bjturk.commentary: a royal slant

bjturk.commentary
hanging from my own rope

opinions
just vote no
political charities
irresponsibility
favors make enemies
war profiteering
arpaio, enough!
royal views
memorial flags
role models
the race lost
9/11 + 2 years
once a soldier
war on iraq
the pledge
war on terrorism
the clergy under fire
u.s. pride
post-9/11 defiance
the church's faith
election 2000
candidate credibility
harry potter
father's day 2000
the family ages
customer disservice
elian gonzalez
y2k
laid off
power of the cto
alternative education
olympic spirit
one tough sheriff
re-election '98

humor
kiribati

join the acme yacht club,
for sailors of misfortune!

this bjturk.commentary:
a royal slant

Through the years, it has never failed to suprise me how slanted news coverage tends to be when it involves the British Royal Family. It is clear, from reading and hearing the various reports, that news organizations either love them or loathe them. Despite this, all reports tend to take the same angle when it comes to reporting one particular subject involving the royals. That subject is how much it costs the United Kingdom to support them.

Let's be frank. Each year, the reports dwell upon how much it costs Britain to support what are alternately portrayed in the press as womanizers and drunkards, ne'er-do-wells and welfare cases (excepting Her Majesty, of course, whose conduct is and always has been above reproach). In the year just past, the British government issued a report stating that supporting the Queen cost the government US$66 million. That's US$1,269,000 per week, or US$180,821 per day, to support a mere handful of people. That's quite a bit of money. Even so, the most recent report chirps that it costs each Briton merely $1.10 per year to support the royal family. What a bargain!

Now let's turn to the other side of the ledger, as it were. In the expense report is a mentioned-but-not-emphasized and, often, overlooked item. That item is how much money that the royal family directly contributes to government coffers. It is, no pun intended, a princely sum. The royal family turns over to the government (in exchange for above mentioned support) the revenue from lands owned by the Crown. There's a lot of land, which includes the racetrack at Ascot, and it generates a lot of money.

In 2002-2003, those lands owned by the Crown generated revenues, transferred to the government, of US$310 million. That is not a typographical error. The income received by the government from the royal family exceeded the expense of supporting the royal family by over 450%! This being the case, it must be stated that the royal family did not actually cost the British people US$1.10 per person. In fact, the British people reaped a benefit of US$4.07 per person because of the royal family. And let's not forget that these figures do not include what Her Majesty and family voluntarily pay in income taxes, which no doubt add considerably to that sum.

It may surprise some that I am not necessarily a huge fan of the royal family, but I am quick to see their value. They are a living symbol of the United Kingdom's rich heritage and history, and their value as a tourist attraction cannot be overstated. Those who would abolish the monarchy would severely harm their own government, as one could hardly assume that the family would continue to pour funds into the government for the benefit of people who no longer supported them. While the royal family may be an anachronism, they are of inestimable value to the nation, and their benefits to the nation, both fiscally and symbolically, far outweigh their costs in Pounds Sterling.

June 24, 2004

You'll always be broke if people don't pay you attention!
Your feedback is welcomed.

[home][web design and development][writings][stores][about us][donations]