Editorials & Other Articles

jsr

(7,712 posts) Sun Feb 16, 2014, 04:20 AM Feb 2014

Britain’s Welfare Queen

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/sunday/malik-britains-welfare-queen.html

Britain’s Welfare Queen
Kenan Malik

LONDON — The British queen is down to her last pennies. Well, actually, her last millions of pennies.

Last month, the Public Accounts Committee — Parliament’s watchdog on public spending — published a damning survey of the state of the royal finances. The queen had spent down her “reserve fund,” a savings account built up by years of surplus public subsidy, to “a historically low level” of only £1 million ($1.6 million), from £35.3 million in 2001.

Trying to make sense of the royal finances is like trying to eat spaghetti with a spoon. Here’s the puzzle: Queen Elizabeth II is often described, by some measures, as one of the richest people in the world. Among her private property is Balmoral Castle, her residence in the Scottish Highlands, which was purchased, together with a 50,000-acre estate, by Prince Albert for Queen Victoria in 1848. Queen Elizabeth also owns stud farms, personal art and fine jewelry. According to Forbes magazine, her personal worth is $500 million.

If the queen is so wealthy, how can she be strapped for cash? In 2010, it emerged that the queen had even privately applied to a government fund normally reserved for low-income families to help with Buckingham Palace’s heating bills. Turning the request down, a government official commented, “I also feel a bit uneasy about the probable adverse press coverage if the palace were given a grant at the expense of, say, a hospital.” Why is the queen reduced to acting as if she lived in public housing?

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Britain’s Welfare Queen (Original Post) jsr Feb 2014 OP

Well, she does live in public housing, you know. Don't kid yourself! freshwest Feb 2014 #1

All that matters dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #2

God Save The Queen, right? Or do you mean they want her in public housing? I gotta sleep. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #3

That isn't exactly what "public housing" is here. dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #4

I keep hearing about the tourism. Is it really that big a deal in the economy? And I'm joking about freshwest Feb 2014 #6

General article here dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #7

One may find the admission prices of the royal residences here mulsh Feb 2014 #9

they know that two Camerons would not be better than one MisterP Feb 2014 #11

I guess the part-time job didn't help much. DeSwiss Feb 2014 #5

The remnants of feudalism tied up in a capitalistic quandary fasttense Feb 2014 #8

Lizzie the Hun is finally exposing her true nature to the world; IrishAyes Feb 2014 #10

freshwest

(53,661 posts)

1. Well, she does live in public housing, you know. Don't kid yourself!

Reply to jsr (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 04:37 AM

Feb 2014

Never felt being English royalty is as great a gig as it's made out to be. I'd never volunteer to be entertainment for the fickle public.

Lifetime imprisonment and schedules with fancy quarters and too many people traipsing about in your house. Truly no privacy, the world has designs on what one is to do from the time one wakes up until one goes to sleep.

There's a difference between owning land and cash flow. One is a long term investment with slow return or none, just holding on to it. The other is the way to survive daily.

JHMO.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

2. All that matters

Reply to jsr (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:38 AM

Feb 2014

is that c. 70% of the UK population wouldn't have it otherwise.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)

3. God Save The Queen, right? Or do you mean they want her in public housing? I gotta sleep. n/t

Reply to dipsydoodle (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:00 AM

Feb 2014

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

4. That isn't exactly what "public housing" is here.

Reply to freshwest (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:04 AM

Feb 2014

The article and issue in general also fails to account for the income to the UK from tourism as a direct result of the Royal Family.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)

6. I keep hearing about the tourism. Is it really that big a deal in the economy? And I'm joking about

Reply to dipsydoodle (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:16 AM

Feb 2014

the public housing.

The royal palace in London isn't managed anything close to what most think of as private, with all those visitors.

I'll bet they don't pay to visit, nor do guests pay for their dinners. The cost of staff to make their appearances work must be a huge expense.

I doubt they charge rent if Obama or some other head of state spends the night.

All seems rather nebulous in terms of funding. All those ceremonial shows don't seem to amount to any income. Just good will or whatever.

Unless it's all coming out of a slush fund somewhere. I'm not putting down the mystical aspects of royalty, but don't see the profit there.

P.S. Never worked in government, military or a bank, so that's why this is odd to me.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

7. General article here

Reply to freshwest (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:30 AM

Feb 2014

Pick and chose what you want from it. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

mulsh

(2,959 posts)

9. One may find the admission prices of the royal residences here

Reply to freshwest (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 11:07 AM

Feb 2014

and be sure to pick up a nice plushie Corgi with a palace medallion on your way out through the palace shop. All major credit cards, money orders accepted.

[link:http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/the-state-rooms-buckingham-palace|

MisterP

(23,730 posts)

11. they know that two Camerons would not be better than one

Reply to dipsydoodle (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:03 PM

Feb 2014

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)

5. I guess the part-time job didn't help much.

Reply to jsr (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:12 AM

Feb 2014

''....it emerged that the queen had even privately applied to a government fund normally reserved for low-income families to help with Buckingham Palace’s heating bills.''

- They never do, especially when you live in a castle.

fasttense

(17,301 posts)

8. The remnants of feudalism tied up in a capitalistic quandary

Reply to jsr (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:44 AM

Feb 2014

while claiming it is a democratic institution.

Like slavery, feudalism is a failed economic system. You would think having a queen around would rub salt in the wound. But the truth is the dictatorial style of feudalism works best with capitalism. Just check out the most common management styles of corporations.

IrishAyes

(6,151 posts)

10. Lizzie the Hun is finally exposing her true nature to the world;

Reply to jsr (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 02:15 PM

Feb 2014

greedy, grasping, heartless imperialism. Poster child for the oligarchs. I'll stand up and cheer the day Northern Ireland finally kicks her to the curb with the rest of the British 'empire' and reunites in peace with its counterpart to the south. Maybe someday Scotland will wake up too, but Wales already has started to rumble. Eventually the old witch will pay the piper.

If Charles has an iota of sense, he'll cut the unwilling portions of the 'United' Kingdom loose while he has a chance to do so and survive. Or does anyone else remember the time in London when English crowds attacked his limo? I still have pictures of that. If that bunch of vipers and parasites winds up having to live a little lower on the hog, boo hoo. Down with imperialism everywhere, I say. Tyrants have to expect trouble when they rob the masses blind.

Reply to this discussion