Royal Finances

The monarchy costs you, the taxpayer, over £180m a year in subsidies and lost revenue.

Our campaign is of course based on a few simple principles such as democracy, responsibility and accountability. So the cost of the monarchy isn't really a significant motivation for many of us. After all, we would still call for a republican constitution even if the monarchy cost the taxpayer nothing. However, the cost is an issue, particularly as the palace makes it an issue by claiming every year that the monarchy represents 'value-for-money'.

The cost is also an issue because the way in which the royal household spends our money demonstrates some of the key flaws with the monarchy - a lack of accountability and transparency. Their finances are not fully reported, a lot of expenditure is kept secret, much of it is just ignored by the official financial reports the palace publishes each year. Royal finances are not fully audited by the National Audit Office and the annual reports are prepared and presented by the palace, not by an independent authority. Routinely we hear about the misuse of public money by the royals, yet little is done about it.

Some will say that the total cost of the monarchy doesn't add to much compared with the government's overall budget of billions of pounds - but that is hardly an excuse to be careless with taxpayers' money. If an MP is caught misusing public money people rightly complain - the same standards should apply to the royal household.

Total Cost of the monarchy

Buckingham palace claims that the monarchy costs the taxpayer around £40m each year. In fact the total figure is more than £180m. The difference comes from the palace ignoring costs incurred by local authorities, unpaid taxes and security, as well as lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

This discrepancy between the official figure and our estimate highlights one of the key problems with royal funding - we, the taxpayers, are simply not allowed to know the full cost - it's kept secret. This is totally unacceptable.

View the summary of royal costs ::

Royals are 21 times more expensive than MPs

There has rightly been a lot of criticism in the media about parliamentary expenses and salaries. It is worth noting that a 'working royal' costs 21 times more than an MP.

There are fifteen working royals according to the official monarchy website. That means we pay around £12m a year for each one.

The total bill for parliamentary salaries and expenses is around £155m. Add other costs of running the House of Commons and we're looking at a total bill of approximately £365m. With 646 MPs that makes them cheap by comparison, at just £565K each.

The cost is not offset by the Crown Estates

It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."

Source: Professor Phillip Hall

The cost is not offset by revenue from tourism

The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

Putting to one side the visitor figures for these attractions, there is no evidence that tourists come to the country because we have a monarchy.

For more information visit our tourism page.

Value for money? Comparisons with republics

In a piece of spin that would put Alistair Campbell to shame, palace spokesmen have claimed in recent years that the monarchy is 'value for money'!

Even assuming that their own figure of £40m is accurate, an elected Head of State would be considerably cheaper.

Here are the costs of comparable European heads of state:

Some people have argued that figures from countries such as Ireland don't count, because it's population is so much smaller. This argument doesn't make sense - both countries have one head of state, each head of state has one family, each head of state has only 365 days of the year to fill with engagements and official duties. How many people live in the country makes no difference to how much it should cost to run the office of head of state, provide security and so on.

What you can buy for £183m

It may not be a large slice of government spending, but here's what you can get for £183m:

• 10,726 new nurses; or
• 9,241 new police officers; or
• 9,089 new teachers; or
• 3,660 new GPs; or
• 563 new hospital beds; or
• 18 new schools