Royal Finances: The Queen is more value-for-money than republican presidents

The Queen, more value for money than a president
The issue about royal finances has been the subject of never-ending arguments. Republicans and royalophobes have pointed out many times over that The British Royal Family is a complete set of trash and should be abolished. They're expensive and doesn't cost a cent to the British people. They're impractical and so they should be phased out.


But is it really true? I conducted a little research and have found out that maintaining a "royal" figurehead on top of the government is more value for money than electing a president.

I have found out that in 2011, the United States president is more expensive than the Queen of England, while the total budget of the British monarchy for the same year was a little over $40 mn. This includes the salaries paid for the members of the Royal Family, officials and staff, travel and maintenance of the Royal residences. Meanwhile, Barack Obama enjoyed $71.3 mn, which included his "basic" salary and allowances, that of his first lady and family, officials and staff, and operating expenses and maintenance of White House. The budget doesnt include payment for the king's travels, etc. 

Now come to think of this. Who draws more crowd? The Queen or President Obama. I bet there'd be more people wanting to rub elbows with The Queen than pay a courtesy call with the American President. Americans themselves are the keenest to go to England. Ask their itinerary and visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, or taking a glimpse of The Queen will surely pop up their mind.

Now, who's the real value for money?

Comments