To Top

Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again!

It has long been the contention of those who would abolish the Monarchy that one of the virtues of a republican system is that it is, in some way, axiomatically cheaper than a Monarchy. On the face of it, it’s understandable to see why some may buy into this claim. After all, you don’t see presidents processing in state carriages or attending many great parades in their capital city, do you? (Hold onto that thought).


As with so many things however not everything is as it seems and in this case, not by a long shot.

To start this, I should prefix this with some background and also an explanation as to how I came to the following figures in this report. Firstly, this article was a long time coming. For some time now it’s been widely asserted that a republic would be a cheaper alternative to the Monarchy, to the point where fewer people seem to be willing to challenge it. This article acts as both a reference guide to Monarchists trying to prove the point that, actually, republics aren’t inherently cheaper (but Monarchies are better value for money) and also a full explanation of my case to any republicans who decide to read through this piece.

The figures I reference in this report have been researched through what are reputable and reliable sources. Some are translated from their original language (hence some of the links lead to a Google translate page, for reference) and some are embedded in reports (I’ve done my best to try and signal where). But there’s no trickery going on here, I promise, the figures are accurate and my calculations are – to my certain knowledge – sound.

And without further or-do, I begin…

In this past year, the British Monarchy cost taxpayers £35.7 million. That represents a cost of 56 pence per person in the United Kingdom. The money, taken in taxes from the treasury, though pegged to the value of the Crown Estates (it’s complicated), covers the state expenditure of The Queen and her public role, including the maintenance of palaces (held in trust for the nation), the cost of performing over 400 engagements annually (travelling around the United Kingdom and affording recognition to local communities and other work), holding national celebrations (drawing millions of people together in celebration) and hosting receptions, garden parties, lunches and audiences to honour achievement and grant recognition.

Incidentally, the cost incurred by the public does not include engagements carried out by other members of the Royal Family (other than The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh), which is met through The Queen’s personal income from the Duchy of Lancaster (and it is her personal, private income). Oh, and The Queen doesn’t get a salary either.

All of the above considered, you might now be thinking we could do away with all this and slash our costs? Think again.

Fortunately, we don’t have to go far across to the continent to get a fair comparison on cost with a republican model. The President of France, whose role is very similar to that of Her Majesty, cost French taxpayers a whopping £91 million. For the privilege of paying almost three times as much as the UK, France gets to forgo the pageantry and ceremonies, engagements and grand receptions that come with Monarchy, and they get a politician too.

The total cost works out at £1.43 per person in France. Still a good deal?

A little further south and we find the Italian Republic. Its president performs almost exactly the same constitutional function as The Queen, bar a few political powers, yet amazingly costs Italian taxpayers £181.5m per year! That’s £3.08 for every Italian! Yet again, no pageantry, no state celebrations and no apolitical, uniting national figure in their leader either!

At this point, it’s worth drawing a distinction between executive and non-executive presidencies. The former is effectively both the Prime Minister and President, the latter means there is a distinction between the office of president (usually ceremonial) and that of Prime Minister (runs the country as head of the government). A non-executive presidency is most similar to Constitutional Monarchy, so I’ve endeavoured to use them as examples.

Coming in almost identical in cost with the British Monarchy is the Polish presidency, costing Polish taxpayers £34 million per year. Giving extra consideration to the smaller population of Poland and comparing once again to the British Monarchy, costing a fraction more, it’s clear where the value for money lies once again.

The final of my examples is the German presidency, costing Germans at the least £30.8m (this includes £4.8m given annually to the nation’s 5 retired presidents).

Additionally, if one were to go down the route of an executive president, the figures can reach eye-watering sums, with the estimated cost of the American presidency reportedly going into billions, it’s no surprise this is the model British republicans try to distance themselves from.

Judging by these figures it appears that some of the most similar countries to the UK are actually paying all the costs they would for a Monarchy (and then some), without actually having the colour, spectacle and other benefits that comes with one! Indeed, there is a fascination with the British Monarchy in many republics around the world. 9.9m German tuning into the Royal Wedding in 2011 is just one example of this, yet they still pay over £30m for their own presidency (which, interestingly, there’s a push by some to abolish).

