28 Jun 2009
In what can only be described as one of the most breathtakingly dishonest pieces of political spin to come out of the Buckingham palace press office the Queen will again tomorrow claim that the money she costs the taxpayer is offset by revenue from the Crown Estate.
The monarch’s own website states:
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2008 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £200 million.
The implication here is that the taxpayer is getting a good deal – making a profit on the monarchy. It’s a line that is swallowed hook, line and sinker by many royal apologists who are all too eager to excuse the Windsor family’s abuse of public money.
On the Times article which reported attempts by the palace increase the Civil List one reader added the comment: “The Queen should take back her own estates and fund the operation of the Crown herself.”
Let’s be quite clear about the true nature of the Crown Estate: It is not and never has been the personal property of the Windsor family.
The key question is this: if we scrapped the Civil List or abolished the monarchy altogether, what would happen to the Crown Estate? The answer is simple: it would continue to raise revenue for the government.
That “exchange” the palace disingenuously mentions was not an exchange between the family and government, it was a transfer of revenue from one branch of the state to another.
The Crown Estate has always been there to provide funds for the running of the government. A long time ago the government consisted of the King and his Privy Council. To pay for the apparatus of the state, which was much simpler and cheaper back then, the Crown Estate raised revenue that went directly to the King.
In the 18th century the job of government was moving from the palace to parliament, so revenue from the Crown Estate was transferred to the Treasury. Of course that money had also been used to run the palace and fund the lives of the King and his family. So in order to ensure the King could continue to run his palace in the style to which he was accustomed the government of the day set up the Civil List, a payment to the palace by the government.
That’s it. There was no personal sacrifice on the part of the monarch. There is no personal claim on the Crown Estate from the Windsor family. If we become a republic the Crown Estate will remain as it is today, perhaps with a change of name.
So it is dishonest to claim the Crown Estate revenue somehow makes the £183m bill for the monarchy OK. It doesn’t.
One final thought. To those, like the reader of the Times article, who think the exchange should perhaps be reversed, be careful what you wish for. As I said, the Crown Estate was there to pay for the running of the state. When that exchange took place the Treasury took on full responsibility for funding state activities. If the exchange were reversed the palace would not only get the Crown Estate revenue back and lose the Civil List, they would also have to start paying the state’s bills – that’s billions of pounds for the NHS, the welfare payments, the armed forces, schools and much more besides.
The taxpayer is a net loser in this arrangement. The Civil List has survived long after the monarchy served any useful purpose. We can scrap the Civil List, keep the Crown Estate revenue and start talking seriously about sensible constitutional change.
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Sunday, June 28th, 2009 at 10:46 am and is filed under Monarchy myths, Republic & Campaigns, Royal Finances.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
June 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
We could kil the myth once and for all by just (part) privatising the Estate!
June 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
It’s not just the Crown Estate. It’s the Duchies and this whole “private income” myth. Plus all of the grey areas about Palaces and Art Collections and so on – which are allegedly owned by us… oh, hold on, no they’re the Queen’s… oh, hold on, no they’re ours (but we can’t see them, or have to pay to see a few of them), and so on.
It’s a black art in trying to work out what is ours and what isn’t, but I think the general principle is that it’s the Queen’s when everything’s hunky dory, but if a castle burns down or something needs tarting up then it’s ours, until we’ve paid the renovation bills, and then it’s the Queen’s again.
Roll on the days when this entire family of scroungers are officially retired and the British People have access to, and benefit from the proceeds of, the things we already own.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I think it might be a terminal case of “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is my own” here.
Amazingly, when I was born there was no built-in private income. If there had been I would have probably spent my life apologising for it, or I might have died from embarassment. However, I did receive an education and my life does not consist of a series of token gestures designed to make me look acceptable.
To enjoy an unearned £18 million annually requires a close environment in which a coterie of similar greedy people exists. Once again, for me, it is not about the money, but the unprincipled demand for respect and the dilapidated system of power and privilege it endorses. Apologists say that Windsor works tirelessly – I have a recent letter from my MP who describes him as having made “…perhaps the most important single contribution in helping disadvantaged young people. In many other areas, he gives voice to the views of millions of people across the country and is often ahead of his time in espousing different ideas.” I have reminded him that there are many selfless people who contribute significantly, but do not have the privileges of unquestioned access to the media, an army of publicly-funded under-managers, advisors, assistants – and untold wealth and power by birthright.
Some areas of Cornwall (and I know the ‘Duchy’ extends further) are run-down, financially-precarious and deprived. Many indigenous residents, who do not rely on tourist hotspots, would welcome more regenerative incentives. I do not know precisely just how much employment or wealth Windsor creates for Cornwall – I suspect not much – but during his lifetime the equivalent of nearly a billion has lined his own pockets.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
So if I get you right, the queen agrees to give to the government (i.e. the taxpayer) what is the taxpayer’s by right. And in exchange, she demands £41.5 million from the taxpayer plus and undisclosed amount in expenses. So if the government then refused to stump up this money, she would take it from the Crown Estates on the assumption that this money is due to her because she is the head of state, and there would be nothing we could do about this?
Or have I misunderstood this situation?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
God help us if we ever become a banana republic……please also report a lot of the good side of things that the royals do….not just the negative…
June 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Who ever mentioned bananas?
Colin, you start us off on all this good stuff they do and we’ll see if any of it amounts to a reason for keeping the monarchy.
Cheers
June 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Good things the royals do?
To be honest, the only function they possess I can think of that could even remotely be argued as ‘useful’ is that of providing a smokescreen for the latest government cock-up.
Embarrassing report on ministerial misconduct due to be published? Hey, look at that royal wedding over there!
Public support for illegal war severely lacking? He/she was truly the prince/princess/corgi of hearts…
Chances of re-election less likely than Michael Jackson doing panto this year? Aaw, what a cute ickle royal baby!
Yes, new and improved Royal Family: whitewashes governments again and again! Order yours today – don’t get caught with your pants down without it!
Anyway, I love bananas…
July 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The theft of public land is a scandal, but it is legal for the royal family to take back parts of Windsor Estate for own use. Privatisation by a sale would be good.