« | »

Queen Elizabeth Down To Her Last Million Pounds

From the Associated Press:

UK lawmakers tell queen to cut costs, boost income

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

LONDON — Britain’s royal household needs to get a little more entrepreneurial, eye possible staff cuts and replace an ancient palace boiler, lawmakers say in a new report.

The report published Tuesday on the finances of Queen Elizabeth II has exposed crumbling palaces and depleted coffers, and discovered that a royal reserve fund for emergencies is down to its last million pounds ($1.6 million).

No wonder they can’t afford to pay ‘a living wage.’

Legislators on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee urged royal officials to adopt a more commercial approach and suggested opening up Buckingham Palace to visitors more often.

Meanwhile, our Royal Family closes the White House to tours every chance they get.

The committee said the royal household needed more cash to address a serious maintenance backlog on crumbling palaces. It said at least 39 percent of royal buildings — and probably more — were in an unacceptable state, “with some properties in a dangerous or deteriorating condition.” …

In words that have become familiar to Britons during five years of austerity, Hodge urged the royals “to do more with less.”

The report pointed out that the royal household’s staff has remained largely static at just over 430 people in the last seven years, a period that has seen deep cuts to public spending and thousands of civil service layoffs.

Hodge, a Labour Party lawmaker, said Buckingham Palace was only open to the public 78 days a year, drawing half a million visitors, and suggested that boosting visitor numbers could help raise funds…

The queen received 31 million pounds ($51 million) from taxpayers in 2012-2013, but Hodge said the monarch “has not been served well by the household and by the Treasury,” which is responsible for overseeing royal costs.

The report said because of overspending, the royal Reserve Fund had shrunk from 3.3 million pounds to 1 million pounds in 2012-2013, a historic low that raised fears “it could be unable to cover its expenditure on any unforeseen events.”

It is telling that even the Queen can run out of other people’s money.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement it had boosted its income by almost 5 million pounds between 2007 and 2013, and “work on income generation continues.”…

Now if only we could get the Obamas to start carrying more of their weight.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, January 28th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth Down To Her Last Million Pounds”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    My mother is fascinated by Brit royalty. I suppose it’s because her parents (my grandparents) were native to the land and emigrated to the US. But herein lies the rub: They left the UK for better lives; Better job opportunities because Britain, at the time (1920’s) was so badly managed that even the well-shod were struggling.

    But my mother loves to talk about the royal family this and the royal family that, as if she’s personally connected to them somehow and when I point out that they couldn’t give a rip that she exists or not, she gets offended. It’s that type of celebrity worship that accosts people of lesser self-worth when they see George Clooney or Mel Gibson.

    I have to admit, I have looked upon Mila Kunis and other female TV/movie stars with more than just a passing fancy but then, reality quickly sets in and even if I was awarded a date with such ladies, I would find them (most likely) uninteresting, vacuous and dull. There are exceptions and many have been cited as being “engaging and bright” but I reserve that judgement for myself, thank you very much.

    But, the royals—who are they really? Descendants of a bloodline going back to Henry the VIII and before, with a great deal of blood, torture and murder for convenience in their line. All under the guise of being linked to God by divine right. And Henry himself? Didn’t like the rules so he changed the rules. Sound familiar?

    But, the Brits, known so well for their taking pride in things that have no basis in honor, had such pride in their royalty that they couldn’t get rid of them altogether. Had to use the lamest of excuses for keeping them around, as “figureheads and state representatives doing the public relations work that the de facto government should leave to others”.

    The Brits have a lot of good qualities but that stiff upper lip and being unemotionally detached is not one of them. In fact, you can readily identify the difference between a Brit and a Yank on that basis alone, more often than not. But their love of the royals is pathetic. It’s shameful and harkens back to a time when they thought they could return to a monarchy someday.

    Instead and of course, they have replaced the monarchy with a bad socialist device. The government decrees things and the people OBEY. It even has the same flavor as 1700 Britain as everything there is called the “ROYAL” this, that or what-have-you. The Royal Navy, The Royal Mail, etc.

    Jeez, Louise….let it go.

    So forgive me if I don’t especially care about the Tudors running low on cash. Collectively they have spent trillions of the people’s money and wasted it on showcasing a sham. Taxes support their lifestyle…yet they produce absolutely nothing. Sound familiar? In the US it’s called SNAP or some other nifty cutesy name to avoid calling it WELFARE.