There’s one other benefit of Monarchy that a country enjoys too, and it’s one republicans will dismiss at the first opportunity. That’s its economic benefit. They would of course say there isn’t one. I’m telling you, however, as a matter of fact, that there is. For the following, I’ve carefully selected my evidence, owing to republicans’ insatiable desire to point out that a lot of the documentary evidence about the economic benefit of Monarchy are predictions rather than post-event measurements.

The birth of Prince George, a new future heir to the throne, back in 2013 was a cause for great national celebration. It was also a cause for great economic celebration as the birth of the Prince caused an extra £247m to be injected into the economy from everything from royal baby themed merchandise to extra consumption of food and alcohol to celebrate the occasion.

Now, assuming that President Hollande of France isn’t suddenly thrust into the spotlight of fame with a wedding that captures the public’s imagination, it’s fairly reasonable to assume there’s virtually no economic benefit to having a presidency.

As a closing thought, I’ll point out that this article isn’t a list of the benefits of Monarchy. That might come in a later edition. Rather, this is a response to a long-running republican line, which I very much hope you’ve found informative.

If you have any questions or challenges to the contents above, leave them in the comments box below.

photo credit: UK Parliament via photopin cc

  • Cepe

    The benefits are greater because I dont think that any of the comparative costs include maintenance of (in effect) public/historic buildings, ie President Hollande does not pay for the maintenance of the Elysee Palace whereas HMQ does pay for the maintenance of Royal Residences (BP, Windsor, KP).

    Interesting report – many thanks

    • Phillip House

      But the French people still do thru their taxes.

    • Sniddles

      I don’t believe that’s true. I’m quite certain that aside from the maintenance and upkeep of Royal buildings, the Royal expenses published annually also don’t account for a number of major costs, the largest of which is bound to be security (these figures are never disclosed).

      • Jeffers

        possibly, but it’s likely those figures would be a wash. If you had a President, they would still require as much security as a Monarch, possibly more, as the rate of change due to elections would require all past presidents and familly have equal security as current

      • Jeffers

        possibly, but it’s likely those figures would be a wash. If you had a President, they would still require as much security as a Monarch, possibly more, as the rate of change due to elections would require all past presidents and familly have equal security as current

        • This Is My Display Name

          Why would a former president (and their family) require a security footprint equal to the current president & their family?

          In the US, arguably the most well-known presidents in the world, the government provides a significantly limited detail to former presidents & their wives and absolutely nothing to their adult children or grandchildren.

          If the US can do that, why can’t the UK?

          • Jeffers

            Because we live in a crazy freekin world and US presidential leaders have a very high profile in that world… The security provided former leaders is not that much less than when in office… And a new batch come along every 4-8 years. At least with the sovereign, it’s a known, fixed cost…

          • This Is My Display Name

            In what world is the amount of security given to former US President “not that much less than when in office”?

            That’s not even close to being true.

            For example, look at their motorcades.

            The current US President has quite a few cars in his & it necessitates the stopping of traffic. You aren’t even allowed to walk in the street when it’s going by.

            Any former president (take your pick) is generally 2 SUVs (if that), with no lights, sirens, or street closure.

            Detail sizes reflect the same.

            As I said in the comment you replied to (but apparently didn’t read), the former US presidents, despite still being just as well known, have a security footprint that’s only a small fraction the size of the current office holder.

  • Robert

    Why is it NEVER mentioned that the Duchy of Lancaster gives 85% of it’s income to the people, The Queen only gets 15% of the income, The Duchy of Lancaster was set up to give her an income. So in Fact, the tax payers don’t pay her anything. The Queen gets money from her own Duchy and gives the tax payers a majority of its earnings and is expected to pay for repairs to the Palaces out of this income. Even tho it is constantly mentioned the Palace is not her’s but held in trust for the people.

  • Louise

    Also, as a non-Brit but Commonwealth subject of HMQ, even my most ardent anti-monarchist acquaintances want to visit all the Royal sites in UK as well as the museums. While France retains some as museums, the tourism draw card for the UK & it’s economy should not be underestimated.

    • Sniddles

      Of course, but should the Monarchy be rolled up and closed tomorrow, we would still retain those historic sites. In fact, many of them would be opened to the public and tourism revenue could be increased.
      It’s the history that tourists come to see, and that history would remain even under a more democratic and modern system.

      • Setsurinvich

        so then why are more monarchies on the list of most “freest” countries in the world? Its clear that being a republic or monarchy doesn’t mean your system is more free.

      • Jeffers

        I don’t know that to be totally true… I’m fairly certain Windsor or Buckingham Palace draw far more than Hampton Court, Kew, or Leeds, for example… As an American, it’s much more fascinating because a “real Queen” lives there…

      • Derek_Gunn

        Modern systems (like fracking) are not all they are cracked up to be.
        This is something you will have gleaned from the above article, I hope.

      • Derek_Gunn

        Modern systems (like fracking) are not all they are cracked up to be.
        This is something you will have gleaned from the above article, I hope.

      • Derek_Gunn

        Modern systems (like fracking) are not all they are cracked up to be.
        This is something you will have gleaned from the above article, I hope.

    • Andy

      Yeah. I mean, who would ever go and visit the palace of Versailles now that it doesn’t have a king in it?

  • Elizabeth

    Brilliant, succinct analysis — I will link to this next time I read a screed on the ‘expense’ of the British Royal Family. Thank you!

  • robert

    A thousand years of stability, service, grace and majesty … priceless.

  • Jeremy Wright

    You start with the claim that the UK monarchy costs £35.7m, Take us more seriously and give us the real costs.

    • Joe Eldren

      Why don’t YOU take us more seriously and start giving us 85% of the population who don’t want a republic a PROPER costed alternative to the monarchy, so we can debate the issues? Whine all you want about the existing arrangements – it seems that that is all republicans can do – but if you haven’t got anything to replace it, it seems you just fall back on the default republican tactic of ‘having a go’ at anyone who doesn’t buy in to the Campaign’s self-serving propaganda. But then you’re a politician manqué aren’t you? Facts aren’t really your forte.

  • John Ingram

    Hollande is an executive president.

    • lrb1

      But they also have a Prime minister

  • British Royalaty Admirer

    In your costings there is nothing offset regarding the huge income through tourism that the British Monarchy generates.

  • Tahira Nawaz

    Economic costs and benefits are not only and authentic determiners of great reality, elegance, sacredness and rule of monarchy. Even the most ardent supporter of Republic would realize it.

    • Duke of Yuck

      What ARE you on about?

  • Gisela Böttcher

    And what about feudalism? If you can do without that surrounding aristocracy thriving on mortgages families have tou pay every three generations, your argument may be all true.

    • Joe Eldren

      What ARE you on about?

      • Roseanne Volpe

        The queen doesn’t govern or make policy. The President does. I am not anti Queen or Monarchy. I love the ceremony. But I can’t see how it is cheaper.
        What percentage of salary do the people pay in taxes to cover all this? What is their armed forces expenses compared to the USA per comparable population size and engagements.

    • Chris Matthews

      Feudalism would be rather cheaper – as all the government leaders would be self-supporting through the revenue from their lands. Aristocracy in the traditional sense weren’t paid nearly as much as our non-aristo leaders today. Being in government was an unpaid job, which made it a responsibility and an honour.

      Even into the 19th Century, MPs were hardly paid peanuts for their work in Parliament and needed a second job to actually make a comfortable living. Winston Churchill was a prolific author and journalist just to bring the bacon home.

  • S. Adams

    God Save the Queen!

  • catholicchristian

    It would be interesting to see a similar per capita analysis of the American Presidency vs the British Monarchy. Something tells me that we Americans are paying far more. (And, no doubt, not getting our money’s worth.)

  • Puddin

    I would prefer to have the elegant Queen of Great Britain as my head of state. Her experience guarantees that she knows what to do and say in an awkward situation, always at ease in the public, and won’t make comments that would embarrass her subject.

  • Hidi

    Try comparing to a real democracy like Switzerland.

    • regiment1

      Real democracy? You mean the kind where everyone democratically spies on their neighbours and reports them to the police if they put their washing out at the wrong time, have foreigners come to stay as guests, paint their doors the wrong colour or cook smelly food. Where every bank president is an army colonel, vice-president a Lieutenant-Colonel and every bank teller a private.

