Monarchy Good Value for Money?

The value of the monarchy has been the subject of fierce debate in England for many years.  You either love or hate them, and all of us have commented, at some time in our lives, about the amount of public money that is spent on them each year.  Are they worth it?   With all the possessions they have, you might ask, how did this ‘civil list’ get started anyway?  The answer lies in the distant past, back into the 17th century and the reign of William III and Mary II.

Before them, in 1689, monarchs were supported by hereditary revenue and taxes, but they ordered their parliament to establish the principle that expenses incurred in supporting the monarchy should be separate from the costs of government.  At first, they were granted a yearly sum of £600,000 – for the cost of the civil government – though the passing of the ‘Civil List Act’ of 1697 increased this to £700,000.

As vast an amount as this represented in those times, it still proved too little for some of the later Kings and Queens.  On several occasions, parliament had to step in to bail out errant royals.  Queen Anne – 1702 to 1714 – overspent by £1.2m, and George I –1714 to 1727 – by £1.3m! 

When George III came to power, it was decided in 1760 that the whole cost of government should be met by parliament, in return for the surrendering, by the monarchy, of all hereditary revenues, mainly the Crown Estates, for the duration of their reigns. ( As a matter of interest, this amounted, in 1997-98, to £113.2m, which was paid into the Treasury.)

George III, however, soon found ways to abuse this, overspending by £1.1m, so that in 1777 his grant was raised to £900,000.  Reform was obviously needed, and it came in 1782, after hard lobbying by writer and statesman Edmund Burke.  Wasteful practices were done away with, and some parliamentary supervision was introduced.  Costs began to go down.

When William IV acceeded, in 1830, the cvil list was reduced to £510,000 and used only to cover the expenses of the royal family, and the court.  This remained so until the last century, when the relatively new practice of making direct grants to other royals came into being. In the reigns of Edward VII, George V and George VI, the queens were granted £40,000, which the Duke of Edinburgh also received at the start of our present Queens reign.

In 1952, the civil list was expanded to include allowances to Princess Margaret – £6,000 rising to £15,000 if she should marry – and £25,000 each to minor royals who undertook civil duties.  A groundswell of public and parliamentary disfavour was stilled, in 1993, when the Queen agreed to reduace the cost of the civil list by meeting the bulk of family expenses from her own income.

She also gained much public favour by agreeing that she and Prince Charles should start paying income tax for the first time, though this has never actually become law.  She currently receives £8.9m annually from the government, 70% of which goes to pay for staff.  More of it goes to fund the cost of royal garden parties, state visits etc., while still more goes to fund expenses for other royals, like the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex.

When you consider that the £600,000 allowed in 1689 would probably equate to many tens of millions in today’s terms, it’s easy to see that the costs of the royal family have been significantly reduced over the centuries.  The current royal family are financially much more aware,  which must surely be welcomed by everyone over whom they have dominion.  Whether you personally love or hate them, isn’t it good that, for once, it seems we’re going to get a ‘royal return’ on our money?