    I am to understand that Queen Liz is pretty cool and acknowledges her place in the grand scheme of things…but no so much as to go live in a London flat and drive a Vauxhaul to work. (WORK?! OMG! NO!)

    At one point, Prince Charles bought himself a $100,000 Jaguar X-200 but returned it when the people complained. But that’s the kind of out-of-touch being a state-sponsored royal can bring. Sounds kinda like our people of color in the white house today, does it not?

    And, I’ve even heard the excuse that, “They expect us to live a certain way.”. Really? Well, when you’re on the people’s sixpence, you’d just better be very, very careful how you spend it. They notice.

    So, Queen Liz, sorry for your troubles but I have a 16 year old car that needs a fuel pump right now, do you think you could spare a few quid to help a guy out? I didn’t think so.

    So, cheerio, your majesty and buh-bye.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    England will rue the day they dispose of this Queen. Elizabeth II has, by force of will and her Covenant with God, singlehandedly held Great Britain together. That is not an overstatement. When this Queen goes, England will be consumed in the hell brew it has been yearning to become.

    We will get caught up in it’s wake and will suffer terribly as well. And yes, I mean every word of that. The more I have learned about Elizabeth II the more I am convinced she IS the visible embodiment of England. She IS England. The England which prevailed over terrors great and small, the England which birthed the great minds of jurisprudence of which we are inheritors and the England which gave us Churchill and Blackstone and Common Law. Winston said Elizabeth II was the only Monarch he he could look up to and admire and she was only in her 20s when he said that. Churchill claimed she was every inch his match in wit, intelligence and acumen. Even the execrable Tony Blair who despised the Monarchy came to cherish her and defend her intellect and political sense. Said she alone held him up when the world turned against him and came to see the world through her eyes.

    As she passes the reins over quietly to Charles, great evil slides in with the handover.

    This is the only person about whom I will, “God Save the Queen.”

    • Right of the People says:

      Jack it doesn’t really matter, the UK is quickly becoming a Muslim country. My daughter and her English hubby still live there and every time we go visit I see more and more signs of it, even in the little village they live in.

      England started down this tragic path after WWII when the clown they elected Prime Minister, can’t recall his name off the top of my head, who was a vegan and a socialist who believed the road to happiness was through extreme austerity. Do you realize they still had rationing of meat and other staples into the early 50s? Jolly old England is no more.

    • Petronius says:

      ROP that was probably the Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, whom Churchill once described as “A modest man who has much to be modest about.” Or else it was his Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was an aristocratic Marxist vegetarian.

      Attlee is remembered for nationalizing British industry, establishing the welfare state and NHS, and extending immigration rights to the various non-white peoples of the Commonwealth, and thereby spoiling Britain forever (with a big assist from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).

      Churchill also told another joke about Attlee: “An empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door opened, Attlee got out.”

      QEII is indeed a good monarch, but I find myself unable to forgive her for turning her back on Ian Smith and the Rhodesian people and her friendship with Mandela.

      Still it must be said that the Queen –– and Prince Charles for that matter –– are far better than anything America currently has to offer.

      Of course one of Nerobama’s first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. The British ambassador, thinking there must have been some mistake, sent it back to the White House, whereupon Nerobama promptly rejected it a second time.  

      He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags. The President was “too tired” to grant the leader of America’s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists. No doubt all that golfing must have worn the man out.

      Next came his cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen, including much touching and cuddling of the Queen –– time was when ten thousand sabers would have leapt from their scabbards and rushed to the Queen’s defense, if anyone had the audacity to touch the royal personage. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as “rudeness personified.”

      There was more rudeness in store for Gordon Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September 2009. “The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House,” wrote Telegraph columnist David Hughes.  Mr. Obama’s “churlishness is unforgivable,” Hughes added.

      The regime then went beyond snubs and slights when Secretary of State Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina’s specious claim to the Falklands. The kelpers are British nationals of course, mainly of Welsh and Scottish descent, and English speakers; they want absolutely nothing to do with Argentina. “It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history,” wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. “Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?”

      One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

      Perhaps Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt, with whom the Dark Lord shared a selfie.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »