Sir, Robert Cole’s commentary (“What about using the piggy bank, Your Majesty?”, June 30) and Valentine Low’s report (“It’s time for the Queen’s ten-year pay rise — and she wants 150 per cent to make ends meet”, June 30), do not make any mention of the income from the Crown Estate. Its net revenues are given to HM Treasury in exchange for the Civil List. Last year this amounted to £211.4 million. Using the largest sum mentioned of £41.5 million per annum head of state expenditure, the British taxpayer, therefore, profited from the sovereign to the tune of £169.9 million in 2008. A good deal in straight financial terms even without going in to the myriad but less tangible indirect benefits to the UK taxpayer of the monarchy, tourism being but one.

Why, therefore, should the Royal Household consider the outrageous suggestion of mothballing palaces? A large proportion of the royal expenditure is in wages, and often this involves highly skilled workers, such as specialised craftsmen. This is just the wrong time to be considering cutting costs, putting people out of work, adding to the social security bill and potentially losing these people’s skills for ever.

Were a highly profitable company to announce factory closures and job losses, particularly in the current economic environment, it would rightly attract strong criticism. Why then suggest that the sovereign should do the equivalent? This really would be a betrayal of her subjects, as well as potentially damaging the heritage of future generations by failing to keep up the royal palaces to the highest standards.

David Cameron should have no qualms about increasing the Civil List to £20 million or more (leading article, June 30).

Julian Y. Keanie

Edinburgh

Explore Letters

• Feedback