13 years after the death of Diana: Are the Royals worth the money?
- Image via Wikipedia
Can we still afford the British royals?
13 years ago today, Diana, Princess of Wales, was tragically killed in a car crash in Paris. No matter what views people had of the royal family, it was a shocking event that opened a Pandora’s box of emotions and left nearly all of us mourning her loss. I can still hear the awful silence, interrupted only by the arrogant clatter of helicopters, as her hearse went past on the (closed) M1 motorway very near to my house. My mother and I, and all my neighbours, watched from our upstairs windows – and howled.
Yet did Diana deserve this powerful iconic status? Why did her funeral reduce half the country to tears? Could it be that even the more republican amongst us still place a value on our controversial royal family?
We’re very fortunate on BOTB to have been able to interview author, columnist, TV presenter and royal expert Christopher Wilson who has written several best-selling books – and appeared on numerous TV programmes – about the British royal family. Here he shares his views on how they affect tourism and the British economy in general…
SStM Speaking as one of the country’s top commentators on the royals, what are your views on their effect on the UK economy?
CW It’s a timely question. We have recently seen the whole process of funding the British royals coming unglued, with the revelation that their funds are running out and their palaces are crumbling through lack of basic maintenance. The actual cost of running the royals is about £37million a year, which as a percentage of UK GDP which is about £1.5trillion, is miniscule. But it’s right to have the debate as to whether they are value for money, and whether they contribute anything substantial to the economy.
SStM OK, let’s start with value for money.
CW Depends how you define it. I’m a great fan of the Queen and, frankly, whatever she costs, she’s worth it as far as I’m concerned. It’s also well-known that she saves money where she can – I mean, would you breakfast off a Tupperware set, Suze? Do you go round switching off lights every time you leave the room? She’s not mean but she’s prudent – that sends out a good message when you think of the colossal cost of running her palaces.
SStM What about the lesser royals?
CW This is where the problem arises. The Prince of Wales is known for his extravagance – he has 150 personal staff, way in excess of the Queen – and doesn’t mind how much he spends. Or who knows it. I personally find his lifestyle overly elaborate, but it’s his money: because of his huge income from the Duchy of Cornwall he’s pretty much self-financing. I do worry that when he becomes King and Prince William inherits that Duchy income, that Charles is going to find it difficult to rein in.
SStM And the others – Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward?
CW Probably the most compelling argument against the royals being value for money is that there are too many of them. People like Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Kent, and the Duke of Gloucester – all cousins of the Queen – are in receipt of public funds, though it appears that it’s the Queen who is paying them. Prince Charles is right when he says that, when his turn comes, there has to be a slimmed down operation. We are, after all, in a cyber-age where the role of royalty is under much closer scrutiny than at any other time in history, and too many hangers-on isn’t good for the brand image.
SStM So what about their contribution to the economy? Is there an argument, in the 21st century, for getting rid of this anachronistic bunch?
CW It’s curious that, in this day and age, there is no effective republican movement. In Queen Victoria’s time there most certainly was, and I think there were something like six attempts on her life. So getting rid of them requires getting up a head of steam which, frankly, just doesn’t exist today. The greater danger to our present royal family is public apathy, but the Brits still like a bit of pageant and pomp, and that the royals can provide in spades.
SStM So it comes down to Ruritanian spectacle?
CW Well, in a manner of speaking you could say that. Nobody puts on a parade as well as the Brits, and the jewel in the crown, literally, is seeing the Queen being driven by horse and carriage surrounded by Guardsmen and cavalry and bands up and down the Mall. There can be no doubt that it’s a major tourist attraction – nobody’s done the numbers convincingly, but something like Prince William’s forthcoming wedding to Kate Middleton will contribute hugely to inward tourism income.
SStM Ever thought that maybe the businesses who benefit most – the hotels, the souvenir sellers, the tour guides – should pay an extra tax on their royal-derived income to help fund the royals?
CW A good thought, even though that would include me, since a large part of my earnings come from books and articles about the royals! But certainly there has to be a new way to fund them – a way that’s realistic as to their true cost. Successive governments and, let’s be frank, the Palace itself, are squeamish when it comes to talking about money and that’s why the royals are in a financial mess right now – a chaotic form of funding which needs modernizing. It also needs more openness – there’s an awful lot of hidden cost, like security, we never get to hear about.
SStM So in a nutshell, do the royals have a good or bad effect on the UK economy?