  • Wilson

    If there is no monarchy in Britain, the connection between UK and other commonwealth members will be weaken and the power of UK in international relations will be weaken as well.

  • F. Hugh Eveleigh

    I disagree. The taxpayer does not pay for anything but security. All costs of the monarchy are now taken from the Crown Estate as well as, for the Queen herself (and this has been the case for centuries), Duchy of Lancaster. The vast majority of profits from the former still go to the government and get lost in the accounts. One could say that all of it goes to the government and some is given back but in fact it is more realistic to say that some 15% of CE profits is given to the monarchy – as it should be considering that the CE is held in trust for the Queen’s heirs and successors and as is the case in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall for the Prince of Wales’s household. The only member of the Royal Family to actually have a government grant for expenses (and thus ‘taxpayers’ money’) is the Duke of Edinburgh

  • Jonathan Severus Eric Turner

    What a gift it would be to the people of The United States if our Head of State were prevented from being a political figure so as to be a unifying figure for all citizens! Presidents represent, at best, about half of the population as things stand in the U.S. At any given point, half of the country or more is opposed to the leader of our country. The American president is not above politics, rather he is at the center of politics…and as such cannot be a symbol for all the people…just those who voted for him or spent large sums of money to get him elected. As for the argument that an elected Head of State is somehow more egalitarian…in the U.S., only the extraordinarily wealthy or those who have ridiculously wealthy support can ever hope to even run for president discounting the majority of this country’s people from the “get go”. The Queen and the Institution Her Majesty represents are such a gift. A self-sacrificing individual who actually understands her role in government and the life of her nation is truly a rarity in the world today. God save the Queen and may Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s family be forever blessed!

    • C Terry Joseph Jodoin

      I am Canadian and our Monarchy cost about $1.60 per Canadian. Of course we do not have the grand spectical as in the United Kingdom, but many royal homecomings are special occasions in our Kingdom. Also the Monarchy protects Canadians against the possibility of a prime minister wishing to abuse his or her powers. Also in my province of Québec were the Parti Québecois wishes that we lose our Lieutenant Governor, I would say that without the Lieutenant Governor, Québec would have the same powers as Nunavut, with the oversite of the Federal Government.

      • Sniddles

        Canadians don’t contribute to the cost of the monarchy.

        • Veronica Vautour

          Oh yes we do. Who do you think pays for the Monarch’s representatives here in Canada, the Governor General and the Lieutenent Governors in each province? Not to mention that we pick up the entire tab every time members of the royal family visit.

          • Sniddles

            Yes, obviously indirect costs and the costs of remaining a member of the Commonwealth.
            I’m no supporter of a monarchist system, but Canada doesn’t contribute to the upkeep of the Royal Family.

          • Veronica Vautour

            I consider the royal representatives in Canada to be part of that whole system and therefore part of the royal family, but that’s my personal opinion. I see that, semantically, we don’t support the “upkeep” of the royal family in England. But we do support their existence with our money.

            If it wasn’t for the continued existence of the Governor and Lieutenant Generals the popularity of the royal family in Canada would be far less than it currently is. Out of sight is out of mind. An increasing amount of Canadians would feel disconnected from the British royal family and at a faster pace than that which has already occurred.

          • Jim

            I’m not a super Royal fan or anything but If we followed the American system it would cost the same, “State” Governors instead of Lt Governors and a President and Speaker of the house instead of a Govenor General and Prime minister. Same costs different names.

          • Jim

            Forgot to mention we “pick up the entire tab” whenever any head of state visits, be it Presidents, Prime ministers, Kings, Emperors, etc.
            And they do the same for our when the visit.

          • Veronica Vautour

            Many visiting heads of state stay at their embassies and rarely do heads of state have the itineraries that the British royal family enjoy when they visit Canada.

            As for using the “American” system, why does everyone assume there are only two options? And why does nobody include the cost of the British parliament and the rest of their political system when comparing costs with non-monarchist countries? Apples to oranges.

      • Veronica Vautour

        “Also the Monarchy protects Canadians against the possibility of a prime minister wishing to abuse his or her powers. ”

        That is just too funny. The Monarchy does nothing for Canada, except cost us money. If only the Monarchists had to pay I’d say have at it. The Governor General’s office is such a farce. The GG would do nothing the PM hadn’t told him/her to do.

