What is the fiscal relationship between the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and its taxpayers? I have no idea.
Accordingly, I have no idea as to the accuracy of this 5-minute summary, made by CGP Grey (via), but it was entertaining and, I imagine, contains a least a kernel of truth:
U.K. readers, what say you? (Transcript after the jump.)
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.Look. At. That.
What a waste. That queen, living it off the government in her castles with her corgis. (and gin) Just how much does this cost to maintain?
The answer: 40 million pounds.
That’s about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.
Sure, It’s still twenty-three pence short of a complete shield, but it might be more than you want to pay.
Any after all, those are your coins. Why does the queen get to steal them?
Well, it’s a little complicated.
The story starts with this guy: King George the third, most well known as the monarch who lost the United States for the Empire.
Less well known – but far more interesting – is he likely suffered from a mental illness called Porphyria which has the unusual side effect of transforming your poop from it’s normal boring brown to a delightful shade of purple.
But I digress – back to the the reason the Royals get tax money.
King George was having trouble paying his bills and had racked up debt.
While he did own huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses.
He offered a deal to parliament: for the rest of his life he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary and having his debts removed.
Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term.
Just how well did parliament do? Back to the present let’s compare their profits and losses by using a tenner to represent 10 million pounds.
The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.
But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.
200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.
That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.
So stop all your moaning about the Royal family and how much they cost and how worthless they are. The Royal Family is Great for Great Britain.
Doing the individual’s math again:
160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds and 60 pence.
Because of the Royal Family, your taxes are actually 2 pounds and 60 pence cheaper each year than they would otherwise be.
But perhaps that’s not enough for you because you’re a real greedy geezer. Why not kick they royals out and keep 100% of the revenue.
Because it’s still their land. King George the crazy wasn’t crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits.
But it wasn’t only him: every Monarch since King George the third has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: Voluntarily.
If the government stopped paying the Royal Family’s living and state expenses the Royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Monarchy-haters, would go UP not DOWN.
Plus 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family.
Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.
Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.
Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.
And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.
After they’ve finished buying maple syrup & cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services & illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?
The United Kingdom.
Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.
And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.
The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.
It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.
Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.
12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds.
Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.
But perhaps you don’t care than the monarchs are a perpetual GOLD MINE for the UK. You’re a Republican and you dislike like the royal family because of their political power. After all, the government gets all its right to rule through the crown, not the people.
And yes, I’ll grant you that back in the head-choppy days of yore, this was a legitimate concern, but the modern queen isn’t a dangerous political lion but a declawed kitten.
Her powers are limited to a kabuki theater act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.
Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
But, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps the queen is a political ticking time bomb, just waiting for her chance to declare random wars and devolve parliaments for the lulz.
But until that day comes.
God save the queen.
Comments 59
moshik — April 29, 2011
well, the funny & sharp response video tells an alternative (more convincing) story:
http://youtu.be/_2IO5ifWKdw
Ariadne — April 29, 2011
Ack. Not to get hung up on something that's not really the point of this cute video (off to watch the response video next!), but... porphyria is a *physical* illness. Yes, porphyria attacks can involve cognitive symptoms, but porphyria itself is not a "mental illness." Even if it were, it makes me sad to see/hear "crazy" lobbed about so lightly. That easy laziness of language is what's socially interesting to me here. I know I have a bit of an impaired sense of humor about it :/ but as someone whose husband has bipolar disorder and whose very close friend has porphyria, I get a little tetchy about this particular issue.
Now, to the response video! :)
SAYWHAT — April 29, 2011
YOU CAN MAKE A SHIELD OUT OF BRITISH MONEY!?!?
Camille — April 29, 2011
I have no idea how much of this is true, but the image at 2:56 when the narrator says "and the UK’s castles so awesome?" represents the French monastery of the Mont Saint-Michel, not a British castle.
Kettu — April 29, 2011
I wouldn't care if the Royal Family delivered wheelbarrows of cash to my front door every day -- an institution which forbids Catholics (let alone non-Christians!) from becoming head of state (or even the spouse of the head of state), explicitly subordinates women to men and gives ultimate legislative power to an unelected, unaccountable body has no place in a modern Western society.
Anonymous — April 29, 2011
For those of my fellow Americans who are complaining about the country being run by the rich and their business I would remind them that the Revolution was led by the rich who didn't want to pay their taxes and who were able to profit considerably by buying up the property of Loyalists which had been confiscated by the Rebel "States" Since the Constitutional Convention, the rich have maintained control of the Federal Government. George III was not a tyrant, but a supporter of law and order. A support that the "aristocrats" of the colonies found a threat to their control of their individual colonies.
v — April 29, 2011
The crown also owns a lot of land that the government uses for a peppercorn rental--some of it in downtown London. Not to mention the tourism dollars.
m — April 29, 2011
The tourism bit rings a lot false from someone comming from another monarchy. Sure, Sweden is quite obscure of tourism, but we to stamp the crown on a lot of things, just like the brittish, and retain a lot of the traditions. But even with the massive wedding last year, there was barely a glance from the outside world (which, granted, could have something to do with the royal family being as bland as humanly possible for a royal family). I very much doubt that it isn't any better in any of the other European monarchies (for example, who goes to Holland to see the queen?)
boo — April 29, 2011
Again on the aside, did the author do any research at all? Porphyria is not a mental illness, it's an inherited genetic disorder that can affect either the nervous system or the skin. Although a reddish color to one's urine is a symptom, "purple poop" most certainly isn't. Given that George III eventually developed dementia, he probably has one of the nervous system variants.
But purple poop? Ridiculous, and undermines the validity of the rest of their "data".
A — April 29, 2011
I'm a third one who bristled at it being called a mental illness.
Finnegan — April 29, 2011
On the "civil list vs estates" thing: I find the assumption that feudal land deeds secured by mass violence should be considered legitimate in a democratic society rather questionable. Monarchical property can be and has been appropriated by democratic governments.
CharlieMcMenamin — April 29, 2011
Your original video is absurd, and I urge everyone to watch the rebuttal video linked in the first comment.
There is a (deeply submerged) republician sentiment in the UK which probably amounts to about 20 - 25% of the vote. It never gets given any political expression, so it appears invisible. A key feature of this submerged sentiment is the absolute conviction that the Royal Family's ancestors *stole* the land from the ancestors of the rest of us. There ate other problems as well, as the rebuttal video sets out well: a non separation of church and state, the accumulation of 'royal' power by the Executive, the non elected nature of the House of Lords and so on. It's only a semi-democratic system by American standards.
Plus,of course, it's just *so* embarrassing to be treated as America's pet Ruritanian fantasy.
Valentin — April 29, 2011
It is quite ignorant on how the tax system works and how wealth is spread. You cannot count average tax increase per person. Since the median average salary is a lot lower than the mean average salary, and since the tax rate is not fix (so the tax is not linearly proportional to the salary), and since there are very few people who earn most of the money, talking about average tax per person is just pointless.
Second, I bet the royal family does not pay tax on owning that land. They do not pay either for the revenue of that land.
How much would it cost to the *median* British tax payer if the land was given back but they would not get any money anymore from the government? I do not know. At least, *I* do not claim I know. It is a very complex calculation to do here to know. But I can bet it will not be much.
And for the tourism, they can maybe build an Eiffel tower and stop the rain, seriously. They would multiply the number of tourists by more than 3.
ongoalucinogeno — April 30, 2011
Do Anyone think that the bit where the narrator talk about the favorite two places for Americans to travel (Canada and Mexico) was a bit... offensive? Well, I'd think that is rather offensive to asume that the only things worth in Mexico are prostitutes and drugs... I mean there are other cool stuff there... I just want to bring that to debate.
j — May 5, 2011
I like how this story accepts at face value that the land of the royalty belongs to them, no questions asked, as if they didn't extract that by force from taxpayers in the first place
toeuston — May 20, 2012
ha! they could "take back the profits from their lands". i'd like to see them try. the only reason they 'allow us to have their land profits' is because if they didn't, they wouldn't last long...
awful video. so many faults...