She don't fancy him much neither...My father-in-law hates the royal family with a passion. He's about as anti royal as you can get. In fact, it's not hate - it's far stronger than that. He despises them. They make him roil, and probably give him indigestion more than uncooked sprouts. He's as likely to sit down and listen to the queen's speech at christmas as he is about to publish a book on his favourite lingerie and how he loves iPhone apps.
I - on the other hand - quite like the whole "kingdom" thing. It's true I also like books in which good kings and queens vanquish dragons and live in fantastical castles with their magical advisors, but I don't think that this necessarily precludes me from making an unbiased opinion on the relevance of royalty.
But I'd never get involved in an argument about whether or not the royals were group of puppet heads, a national drain on the taxpayers resources and whatever else he wants to postulate - or not - since I simply didn't and couldn't know what the facts where.
I don't think you should argue your corner without a few facts for moral support, do you?
Today, while reading the daily mail I came across an article by Robert Hardman called The queen a parasite? No, a penny pinching paragon which was about exactly this subject, which I read with some interest. That was - after I'd read the one about the how we all despise Kate Price, which is something I may blog about later. If I can be bothered. After all - even if I don't like her, it's still attention in some form, and that's exactly what she craves.
So back to the queen.
Get my father-in-law lubricated with enough red wine (about 1 glass) and he'll happily lay into the royal family for any number of reasons, starting with their german heritage. We might want to just skip that point before I get sued for something - and if not sued, maybe had war declared on. Which wouldn't work out for my schedule as I am booked up until after christmas.
His biggest bugbear about the Royals is the amount of money that they cost the taxpayer. According to the independent, this cost is 69p per person in 2009. The total being set at £41.5 million for the 2008/09 financial year. And this doesn't include security.
Sound a lot? Of course it does! I am pretty sure I can buy New Zealand for that amount. Or at the very least Vanuatu. Which I would probably do, just so I could turn it back into the "New Hebrides", so that my very old beach towel wouldn't be so confusing.
One point made in the article that I was reading today was that part of that cost is £15.5 million for building maintenance. Now, not long ago, the queen asked for a grant for repairs and maintenance, and was turned down due to the cost of the 2012 Olympics. I bet she had a right royal hissy fit at that. One might ladder one's tight's in anger.
Apparently a £32 million backlog of essential repairs has built up at both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, including rewiring Buckingham Palace, replacing the roof at both properties, removing potentially dangerous asbestos from Buckingham Palace and redecorating most of the State Rooms at Buckingham Palace for what will be the first time since the Queen came to the throne in 1952.
So are we to imagine that if we did away with the Royals - chucked them on their ear - that we'd be saving £15.5 million at least in maintenance, and protecting ourselves from the further cost of actually fixing stuff? (Sounds a bit like the tube really - always fixing stuff as it breaks, but never before.)
Well consider this - France chucked their king out and still spend millions a year upkeeping Versailles. And since the state own Buckingham and Windsor Palace in the first place, having taken the crown land for the nation back in 1760, there is little thought that those costs would disappear unless they were all sold off to private investors. And that really is a nasty thought. Can you think of anything less classy than turning Buckingham Palace into the next Ally Pally?
Although I have to admit, the yankee doodles - from whom tourism is worth about 20% of the overall UK tourism revenue (which in 2008 was nearly £115 billion) would probably still come to the UK if the monachy had gone - if they could stay at "Casa Buckingham Palace". Especially if there was a big pool with waterslides joining up the fountain out the front. And if they built a casino with a really big buffet - hey, they'd never even need to leave!
But it still sounds like a bad idea. And don't forget - those crown estates generated over £226.5 million net income for the year ending March 2009. And that goes to the state. You'd think with that kind of profit they could afford to buy a few tins of magnolia and a hire a Polish builder and son!
What of the other costs? £9.9 million went on salaries, £1.5 million on administration, housekeeping and furnishings took £700,000, ceremonial functions £400,000, £1.1 million on catering and hospitality, and £600,000 on the garden parties (which were attended by 50,000 people). These are figures I've found in various places, so I would take their exactness with a pinch of salt. But they are illustrative.
The alternative to having a queen is a president, right? Which would be cheaper you'd think? Well, why don't you have a little google and find out what the presedential inauguration for Barack Obama cost? And that was taxpayer's money.
But when it comes down to it, the problems with the Royals has nothing to do with money. That's only an excuse people give for hating them. My father-in-law doesn't need to stick with the financial aspect (he is, after all - an accountant, so it's his first love). He will move onto his second point, which is that they are a complete waste of space. This argument is never substantiated with any actual reasons for that, other than vitriolic spitting.
It seems to me that they have a lot more integrity than the MP's whose appalling lack of care for their countrymen have seen them making the taxpayer foot the bill for their moats being cleaned.
So right or wrong, I like the queen, I like having a royal family, and I really wish someone would drown all the MPs in that moat.
I am also open to any crown titles that might be on offer. Please send to the leaning shed, back of Kent.
I've always loved Queen E. Hard for me to imagine that she'd ever make a face like that, though. The one I can't stand is Prince Charles. What a homely, conceited, pompous (did I say UBER homely?) moron. What Princess Di saw in him, besides the whole Royal thing, I'll never know...SITS sent me by, and I'm glad they did!
Turkey Trot Trauma
Stopping by from SITS! :)
As a Canadian i don't really mind the monarchy. Do they cost money? Sure but so does security for Obama and his family. That cost doesn't go away regardless of what you call your head of state.
Plus as William's future wife, i shouldn't dis his grandmother. :p
Hi Melissa, I don't see what Lady Diana saw in him either, but the upside of their relationship was two rather classy boys. I would rather the crown jump over Charles and go to William, and I think he'd make a very venerable King.
Which I guess means I need to schmooze with Typ0 (as William's future wife?) in order to get a Duchy?
Consider that the American cost for a president extends till death. Not of the president, but of his family. You have to consider all the overlapping presidencies to really start to get an idea of cost. Oh, and vice presidents need to be included as well.