        • JohnB

          Veronica, I did read some years ago an explanation of the “safety net” which the Constitutional Monarchy offers Australia.
          I suggest that Canada’s model is pretty darn similar.

          The Governor General is the “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces.
          A rogue Prime Minister, should they decide to become an absolute ruler, calls out the armed forces to suppress the people.
          The Governor General uses his/her power to stop the army attacking the populace.

          Let’s say that the rogue PM arrests and incarcerates the Governor General.
          Then The Queen commands the army to stop suppressing the citizenry.

          The GG or Queen can withdraw a PM’s commission in an emergency.

          On the other hand, should a rogue Governor General decide on a bit of dictatorship, the Queen simply sacks him and commands the army to obey the PM.

          Say the Monarch goes rogue and wishes to call out the army to suppress the citizenry, well, instant republic.

          It’s finely balanced, there are checks on power and circuit breakers to avoid abuse of power.

          I think we in Australia and Canada and New Zealand are very lucky to have such a system.

  • duke of yuck

    In wars men have paid the ultimate price for democracy.

    • lrb1

      Show me democracy in this country?

  • lrb1

    Great article, points I have inarticulately been articulating for years.

  • lrb1

    So stability is not worth the price of hereditary head of state. I would take the stability over a Presidential election every five years, dividing the country, with at least 60% never getting someone they want, a divisive figure in times of national emergency and with elections costing hundreds of millions every five years. And then at the end of it you get a filthy politician who has given bribes and made behind closed door deals to scramble over people to get to the top. And lastly, (oh there is a lot more I just don’t have time) you talk about hereditary privilege, all you will do is replace an incorruptible head of state with a most often corrupt hereditary head of state, aside from Obama there is Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Hollande, Kennedy, Bush, who all come from taxpayer succubus families, for generations, all part of the establishment. All wealthy, all part of the corrupt institutions of government. I’d take a family born to it, with no need to give back-handers and with all their natural human foibles any day, rather than a pretend “democratic” system that foists the same families on us for generation after generation whilst they milk the pot and put their mates in too well paid bureaucratic jobs.

  • Dean

    More than willing to trade our Vice President over here (U.S.) for the Queen…..and will throw in our President for free if I could.

    • Bobbit Mcbobbin

      What’s wrong with Obama. His presidency has brought unprecedented stability and growth to the US as well as true social reform.

  • regiment

    Have you included the costs for the extra turnover in replacing staff, every time a new politician takes office? They tend to come from different parties, so replace all the staff from secretary to bottle washer, in favour of their own hacks. Either because they don’t trust the previous lot or else they have promised some loyal auntie’s dumpling or party contributor, that their ne’er do well son-in-law can have a job. The taxpayer consequently has to fork out about 4 times more to fund their pensions, golden-good byes, new uniforms and equipment, etc, etc.

  • Roseanne Volpe

    Are these figures just the monarchy alone or does it include the costs of the government too. The army, navy, etc, the Prime minister, Parliament, etc. What is the percentage of a person’s income is given in annual taxes? 15%, 25%, 35% 50%,etc??? Did I miss those figures?
    We also supported military actions in other countries for many years-with limited or no British help. USA.

  • Rick Williams

    What isn’t stated here is that the cost of the Monarchy is on TOP of the cost of the Prime Minister. The PM serves much as the leaders of the other countries mentioned, and his/her cost should be added.

    • Royal Central

      It shouldn’t. This is the cost of the Head of State. Some countries, like the US, combine the role of Prime Minister into the office of President. Their figures would, naturally, be much higher. And this is why we didn’t include US presidency figure in this article.

  • Cindy Eve

    Great article. I’m an ardent and long standing Monarchist! God Save our gracious Queen for as long as humanly possible and long may the Monarchy last. We are unique. Yes, yes…I realise there are other Monarchy’s in the world….how often do we hear of or about them?…..the UK Monarchy is unique.

