Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Cost Report on European Monarchies

Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports that the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have the costliest monarchies while Luxembourg has the cheapest based on a report out of Belgium. This story comes via L√ętzebuerg who thinks the Luxembourg monarchy is also the best value for the money. Forgive the slight digs at other monarchies; Luxembourgers have every right to be proud of their Grand Ducal Family. These reports can be annoying (see the rant below) but are also useful at pointing out to republicans who see every monarchy as on the same level as Louis XIV at Versailles. I would also point out that the little Principality of Liechtenstein is often left out (Monaco often is as well, but still commands more attention for, say what you will about the Grimaldis -they are certainly not boring). The Prince of Liechtenstein actually receives no money from his subjects and annually gives money from his own fortune to support the running of the Liechtensteiner government. They also keep a low profile and have remained scandal-free. It is clear that even those countries that spend more on their royals like the British and Dutch still spend far less than most republics and Luxembourg has certainly has much to be proud of with a monarchy that is cost-effective, good at their job, widely loved at home and respected abroad.

10 comments:

  1. I have told Republicans that a Republic tends ot be mroe expensive and they do not beleive me. I wonder if you could provide me with siple statistics to prove this point. I know of plenty but they are comlecated accunts most dont understand, and htis is one of th emost common charges..

    ReplyDelete
  2. That can be a dfficult subject as the numbers are easy to manipulate. For example, the cost of the civil list is not always shown alongside the income the Queen surrenders from the Crown estates. The cost of the US President also often fails to take into account those areas attached to the military budget and the cost of the pensions, protection, office services etc of all living former Presidents and their families. Nor do they often take into account the huge cost of election campaigns every four years. I don't know anyone that's done a side-by-side comparison recently. Budgets change somewhat almost every year. There was a good report done back in the 90's by the now defunct Constantian Society. Of course they found that not many republics were willing to say how much they spent on their presidencies whereas most monarchies are used to being heavily scrutinized. Of course some monarchies are also more tight-lipped than others, especially outside of Europe, though it should be noted that the Imperial Household Agency of Japan has the smallest budget of any other agency with far more being spent on the upkeep of the Prime Minister than the Emperor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Portuguese Republic costs twice as much as the Spanish Monarchy and most other monarchies. It's ridiculous that people still think the reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. True and you could take most of the European monarchies, add their costs together and it still would not be close to the amount of tax money spent on the US presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be fair, the US is also a much larger Conglomerate Nation. Even the Republics of Europe like Germany and France have significantly smaller budgets than the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That is true, but would relate more I think to the cost of the government and administration rather than the Presidency. Also, more members of a Royal Family are expected to carry out official duties whereas no one really expects the members of the First Family to do such things, especially not former First Families. Travel expenses would certainly be greater for a US President (given the vast size of the country) and security may be somewhat higher given that the US President might be more of a target than your assorted royals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, as to Dutchess, people don't think at all. The whole Cost claim is based on getting ones own way. They want rid of Monarhcy base don ideology or persona iterest, and just use the idea of it costign too much as an excuse for abolishing it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. True but I just think that ANY Large and wealthy nation will automatically spend more on their Head of State than woudl a smaller or poorer nation. For instance, if the British Emprie still existed now under basiclaly the same structure as it had in the 19th Century, or perhaps if it had federalised, with Canada, Australia, India, and the rest incorporate dinto a Union like the US, I'd Wager the Queen wudl have a much larger expence account than she does now.

    Though I'd still wager than it'd be less than a US of equel size, populace, and wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe the Radical Royalist has done something of a comparison between the two: http://radicalroyalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/costs-of-presidency-we-can-be-assured.html, and he provides a link to another post on coronations and inaugurations in the comments below.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...