But surely all Charles would need to fund the building of a new yacht himself is the profit from a few packets of Duchy biscuits?

It's not the first time Gove's tried to launch a failboat and it won't be the last. Also, we could just give them one of our eBay warships and get them to collect...

From research it appears that the general opinon from those in the know (and I have no stone-cold facts here because I'm not connected in any way to the Royal Family) that the monarchy costs us about 66p per person per year. The travel budget for the entire Royal family is about £7m per year. The Queen travels in a standard Sikorsky helicopter, she doesn't even own a jet and I think that virtually no one considers her a spendthrift. If she wasn't the queen most people would think of her as an ordinary rich lady with a big stock portfolio. Most of the criticism goes towards the extended family.

The tourist argument is difficult. The revenue from immediate attractions is nowhere near £40m and many people argue that tourists would pay to see Windsor Castle if it was empty. Personally, I think that the royal family is responsible indirectly for a big chunk of the tourist dollar, because people tend to go to London simply because they always read about the monarchy. England makes way more tourist dollars than Germany (a much bigger country). Although there are a lot of tourist dollars in France and Spain and Italy,

The other argument is the "crown estates" which were taken from the monarchy in 1760. They have been managed like a corporation for the last several decades. The value of the "crown estates" is about £7b, or the equivalent of the net worth of the Duke of Westminster (the richest peer in Britain). They produce an income of £200m, almost 5 times the allowance for the royal family. Each new monarch renews the agreement with parliament, so if the monarchy is abolished, the heir might have a valid legal claim on taking the estates back. At the very least they might ask to have Windsor Castle as personal property.

The queen is perceived as having a net worth of about £320m . About a third of that is Sandringham and Balmoral, and some smaller properties. About 100m GBP is a stock portfolio, and the rest is some personal artwork, jewelry, horses and such. A lot of it she inherited from her mother who is from a very wealthy Scottish family.

I'm not that upset at the thought of an extra 62p, for one year to buy her a yacht, this is the Diamond Jubilee for heavens sake, what do you think would a more fitting gift from the nation? £25 M&S voucher?

I accept that quite a lot of people are anti-royalist, which is fine, but if the numbers are true then having a monarchy is worth the price we pay. In comparison, the Danish Royalty costs the equivalent of £10m per year. A much smaller amount, but considering Denmark is the size of Scotland it is almost double the amount per person.

+1
I'm a fan of the queen, but this idea is just stupid.

I do wonder how much of the backlash is also down to it coming from Michael Gove; a man who seems to have managed to piss off pretty much everyone in the country as far as I can tell. I wonder if it would have been taken any differently if someone generally well liked (say Stephen Fry) had suggested it?

62p per person would give a cost of £37m, and one quote from the media is:



A yacht at £40m would incur a cost of £4m (10%) per annum just to keep it ticking over. Would the Queen really want a yacht that would effectively be a 10% pay cut? Or would it more likely that this cost would be hidden somewhere?

1) The price of a new 'Britannia' was estimated at £60m ten years ago, when the old one was decommissioned. That cost was why it was decommissioned rather than replaced. I'd imagine since then there's been a fair amount of inflation added to that figure.

2) True, The Queen does not own any air transport. She doesn't need to. There are a number of RAF transport aircraft (known as 'The Royal Squadron', officially known as 32 Squadron RAF logistics corps) equipped for her and other VIP use. Technically they are only available for her use when not on standard military duties but since they're not fitted to carry standard military equipment and material, they're hardly ever on military duties. So we (as in the state) have effectively 'loaned' her a couple of 'corporate jets'. Obviously she's not the only one using them but I'm dubious the amount she's being billed is their actual amortised cost. A BAE 146 isn't exactly a cheap little runabout.

I do stand by what I said earlier though. I very much suspect that, especially given events re: Prince Philip at Christmas, she will soon be entering a phase where her public appearances and foreign state visits will be reduced and her sons, daughter and grandsons will take over much of the load. In which case, giving her a sodding great yacht she won't actually use all that much seems a rather ill advised 'gift', regardless of cost.

Jon

One can Royally [LIFTED] off!!

Royal yacht plan backed by Prince Charles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/1 ... ce-charles

Not any more I suspect...

I am going to be manifestly unhappy when that cock inherits the Crown.

I'm inclined to agree.

I think that given the general climate, Elizabeth has been quite wise in the way she has acted on the whole so as not to increase animosity from those of a more republican bent. I can see Charles being a monumental penis in that regard, he seems to radiate a sense of entitlement that one doesn't see on the present monarch, and I think that's going to piss off a lot of people.

Hmmm. Today's paper said if it happens it will be paid for by donations, not by the tax payer.
I like that idea, but only if further donations are made to cover the running costs. The tax payer shouldn't have to pay a penny.

The only way I'd support Charles being King was if he immediately abdicated in favour of his son but somehow I can't see him doing that.

They don't need a yacht and maybe the idea of a crusie ship at this particular moment in time, regardless of who it's for, isn't the best idea in the world either.

Maybe the shock of finally becoming king will give him a heart attack

Well, that family does on the whole have a history of the males being short lived and the females living for a very long time...