  • Georgette

    Please, what is the cost of both the Queen and the Prime Minister of England together? Would that even out the costs between monarchies and republics? A monarchy does have extra people for whom to pay, even if not paying much. Of course, boosts to the economy are another matter. I’m a monarchists. I just want to have my facts straight. Thanks. Great article and topic. P.S. I can see politicians are always likely to be paid more than monarchs in a constitutional monarchy, because politicians vote on their own income.

    • Jay

      Doesn’t the royal brings more income through tourism

  • Tom

    Monetary issues aside can we look at a question of moral responsibility for our future generations. By removing the archaic monarch system we could make a new beginning to showing all are born equal and a person doesn’t deserve or command respect because of the fact they’ve been born into a stagnant, stale, outdated tradition. There are also a lot of other issues to be dealt with additionally, not just the monarchy, but it could be a start.

    • Royal Central

      Are you seriously suggesting the Monarchy is the cause of inequality?

    • Chris Matthews

      No two beings that ever drew breath were created “equal”. There is no such things as “equality” and never shall be. That lie, that myth is poisoning the world. I’m fully aware that I’m not as equally capable at doing some things than others – and no amount of legislation will make me capable. No Parliamentary vote on the issue will ever make me an Olympic pole-vaulter, for example.

      If you want to talk about stagnant and stale – try this thing called “democracy” that forces us into a dog-and-pony show every 4 years into selecting a new grasping, greedy politician into Parliament.

      I’d much rather have a responsible person who has served in a lifelong apprenticeship for their job before they even take up the mantle. A person who is educated that their position is a great responsibility (or even a burden) that must be handled with great dignity and care. A person who does their job with all their soul until literally their dying breath.

      I don’t believe that there is any other person than a monarch alive who can do their job simply by existing (and tell me if I am wrong with a linked page). Even if a monarch cannot do their public duties (like HM the Queen cannot be in Canada 24/7, for example, or the Emperor of Japan who does his job marvellously even though pulic appearances by him are sacred and few) they can still perform a vital part of their function: which is simply to be. To exist.

      A monarchy provides unparalleled stability. In social terms, political terms, economic terms…purely by being *there* as an overlying shield of nature, a monarch creates a better nation. Something intangible and reassuring that no other leader has. It can’t be created, bought, sold or built.

      But it’s as priceless and necessary as the gravity that holds us to the planet’s surface. And just as taken for granted.

    • Frank Graham

      Tom, cocky, you are being presumptuous in describing the monarchy as stagnant (the Family constantly “reinvent” themselves to mirror the changing times), stale (what’s stale about the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their young family?) and outdated. What’s outdated by a system that works?

  • SaintRef

    While I am Royal through and through, the cost comparison to other presidents is wrong. Obama for example is a politician, not regal. To make a fare comparison you would have to combine the cost if the Monarchy with the cost of Parliament to make a true comparison. Saying that, if anyone has a issue with the cost of the Monarchy, let me know, and I’ll gladly refund the 56p it has cost you over the past 12 months!

  • Adrian Pastorello

    Wonderful news at last, from a highly taxed Brit. living in a stunning country, but where even the air seems to be taxed…

  • Frank Graham

    Well written, informative and – fascinating! I enjoyed every line.

  • Cllr Tom Aditya

    Have you included the cost of elections of a head of state and the complications of it?

  • Minu Salasser

    Not arguing with the point, I would just be interested to see how much the prime minister costs. In reality it would be more fitting to compare the monarchy plus prime minister to a president.

    • Bobbit Mcbobbin

      Google it

  • Blueboy

    Excellent analysis! Those commenting that the PM’s costs should be included for a fair comparison fail to notice that you have not included that office in the cost of the head of state’s establishment in the compared countries. Few tourists watch the changing of the guard at Elysée Palace. The crowd stops traffic at Buckingham Palace!

  • Nrec Lleshaj

    Nothing beats the order of Melchizedek.

  • Geve Narielwalla

    I have not read all the comments below but Republics, across the world, should be spending from several millions to billions every four or five or six years for election of every successive President. There is no account for money value expended in the unproductive time spent by thousands of people before during and after on the election process of every successive President.

  • Igor Nagao

    I am Brazilian and I say that the republic does not really work , our president will cost 290 million reais per year , fortunately the restoration of the monarchy movements grow every day, hopefully soon the Brazil back to a monarchy like United Kingdom

  • Igor Nagao

    I am Brazilian and I say that the republic does not really work , our president will cost 290 million reais per year , fortunately the restoration of the monarchy movements grow every day, hopefully soon the Brazil back to a monarchy like United Kingdom.

