The Cost of the Monarchy

There’s a cerain section of the populace that says we should abolish the monarchy because of the money they cost us. Leave aside that we certainly make a profit from the tourism for a moment and ask whether a Presidential system would actually be cheaper?

Two chauffeurs are assigned to the president, who can choose from 61 cars and seven scooters.

For longer trips he can step into two Airbus A319 CJ jets, two Falcon 900s and four Falcon 50 planes.

Officially,
the palace’s annual budget is €32 million. However, according to an
independent audit by a Socialist deputy, this is only a third of the
true figure. Other ministries funnel money to the palace but foot the
bill, he concluded.

However, if the Elysée fails to find favour with the Sarkozys, the
presidency comes with 10 other official residences, including the 14th
century Rambouillet Chateau.

Perhaps not, eh?

5 responses

  1. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    That is an executive Presidency though, a figurehead one could be cheaper. The really strange one is the enormous cost of Germany’s presidency.
    I’m not so sure the ‘certainly make a profit from tourism’ can be so glibly asserted, nor if you weren’t a Monarchist it’s not the kind of the figure you would crawl all over. What size of profits? Would that profit not be made if Elizabeth Windsor was living in Sandringham and Buckingham Palce and Windsor were open to the public 24/7? After all Versaille draws in the crowds more than 200 years after the revolution.

  2. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    I already covered this on an earlier thread (12.45 7th May).

  3. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    It’s an interesting argument Mark, and a fair point that as you don’t spend any of your own money on premiership football you don’t care how much they earn. But I don’t think it applies to the Monarchy, which is funded out of taxation. A fairer system would be if people could make voluntary contributions to the Monarchy of their choice, and then competition could decide which was the richest and most powerful.

  4. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    Matthew thanks, I’m not sure how one country could have competing monarchies though, isn’t the general idea that there is only one monarch at any one time?
    After all, the monarchy is subject to some democratic/popular control (see Abdication in 1937) if they do stuff that is totally inappropriate. Our present Queen, mastermind that she is, knows perfectly well that Charles would be one heck of a gamble so she’s hanging on until William is up to the job. And if those Communists were correct, I still think the Royal Family is reasonable value for money.

  5. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    The Abdication is an interesting one, because it’s not clear what the public’s view would have been. By the time they knew, there was a pretty effective campaign against the King, and he wasn’t doing himself much favours either.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading