Monarch, excellent condition, full service history, 61p each

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

According to a BBC report today, HM the Queen has cost UK taxpayers 61p each for the year 2004. Personally I think this is excellent value for money simply not to have a politician as head of state and Pip the Greek is an added benefit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

Does anyone else have any idea what their heads of state cost them? (we’ll assume you are all average taxpayers, unless you want to be difficult) I suppose a number of Commonwealth (not all, see another threadm where it’s discussed ad nauseum) countries are getting excellent value for money, as the Queen costs them nothing. But then again, Governor-Generals probably aren’t free.

PS - This isn’t a ‘My country’s better than yours’ thread. I just happen to quite like the status quo (no, not them) for the UK’s head of state.

#2

wow, no offense to those who are loyal to those royal family. No wonder that tony blair did not object when he was being called president blair by one of those tv show host.

#3

I’m sorry, but calling that waste of rations “President BLiar” is an insult not only to the Royal Family (who are far from perfect) but more importantly to everyone in Britain!

He would love to be Generalissimo BLiar and for that reason alone I would support the Royals!

#4

I have a nice piece of rope put aside especialy for Bliar. :twisted: The man is a self-agrandising, dishonest, second-rate arsehole. :evil:

By the way how much do non-executive Presidents like that of Germany cost?

#5

So a question… How much power does the queen have? and what do you guys think of those two royal people who got married recently- the one who was having an affair while married to princess diana? In my opinion I thing that guys a bastard!

#6

At least Charlie boy only had 1 affair whilst married to Di, unlike Di who boffed just about everyone.

#7

I heard she worked her way through the cavalry messes!

#8

& male servants were also fair game for the hussy…

(you may have noticed that I don’t really have time for the evil, manipulating, loose-moralled gold-digging slut).

#9

& male servants were also fair game for the hussy…

(you may have noticed that I don’t really have time for the evil, manipulating, loose-moralled gold-digging slut).[/quote]

Well said that man! I was disgusted by the outpouring of “grief” that gripped the country when she lost an argument with a French tunnel. IIRC it was only a matter of days afterwards that Mother Teresa died and the news of the death of a true modern day saint was completely overshadowed.

Diana was no saint, she did do a lot for certain charities but always made sure that she came out of it looking good. IMHO she was a self serving bitch!

Peoples Princess - my arrse!

#10

As to what power the Queen, or strictly speaking, The Crown has, these days the Royal Prerogative is exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.
To suggest, though, that the Monarch is a figurehead is to rather miss the point.
Without the Monarch being in place, Parliament has no powers and nor does the Prime Minister, since all legislation is passed in the name of the Crown, and requires Royal Assent before passing in to law.
The last time Assent was withheld was in the 1700s, but the power remains.
The Crown is part of the checks and balances in a Constitutional Monarchy, since the Crown cannot govern without Parliament, and Parliament cannot govern without the Crown.
See wikipedia for a fairly comprehensive description of the powers of the Crown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative

As for Diana, she had a good PR machine, but for my money, wanted the perks of the job without the responsibilities that went with it.
I agree with the comments above, Charles rather more sinned against than sinning, as you might see from the very close relationship he has with his sons.

(edited for typo)

#11

Ah I see, thx for answering guys. Looks like ive been corrupted by all those documentaries on Princess Diana, and how she died and stuff.

#12

The President of The United States receives a salary of $400,000 per year. Benefits are many, including free medial care.

His salary is equal to about $.02 per year per citizen.

#13

Is that meant to be “medical” care or “remedial” care (sorry, couldn’t resist - although he’s been shown to be quite an intelligent chap from his records, I couldn’t resist the obvious one :twisted: )

#14

Medical care, obviously. Oh how exciting it is to harp someone for a typo. Joy joy.

#15

Talk about missing the point - your typo gave me an excuse to make a cheap joke about your president’s supposed lack of intelligence. It was not a dig at your typo.

#16

Thanks for that. Now, when a democrat offers me ‘his two cents’, I know where I can suggest he spends them ;).

I don’t suppose you know how it works out when you include all the other costs? For example, travel costs are included in the 61p figure, so for fairer comparison, Air Force One, Marine One and so forth should be added. Then again, I’ve been unable to find out if the 61p is the net cost or the total outlay per taxpayer. This is important, because the Crown owns properties and businesses that generate substantial income for the exchequer, so gross and net cost are likely to be quite different.

I wonder if any of our international readership can give similar figures for their heads of state?

#17

61p is the gross outlay - once the Crown Estates have been taken into account, the Crown contributes £2.31 net.

#18

Wow! Reading the BBC report, you’d think that Pip stole the money from starving orphans, purely out of spite. I didn’t actually expect to see a net contribution, let alone one that big. I wonder if the Dear Leader contributes as much? Or even the Dear Leader’s delightful wife.

Do you have a source for this? I’d quite like to have a closer look.
[edited to add: I have just noticed three .pdfs on the original page, so I’ll have a peek there now. I might just find what I’m looking for.]

#19

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/anrep/2004/index.asp?page=cr12

More than £170 million - all the net revenue generated annually by The Crown Estate - is paid to the Government.

Then divide this by 58M people, & take the 61p off (actually gives £2.32).

What you have experienced, young crab-to-be, is an example of BBC bias.

#20

Thanks for that. Now, when a democrat offers me ‘his two cents’, I know where I can suggest he spends them ;).

I don’t suppose you know how it works out when you include all the other costs? For example, travel costs are included in the 61p figure, so for fairer comparison, Air Force One, Marine One and so forth should be added. Then again, I’ve been unable to find out if the 61p is the net cost or the total outlay per taxpayer.[/quote]

Nope, I have no idea. Perhaps it’s available on the net, but I kinda doubt that.