ForumGarden

hello again from grumpy towers.

now i,d better be carefull how i write this one

( if you dont want to end up in the tower ED )

first the politicians and now her majesty is under scruitiny of just how much it costs to keep the royal family

The Royal Family cost each taxpayer 69p last year, while the Queen is relying on reserve funds to cover her costs, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed.

The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m during the 2008-09 financial year.

That amounts to 69p per taxpayer, up 3p from last year.

Palace accounts also showed that the Queen dipped into savings to boost her Civil List - which pays for the running of the Royal Household - by £6m, taking it to a total of £13.9m.

This is the highest amount ever drawn from the a reserve fund created from surplus Civil List money accumulated in the 1990s.

If the Queen continues drawing on the reserve at the current rate, she will run out of funds by the start of 2012 - the year of her Diamond Jubilee.

Reporting from Buckingham Palace, Sky's Royal correspondent Sarah Hughes said: "The Queen may be one of the richest people in the world, but most of that wealth is tied up in royal houses. It's not ready money.

"Meanwhile, the costs of running a Royal Household are substantial.

"There's the expense of receiving guests at Buckingham Palace, among other bills, and the Queen has not had a pay rise in 20 years."

Hughes said the next opportunity for negotiating the public funding for the Royal Family would come in December 2010, after the general election.

"They're not going to be asking for more money, but they will make the Government aware of the deficit," she said.

The current deal - in which the Queen gets £7.9m a year - was agreed by Sir John Major in 1990.

The accounts showed that last year the Civil List was spent on salaries at a cost of £9.9m, administration at £1.5m, housekeeping and furnishings at £700,000 and ceremonial functions at £400,000.

Unnamed costs added up to £300,000, while £1.1m was spent on catering and hospitality.

Within this, garden parties cost £600,000 and the bill for food and the royal kitchens came to £500,000.

Keeping the Palace and other residences spick and span cost £300,000 for housekeeping, while £400,000 was spent on furnishings and equipment.

Computers and IT systems cost £400,000 - double the figure for 2007 following the launch of a new British monarchy website and new personnel, payroll and online recruitment systems.

Royal Accounts: The Queen Publishes A List Of The Cost Of Keeping The Royal Family | UK News | Sky News



AAG

now thats some bill to keep the royal family going and the queens finances are also to be published .

hopefully there will be a full and open account of just how much the queen costs the taxpayer and how it is spent.

we also need to know just what these Unnamed costs that added up to £300,000, are.

her majesty needs to be honest about where the money goes and not have to resort to hiding figures like our politicians and being forced to bring their expenses to public view.

still if you,re a bit short your maj you could disopse of the royal train and the royal plane or sell some propety or racehorses that ought to bring a few bob in .

but to be honest i cannot see the queen traveling virgin first class by train or plane can you ?

I have absolutely no problem paying to keep the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh (who i adore) but it's the hangers on that annoy me. I saw some astonishing figures for the security to keep Beatrice and Eugenie in their gap years.

The extended family are no use to man nor beast and it's time we stopped paying for them.

However, i would offer to pay for Camilla to have her teeth done as they are a bloody disgrace.

oscar;1211075 wrote: I have absolutely no problem paying to keep the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh (who i adore) but it's the hangers on that annoy me. I saw some astonishing figures for the security to keep Beatrice and Eugenie in their gap years.

The extended family are no use to man nor beast and it's time we stopped paying for them.

However, i would offer to pay for Camilla to have her teeth done as they are a bloody disgrace.


they could mistake her for a horse !!!! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

pantoandy;1211082 wrote: they could mistake her for a horse !!!! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
As a horse, she'd get better treatment. While they are there, they can iron her face...... miserable woman. :yh_rotfl

You got the Queen for 69p - with Charlie, Phil, the lady with the equine teeth, Princess Ann(?e), a few other older royals and the red haired boys whose names escape me but isn't one now in the army or something all thrown in? That's less than a plate of egg and chips in a wimpy bar!!!!! Good value at double the price, though I'd probably prefer the egg and chips... but I'm a French Aussie colonial, and therefore my opinion is doubly dodgy.

AussiePam;1211431 wrote: You got the Queen for 69p - with Charlie, Phil, the lady with the equine teeth, Princess Ann(?e), a few other older royals and the red haired boys whose names escape me but isn't one now in the army or something all thrown in? That's less than a plate of egg and chips in a wimpy bar!!!!! Good value at double the price, though I'd probably prefer the egg and chips... but I'm a French Aussie colonial, and therefore my opinion is doubly dodgy. Not at all Pam, we like a bit of French Aussie Colonial.

If i had my way, on the death of her Maj, we would skip several generations of heirs and crown one of the corgi's. I don't actually think anyone would notice and it would only cost a bowl of dog food once a day to keep it.

AussiePam;1211431 wrote: You got the Queen for 69p - with Charlie, Phil, the lady with the equine teeth, Princess Ann(?e), a few other older royals and the red haired boys whose names escape me but isn't one now in the army or something all thrown in? That's less than a plate of egg and chips in a wimpy bar!!!!! Good value at double the price, though I'd probably prefer the egg and chips... but I'm a French Aussie colonial, and therefore my opinion is doubly dodgy.


pam you,ve set me off fancing egg and chips now must go and make some

I rather fancy a plate of egg and chips myself, PantoAndy - add a couple of Irish sausages and I'm in heaven. Please pass the ketchup!

Oscar - I've never cared that much for corgis - they're irritatingly yappy bad tempered little buggars.. and welsh, so by FG experience probably would correct our grammar and spelling then burka us - primal scream - I'd jump in the billabong .... but I digress... By all means crown a corgi - but not as Dog of Australia. Here we shall have a good true blue cattle dog as Chief Woofer of the Republic of Oz.

AussiePam;1211714 wrote: I rather fancy a plate of egg and chips myself, PantoAndy - add a couple of Irish sausages and I'm in heaven. Please pass the ketchup!

Oscar - I've never cared that much for corgis - they're irritatingly yappy bad tempered little buggars.. and welsh, so by FG experience probably would correct our grammar and spelling then burka us - primal scream - I'd jump in the billabong .... but I digress... By all means crown a corgi - but not as Dog of Australia. Here we shall have a good true blue cattle dog as Chief Woofer of the Republic of Oz.
Well, her Maj does have some pretty canny gun dogs also so perhaps one of those could be a better choice. On reflection re: the Corgi's, yes i agree and they just can not get the hang of descending from the aircraft onto the steps and the red carpet. A gun dog would save the tax payer the wages of a lackey to carry the crowned dog from the aircraft. Also, they are much more adept at hunting, shooting and fishing. this of course will be vital when holdaying at Balmoral. New coinage will be far more pleasing on the eye to have a gun dog gracing the 50p piece as if Charlie were to succeed the Queen, they would never get his ears on our stamps and coins. No...... Gun Dog it is.