CW Not good but very good. Take them away and you substantially weaken inward tourist income, that’s hundreds of millions of pounds – it’s a no-brainer.
SStM Christopher, thank you so much for sharing your views. Please drop by soon to answer BOTB readers’ questions and comments!
Read more about Christopher Wilson at www.christopherwilson.info
About Special GuestBirds on the Blog welcomes Guest Bloggers of all abilities, if you have something to say and you wish to share it with us - get in touch
View all posts by Special Guest →
11 Responses to 13 years after the death of Diana: Are the Royals worth the money?
All that jazz – All in A Day
Review of: Cousin Alice Jazz Music by Cousin Alice: Elaine Sturgess Reviewed by: Elaine Sturgess Rating: 5 On January 21, 2012 Last modified: January 30, 2012 Summary: What makes Alice so distinctive is her wonderfully smokey voice, a quality that furniture designer William Yeoward found so arresting at a concert she was performing for the [...]
A great and timely post having recently visited Windsor Castle! I always took the Queen’s Palaces’ for granted and assumed (wrongly I think) that as a tax payer we foot the bill for looking after all these historic places. It was only when we visited a couple of weeks ago that I took note they are actually set up as a registered charity, with the money being ploughed back into maintenance etc. I also signed a form so they can claim gift aid from our payment to visit. I also noted Windsor Great Park, which I presume is also owned by the Queen and thought how many hundreds of thousands a year that must cost to run and maintain, would the government foot the bill for that if the Queen was not around to pay the bills via the charity or would the land be sold off and another great historic park disapear from the British landscape?
I think their value speaks for itself – where else in the world would you find tourists who would physically push a 3 year old child out of the way so they can get a picture of the guards changing??
If there was no royal family, would there still be the chairty or would it all pass to the Government and be left to crumble? Now that is a bill I would like to see!
A great and timely post having recently visited Windsor Castle! I always took the Queen’s Palaces’ for granted and assumed (wrongly I think) that as a tax payer we foot the bill for looking after all these historic places. It was only when we visited a couple of weeks ago that I took note they are actually set up as a registered charity, with the money being ploughed back into maintenance etc. I also signed a form so they can claim gift aid from our payment to visit. I also noted Windsor Great Park, which I presume is also owned by the Queen and thought how many hundreds of thousands a year that must cost to run and maintain, would the government foot the bill for that if the Queen was not around to pay the bills via the charity or would the land be sold off and another great historic park disapear from the British landscape?
I think their value speaks for itself – where else in the world would you find tourists who would physically push a 3 year old child out of the way so they can get a picture of the guards changing??
If there was no royal family, would there still be the chairty or would it all pass to the Government and be left to crumble? Now that is a bill I would like to see!
Pingback: Tweets that mention 13 years after the death of Diana: Are the Royals worth the money? | Birds on the Blog -- Topsy.com
Fab interview Suze, thank you.
It’s sad that MPs are so busy lining their own pockets with expenses that they allow our history to crumble right before our eyes.
Perhaps they are hoping to snap up a bargain when they have to be sold off?
I think the Royal family have a tough job, are overly scrutinised and do a remarkable job all things considered.
You make some interesting points about charity and the royal family, Emma. I wonder if, in all these calculations done by the media concerning how much the royals cost us taxpayers, the amount for charity raised directly or indirectly by them is deducted? Somehow I don’t think so….
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
I totally agree that the royal family have tough jobs despite their comfortable circumstances.
Given the choice between having their so-called “riches” but shackled by their obligations as royal, being an ordinary person, I know which I would choose. I think that’s what Princess Anne had in mind when she saw to it that her children did not get royal status and although daughter Zara has probably benefitted a bit from that (although she wouldn’t if she were anything BUT an excellent event rider, which she is,) son Peter Phillips is an ordinary bloke doing an ordinary job. And Princess Anne’s family have the additional job spec of doing work as royals, as well as their own day jobs.
That’s not to say that some royals are not social and financial parasites, however. But then, people who audition and get selected for “reality TV” shows could be accused of that too; fame and fortune, often with zilch talent.
