland (or very close to the coast of Wales), you can get the BBC channels for the price of one big aerial! ^_^
I have to pay for it through cable though, being in the mid-west -_-, and we have to pay for our own crappy TV license here too - I think it's like €150 a year. And to make it even worse, unlike the beeb with their no ad's, all RTE radio and TV stations have ad's as well as the TV license! Then again, as you said, other stations around the world actually buy BBC stuff - RTE make shit that no one wants. I think I've seen 2 RTE shows on Discovery Home & Leisure - that's about it for their exports...

 

BBC is only run on cable in the states, and not in every market.... means you have to pay for it. I had it in Japan, but can't get it in Hawaii.

 

I get the BBC on cable, and I would gladly pay the license every year if it would mean there would be at least one channel in Mexican Public TV with this quality.

 

Sorry, "BBC" and "quality" tend not to go together in the same sentence here much. Everyone raves about the "glory days" of the BBC with "classics" like Red Dwarf (which I love btw) but the amount of shit compared to the good makes it a sore point.

When "proper" digital TV comes out (and the analogue signals are turned off), I want them to make it subscription based, so I can manually opt out of receiving any BBC TV channel and save myself a tidy sum every year.

The only good thing they do is Terry Wogan on Radio 2...

 

in my opinion the BBC is much better than other services on the TV. It is aimed to accomidate a broad audience without any commercial breaks, I admit there hasnt been as many good BBC productions recently, but this can be said about most TV networks; companies are opting for cheap television (such as Big Brother, Fame Academy etc).... and for some reason the average joe enjoys it. I am proud the UK has the BBC since I found that the BBC world service (news) was one of the few channels internationally that actually has world affairs above local events (after living in both Canada and America for many years). As a university student the cost of a TV lisence isnt nice, especially since most of my TV is *cough* streamed onto my TV via my PC so that adverts are avoided.

Long live Terry Wogan

 

The BBC is a f*cking ripoff, license to print money organisation, always has been, always will.

...Do u notice how this thread is starting to go ever so slightly OT, lololololol.

 

They should do to them what they did to the russian royal family

 

I had the chance to meet Greg Dyke, the former director of it the other day, turned it down in favour of stroking Matthew Pinsent's gold medals.

 

Sorry guys... when I said "BBC" I meant "BBC news". Not their regular programming. Its' the same thing in Japan with NHK. Everyone's supposed to pay the old man that comes by, but you just don't answer the door.

 

since you said the thing about the russian royal family, did you know it was vikings who were the part why russia is called russia today ? rusland is the name we use and "en ruser" was a man who came in boats and was roweing (roweboat)(sorry for the wrong spelling)

but that is not used today since the danish language has changed , but i am not joking ,since i have on videotape at my fathers place. and one of the first russian kings was a viking.

and the Russian royal family has family ties with the danish royal family ?

and when they found the bodies , there was missing two people ( no myth, no joke man !!!) and one of the missing people was
Anastasia and a servant. so i am not joking now two people was alive in Sibiria, and where i saw that documentary was on DR2

just like Jesus Christ Thing and many other things.

Eva i don´t think any one in England would love to see the royal family dead.

 

Wait a minute, you guys have to pay to watch regular TV? Not even like cable TV, just the stuff broadcast through the air? Fuck that!

One question though, how do they know you're watching TV anyway? If you owned one and only watched it in the basement, will they track you down if you don't pay this liscence fee? Can they get you for "stealing" television? Do you have some kind of super special UK televisions that they can tell when you're watching it?

 

yea i NEVER watch the bbc. It costs me like £120 right now.

We also get these shitty adverts saying. "We have on file every address which doesnt have a tv license..." bla bla bla

WTF they keep the addresses that dont have a tv license so they can send u letters and pisss you off at your door asking if you got a tv.

Total fucking wankers...

 

You have to pay even if you don't have a TV, if you have a VCR/PC/Whatever that is capable of recording TV, then you have to pay, we also have radio licences ffs... (for those that legitimately don't have a TV/whatever)

 

Yes, if you own a Tv or TV receiving equipment you have to pay £120/year to watch it. If you have more than one TV in a household you only pay once however. And they apparently have "Detector Vans" which can tell if you have a TV or not....probably bollocks though...They can be pretty dam draconian and assume that everyone has a TV, so are bloody pushy towards people who don't have a license, whether you have a TV or not.

Anywhom, I think Its worth it - We get about 10 Tv channels, all Ad-Free, As well as 5 analog national radio stations, local radio stations, and 3 or so digital radio stations, all ad-free.It also funds BBC Online, which is a dam good service, It's just a shame non-brits get it for free while we have to pay for it (through the licence fee).While the stuff the TV and national radio broadcasts is rather shite at times, The local radio is 2nd to none, the Tv is considerably better than most foreign stations, and I feel the news is the best in the world.
But thats just me, and since I live at home with my parents, I don't personally pay the licence fee..