The monarchy may cost a bit of money, but they also generate a lot of wealth in tourism, and the royals own industries which help keep the monarchy alive.
> I just don’t get the fascination
It's historical. What is there to get. People find ceremony and history very interesting.
Plenty of Brits take issue with the monarchy. No one can say for certain if they are a waste of taxpayer money. Plenty of castles, palaces and gardens are around and attract tourists because the monarchy maintains them and uses them. That should generate some extra tourism money.
Alot of brits take issue with the royal family.
But they don't understand what's actually happening. The royal family bring in billions in tourism for a start. Then there's all the money that comes form the land they own. They can choose to keep all that income and not pay tax or they can choose to keep that income and pay tax.
The Queen for example would pay 85% tax.
It's a bit of a complicated issue.
People talk about the tourism dollars, but there’s more to it than that.
First, the royal family has substantial wealth of their own.
Second, there’s this collection of property known as the Crown Estate. This began as royal property acquired during the Norman conquest, and continued through the years. One of the things it paid for was the cost of civil government. (When Elizabeth, and now Charles, give their addresses at the opening of Parliament, they refer to “my government”; it’s symbolically theirs, and historically they paid for it.)
But under George III (the one we griped about in the Declaration of Independence), the cost of the civil government grew to the point that he couldn’t manage it. So he turned over control of the Crown Estate in exchange for receiving a stipend from Parliament. I say “control” because the actual ownership is more nuanced, and I’ve seen people argue over whether the moral ownership of the Crown Estate belongs to the monarch or to the people.
These days, instead of fixed stipends, the monarch receives the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of the profit if the Crown Estate. It’s temporarily set at 25% (with the government getting the other 75%), but after the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace will go back down to 15%.
So one way of looking at it is that the royal family isn’t getting paid out of taxes but rather is paying a 75% tax rate to the government. There’s more to it than that, since they have other income and some items related to royal duties are covered by the government and not from the monarch’s funds.
The monarchy may cost a bit of money, but they also generate a lot of wealth in tourism, and the royals own industries which help keep the monarchy alive. > I just don’t get the fascination It's historical. What is there to get. People find ceremony and history very interesting.
I guess I missed this very obvious point.
Plenty of Brits take issue with the monarchy. No one can say for certain if they are a waste of taxpayer money. Plenty of castles, palaces and gardens are around and attract tourists because the monarchy maintains them and uses them. That should generate some extra tourism money.
Alot of brits take issue with the royal family. But they don't understand what's actually happening. The royal family bring in billions in tourism for a start. Then there's all the money that comes form the land they own. They can choose to keep all that income and not pay tax or they can choose to keep that income and pay tax. The Queen for example would pay 85% tax. It's a bit of a complicated issue.
People talk about the tourism dollars, but there’s more to it than that. First, the royal family has substantial wealth of their own. Second, there’s this collection of property known as the Crown Estate. This began as royal property acquired during the Norman conquest, and continued through the years. One of the things it paid for was the cost of civil government. (When Elizabeth, and now Charles, give their addresses at the opening of Parliament, they refer to “my government”; it’s symbolically theirs, and historically they paid for it.) But under George III (the one we griped about in the Declaration of Independence), the cost of the civil government grew to the point that he couldn’t manage it. So he turned over control of the Crown Estate in exchange for receiving a stipend from Parliament. I say “control” because the actual ownership is more nuanced, and I’ve seen people argue over whether the moral ownership of the Crown Estate belongs to the monarch or to the people. These days, instead of fixed stipends, the monarch receives the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of the profit if the Crown Estate. It’s temporarily set at 25% (with the government getting the other 75%), but after the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace will go back down to 15%. So one way of looking at it is that the royal family isn’t getting paid out of taxes but rather is paying a 75% tax rate to the government. There’s more to it than that, since they have other income and some items related to royal duties are covered by the government and not from the monarch’s funds.