Should Royal's pay their own way?

[Stix Chix]

reading comments on news sites i've seen some commenters arguing that the taxpayer shouldn't fund the royal families official duties.  the argument being that they have enough money to do it themselves.  there has also been talk about not funding their personal security.

i feel that although the royals do have personal wealth the costs of their official duties should be funded by the public.  it doesn't make sense to me that they should have to pay their way for these things any more then a president or prime minister should.  they aren't doing it for their health....they aren't doing it for fun...they do it on behalf of Britain.

as for their security....i feel the cost should come from taxes for much the same reasons.  even if the security is needed during private events.  but it makes sense that those minor royals who are not under any great threat (and dont carry out many official royal duties) shouldn't need as much security.  i think some might be necessary though.  they should be given protection when undertaking royal duties.  and certainly their residences should be secured.

so far as the Civil List (the money the Queen is given to run her duties, offices, staff and repairs--currently £7,900,000 a year) i actually think the government is being very stingy with that.  considering the HUGE amount of money her Crown Estates gives to Britain's treasury...£7.33 billion.  yes billion. none of which she can touch.  all of it going to the Treasury....and therefor to Britain. 

in short....i think there's plenty of money to fund the royals official duties....and the government has control of pretty much all of it.  so maybe taxes shouldn't be used...maybe it could come right from the treasury?  i just wouldn't suggest it should come from their bank accounts.  glorious though they may be.


what do you think?

[Jenee]

I absolutely agree with everything you posted!

[gec]

I great contention Stix Chix!

I have concerns with the funding of security to minor royals, like Eugenie on her gap year trip, which the taxpayer funded. Where does it end?

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have given so much, in terms of their time and have been truly dedicated to getting involved in improving relations within Britain and the Commonwealth. The Queens image which she has developed is one of a high work ethic and complete dedication to her role, so I have no qualms about her funding.

I know that Princes William and Harry are well liked on these boards, so I don't want to be too controversial. Their royal status have provided them with the best education, incredible opportunities, access to the most exclusive night clubs/sporting clubs and wealth. Yes, the have been born into roles they may otherwise have not have chosen, but then seem to very much enjoy the upsides of this role.

Williams lack of royal duties has been questioned, and following on was a PR bonanza of short lived photo ops. While I understand his army duties eat into his time, I think he has to be involved in more official duties to show that he is worth taxpayers pounds.

These two young men have the opportunity to make some very positive changes in the world.

I understand that being in their 20s they should be able to enjoy themselves and 'be normal' (eg partying).

But the reality is, young people like myself who are at university, live away from home, struggle to make ends meet financially. The reality is, in your 20s you must work extremely hard to keep your head above water.

So to cushion the blow, I think it's important for William and Harry to get involved more in official duties to subside debate surrounding funding. We give to them, I feel they should give back.

[Orchid]

If we are to consider the monarchy as an institution/an organisation, and it’s tax payer funded contributions as “expenses” then by all reasonable accounts such funding should be reserved exclusively for activity undertaken in the course of officially representing the UK.  I would deem such activity to constitute official travel, accommodation during official visits and staffing (including protection). Just as Prime Ministers and Presidents receive funding for official activities, so too should active members of the royal family be entitled to expenses for “work” undertaken.

My issue is when tax funded expenses are stretched to fund the activities of non-working members of the royal family when they are on their own time.  Particular examples are Beatrice, Eugene, William and Harry who should not be supported under the umbrella of tax contributions when holidaying, clubbing, playing polo etc. This is personal time and all such expenses deemed necessary for them during such hours should be accounted for personally. I don’t see the argument that they never stop being royal stable enough to justify the British citizen funding every single aspect of their lives. 

Prince Andrew is a prime example of “off-peak” excess and abuse of tax funding when he used a helicopter to fly into a golf club party for one hour and then charged the £2,000 fee as an official expense. This was not a justifiable expense and I believe it’s an abuse of position and an abuse of the system currently in place to support the Royal Family.

I also believe the issue of private residences needs to be addressed.  Tax payers are funding the upkeep of these residences, which include conservation and staffing, even during times when the Queen and members of the RF are not in residence. I’m of the opinion that it’s completely unnecessary for the Queen to hold so many residences and receive tax funded contributions for all aspects of their upkeep.  Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral, Holyroodhouse, Kensington Palace, St James Palace and (Frogmore?). This many residences is unnecessary. It’s a monstrous excess in modern society and it’s not a viable concern in the long run. Charles’ idea of donating certain residences to the National Trust is a more encouraging step forward as the National Trust is a charity, which although part funded by public membership and donations, also receives grants for the upkeep of our English heritage. To have these buildings work for themselves is a far more viable and acceptable way of generating money for their upkeep than simply relying on tax payer contributions to foot the bill for the excessive lifestyle of one family.  Quite frankly I find it obscene given the level of homelessness in the UK that one family should not only have this many residences but also have them funded by the tax payer. It’s one thing for the tax payer to fund one official working residence and the official staffing that assists those working members in their official state duties, but it’s quite another that "getaway residences" such as Balmoral and Sandringham which are only part inhabited throughout the year and personal staff for all residences (i.e. maids, butlers, chefs et al) should be claimed as official expenditure too. This is a lifestyle choice, not a state issue.

I find the institution of monarchy an undemocratic one at present. I think it would be far more democratic if a wide public vote were held on the institution and if the majority were in favour of continuing the institution as it currently stands then the civil list and extended contributions would feel less like an inequitable and dictatorial affair.

More often than not people foster the argument that the Royals cannot help being "born into privilege” and as public figures “serving” the country we ought to take up the financial burden of supporting them. Yet I find this a seemingly unbalanced argument that doesn’t take into account an even handed approach to their public service verses their private lifestyles.  A better balance needs to be struck between how we fund them as official figures of state and how they fund themselves and their lifestyles as private individuals. Right now, I don’t think this is being achieved and the public are not given an open and democratic say in how the Monarchy ought to be funded and run in modern society.