  • Ray Thackeray

    Don’t forget also the cost to society of the presidency. How much, for example, is the cost of the upcoming campaign going to work out at – $2 billion? More? Possibly a LOT more when you add PACs and SuperPacs.

  • Leif Aho

    It would be interesting to know the cost difference between the US Presidency and the U.K. Prime Minister.

  • arkymorgan

    Not to mention the political stability.

    Look, you get rid of the monarchy, and what’s to stop your PM from reinterpreting criticism of his government as treason?

    There is a good reason that the parties not elected in the majority are collectively called “Her Majesty’s *Loyal* Opposition” — because their job is to reflect upon, debate and – yes – *oppose* the sitting government on her behalf.

    Constitutional monarchies have proven to be historically the most stable and forward-thinking form of democracy/social democracy the world gets.

  • brianjkillgore

    Without the British royal family, and the magic of castles and golden coaches and princes and princesses, England would be just another dreary island like Ireland. The monarchy is England’s great competitive edge; it would be foolish to kill the golden goose.

  • Suzanne Ennazus

    If we’re supposed to be a democracy and Parliament makes the laws, then to save money we could have a robot as head of state, instead of one inbred, dysfunctional family who live in unimaginable luxury.
    I don’t want a USA system where the head of state is a politician, but I also don’t like having to bow to over privileged stuck up people who live off my tax payers money.
    Prince Charles was just handed over lots of land for free that he collects rent from, and we’re supposed to be grateful if he gives a little from it to charity, while the rest is spent on sending his children to Eton, them not having to take out student loans, exotic holidays and paying for one of his 20 gardeners and other staff for his mansion. While there are many people in this country who can’t afford the land for a house.

  • Monarchism

    Democracy is the same as socialism. Under monarchies people paid an average of 8% of their personal income to taxes. Now that we ‘rule ourselves’ we pay on average 40% for the privilege of voting. A vote which is worse than worthless, it actually costs each individual money yet gives individual people no actual influence. The most freedom was under monarchies. Sadly the House of Commons holds all the power now and the monarchy in the UK doesn’t mean much anymore.

  • Veronica Vautour

    Why don’t you compare apples to apples? You’ve left out the bulk of your British government – Parliament and the House of Lords. There must be billions of pounds spent on them every year.

  • Sniddles

    Although you have to remember that when it is said that these revenues are legally the Queen’s, it is not because they were purchased or colonised by the Queen’s ancestors.
    These lands were given to the Queen’s estate by royal decree. It could just as easily be said that they belong to the holder of the position of “Head of State”.

  • John – Mumbles

    I enjoyed the discussion and noted how complicated the issue is. One subject that does not seem to have featured much is the cost of Elections for a President, I suggest £500M every five years, which of course is saved with the Monarchy. Another factor is that with the Monarchy there is always a fully trained replacement ready, without a gap or disruptive election period.

  • John – Mumbles

    I enjoyed the discussion and noted how complicated the issue is. One subject that does not seem to have featured much is the cost of Elections for a President, I suggest £500M every five years, which of course is saved with the Monarchy. Another factor is that with the Monarchy there is always a fully trained replacement ready, without a gap or disruptive election period.

  • William

    if you compare the cost of UK monarchy with Presidents of other countries you should add the salary and cost of the UK prime minister to that equation, this will probably change your numbers quite a bit. Also not to mention the other heads of state are voted by the people and not merely Inherited roles.

  • Brian Jones

    Rational argument has failed so you come back to what you think. Well some 70% of us in this democracy think different.

  • AnonymousandFree

    “The President of France, whose role is very similar to that of Her Majesty”
    Oh gosh! This is the most stupid and ignorant think I came across so far.

    As if her majesty was democratically elected by people and if she had any executive power. The president of France is a directly/democratically elected citizen with more executive power than the British prime minister, including chief of the armies (including nuclear power), use of decrees, etc … much like the president of the USA.

More in Insight

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 31,631 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2017 Royal Central, all rights reserved.