At least most of the royals – even the parasitic ones – feel obliged to observe a few basic rules of decorum…
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
He’s talking complete nonsense of course. Perhaps you’ll do an interview with someone from Republic too? http://www.republic.org.uk
Certainly we’re more than happy to explore all views on the royal family, like any other topic! Please drop me an email ( suze at suzanstmaur dot com ) and we can take it from there. In the meantime I will try to track you down via your website. Sz
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
Fantastic blog.Ok. I’ve been a Republican since I was about 15 and here’s why. It’s not the Royals, personally so much, although the mistakes and exposures of past twenty years has outed them as Normal Humans born into a ridiculous position who don’t have a perfect family or any particular morals.This country has been hobbled and sabotaged by the stupid class system, as have many other countries, for centuries. We now have a notional meritocracy but the group trance of the majority in the UK is one of limited horizons, poor education low self esteem and apathy.The Royal family are on the top of a pyramid of unjust inequality. Added to that, The Queen is quite mad. To be born and have that kind of responsibility and lifestyle would make most people psychotic. This evidenced by her publicly expressed belief that God put her there. This is an insult in an, again, notionally secular country. Especially toxic symbolically when we are all constantly told that people are born equal.Look at history. Right from the beginning of time, people who have ‘achieved’ and ended up with power have done so by violence, trickery, persuasion, and slavery. Hard work and brains rarely came into it. Others around them supported this because they also have their eye on the power ball, waiting for their own chance, so the brutal and dishonest get away with it. Look at Tudor history. Those people were feted by the ignorati while in private they behaved like murdering animals.They still have too much power. How many people know that if the head of our legislature feels that things in any area are getting out of hand, he or she can go to the Palace with something called an Order In Council and the Queen has to sign it. Democracy? Pah!This is not a legacy I would be proud of. They are also genetically damaged having inbred for years. None of them has ever achieved academically or run a decent business. They treat their children like strangers and separate themselves from the hoi polloi. Diana was a shallow, neurotic, vain woman, but she had compassion and busted their appalling snobbery, and for that she was a pariah in Royal circles. Marrying Dodi Fayed and having his child would have finally blown the sham apart, no doubt.Now they are reduced to an eccentric, anachronistic bunch of PR dummies, going round the World sucking up to Big Business to ensure our oil supplies etc. It doesn’t matter about what it costs to maintain it all, we’d still do that as in Republican countries. No one ever asks HOW they made all that money. They should be forced to live on it, the property, including the Duchy of Cornwall and all the palaces should be compulsorily purchased.And NO, they don’t attract more tourism. There is plenty of evidence that people go to France, Italy, China, Russia, the USA and other places to stare at their historic buildings and museums.Logically, you never see the actual Royals when you come to the UK, so what’s the added value? Stonehenge and Alton Towers are, according to the English Tourist Board, the most visited places in the UK by tourists. QED.No, they are a symbol of all that’s been bad about our society for generations. Pension them off and let’s have no more of this extraordinarily unhealthy and inappropriate phenomenon.
I could never object strongly to the royal family largely because although they may bark occasionally, they do not have any teeth with which to bite either socially or politically. What is at issue here is whether the cost of keeping them going is worthwhile as a tourist attraction and to give us a little bit of street cred internationally.
Let’s face it, especially with our current range of politicians we need all the kudos we can get. The Queen may be nuts but at least she knows how to use a knife and fork, has more dignity and diplomatic experience than any of these elected tw*ts and as far as we know doesn’t fiddle her expenses.
As for the others, they’re a mixed bag. As Christopher Wilson pointed out Charles is extravagant but at least he funds himself from the Duchy of Cornwall revenues. If the government were to compulsorily purchase that, Rhiannon, would you expect them to do the same for all privately owned property and estates? That’s sort-of what happened in Russia during the first half of the 20th century and look where it got them … communism failed and the place is now run by crooks and mafias.
I don’t say, as Christoper does, that the royals are well worth having, but on balance I think the fact that the senior ones mostly do give Britain a bit of tradition and dignity to cling on to – as well as being a major, if not huge, tourist and media attraction – just about justifies their existence.
And riches or not, I wouldn’t want their jobs.
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
Wow, Rhiannon, that’s a fairly strong diatribe!!
I don’t think I agree with a lot of your points, though I do agree with some. I do feel it is a great shame that it is Charles and not Anne who is next in line for the throne. If there is one Royal off his rocker, I’d say that was Charles.
I certainly don’t feel it is fair to equate the Queen to the Tudors in her behaviour. You may think she is in some way mad, but I think she has fulfilled a role she never wanted in an exemplary manner so far.