British monarch 'asked for heating handout'

[bobalot]

British monarch 'asked for heating handout'
September 24, 2010 - 9:24PM

Queen Elizabeth II asked the British government for money from a fund for poor people to help pay heating bills on her palaces, a newspaper reported on Friday.

The request was rebuffed because officials feared the news would be a public relations disaster for the monarch, according to the Independent, which learned of the request under Freedom of Information legislation.

Royal aides complained to ministers in 2004 that the queen's gas and electricity bills had increased by 50 percent and were now "untenable", costing more than one million pounds (1.5 million US dollars, 1.2 million euros) a year.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Aides said the 15-million-pound state grant the queen received for the upkeep of the palaces was inadequate and asked if the royal family was eligible for special funds to replace four combined heat and power units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

The money would come from a government scheme to fund heating programmes that benefit people on low incomes.

According to the Independent, the then Labour government initially agreed to the idea but then changed its mind.

An official wrote to the palace pointing out the fund's intended purpose, adding: "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."

Buckingham Palace refused to comment on the report.

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

Seriously, what the fuck? I'm speechless.

[Spekio]

Oh, the British people and their monarchy.

Seriously, it' s the 21st century, yet you have a Queen?

[Stofsk]

As opposed to what, a President?

[Kanastrous]

Somehow I'm betting that you see the difference...

[Spekio]

I don' t remeber my president receiving 1.5 millions for the upkeep of his gas bills. Oh, and the president actually does something, instead of just sitting arround and being pretty.
Also, we choose the guy.

[Zaune]

A separate head of state who isn't subject to what passes for the democratic process in this country actually has some advantages, at least as long as they keep their side of the gentlemen's agreement allowing them to keep their theoretically sweeping power so long as they promise not to use it without a very good reason.

[Kanastrous]

Could the monarchy really 'use their power' for anything, in reality? I mean, okay, if some catastrophe were to somehow eliminate every last MP I guess the nation might rally around the monarchy as real leadership but somehow it seems that if the Queen (or any Royal) actually tried to impose their will upon Parliament for real, they'd get laughed at...

...should read up on the relevant law, I guess.

re: 'sitting around looking pretty' - do I need to post pictures of the present Queen and Consort, to knock that one over...?

[Simon_Jester]

I don' t remeber my president receiving 1.5 millions for the upkeep of his gas bills. Oh, and the president actually does something, instead of just sitting arround and being pretty.
Also, we choose the guy.

In the US, the current president is often condemned for too much sitting around and being pretty and not getting enough results, come to think of it.

Frankly, this kind of expense is pocket change; it's annoying because the tangible merits of having a figurehead of state aren't all that high. But that's because Britain could function without a monarch, not because they need a president.

I'd argue that presidential democracy is a failed experiment, given how it performs in the US. It encourages the president to accumulate a mountain of executive power to carry out his responsibilities while allowing him to deny responsibility for the nature of the laws* he enforces, and it encourages the legislature to fool around with the laws while distancing themselves from questions of actual policy, enforcement, and practicality by distancing themselves from the responsibility for making sure the system works*.

At least in a parliamentary system all of any given person's complaints about the failures in the system go to the same person: their MP. The US system just leads to the electorate being given the runaround: throwing the bums out of Congress only to have a lack of progress blamed on a hostile president, then electing a pro-change president only to have a lack of progress blamed on trouble dealing with Congress.

*See what happened to health care, where Obama can deny responsibility for the failure to craft adequate legislation, citing Congress's obstruction... while congressmen will, in practice, get to shrug off blame if the Department of Health and Human Services can't make the insurance industry treat patients right.

[Oskuro]

With the exception of countries where they wield actual totalitarian (or near totalitarian) power, monarchs are only useful to appease the sectors of society that still believe they should be there (which usually tends to be the conservatives).

But then again, just like organized religion, monarchy has been indoctrinating the social consciousness for centuries precisely for this purpose: So that people defend their legitimacy irrationally.

I, for example, like "my" King as a person, he seems like a jolly fellow, and a skirt-chaser to boot. But I'd have no qualms booting him off the palace and forcing him to live on the fruit of his own effort, like the rest of us.
Hey, I wouldn't be opposed to having monarchs act as diplomats, but have them receive the very same wage a regular diplomat would, and since their title is hereditary, and valuable just for its cultural significance, have them held to a higher standard of conduct than a regular diplomat would, since others have attained that position because of their effort, not because someone fucked his cousin.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, in my opinion your king probably earned his diplomatic credentials with that one "¿Por qué no te callas?" but I am a biased and unreasonable judge.

The constitutional monarchies of Europe have evolved to the point where they could dispose of their monarchs with no adverse consequences to speak of; the monarch is very much a luxury. On the other hand, I don't know if that's going to remain true indefinitely, because I don't know what a future national crisis might look like and whether a monarch might actually turn out to be useful again. In my opinion, there are so many other minor unnecessary items that modern governments spend money on for relatively petty reasons that it doesn't matter: getting rid of officer dress uniforms might well save as much money as getting rid of the monarchs for all I know, but I don't think anyone seriously advocates doing so.

[Zaune]

Could the monarchy really 'use their power' for anything, in reality? I mean, okay, if some catastrophe were to somehow eliminate every last MP I guess the nation might rally around the monarchy as real leadership but somehow it seems that if the Queen (or any Royal) actually tried to impose their will upon Parliament for real, they'd get laughed at...

Well, the armed forces swear their oath of loyalty to the crown rather than Parliament. If push comes to shove, I wouldn't like to bet on whose side a majority would take.

And this would bother me a lot more if Her Majesty wasn't significantly brighter than our current Prime Minister. Prince Charles, on the other hand...

[ShadowDragon8685]

Regardless of what one thinks of the necessity or luxury of maintaining a monarchy in this day and age, it seems pretty straightforward that the cost of heating and lighting the palaces has become very high. Judging by the talk of replacing units, it would seem that the maintenance officials wished to use grant money to install more efficient, presumably more modern units, in the interests of saving money in the long run.


And since the money ultimately comes from the same coffers either way, it would seem to be in the long-run best interest of the UK's tax-paying public to pay for the renovation now and save money over the long run.

Of course, on the flip side, a palace isn't really so vital a facility as a hospital; a public service should come first, but the money still needs to be saved somehow. If necessary, a palace can be mothballed, disused with only maintenance being performed, or put on some kind of energy austerity program. But if the money is there and there's no more pressing purpose to put it towards, a little bad press in the here and now is literally a small price to pay compared to the savings over the long haul.

And it should be spun that way so hard that it generates gyroscopic forces.

[Solauren]

Actually, if the were serious, they'd do a complete renovation of the palace, with a load of energy saving, energy efficient stuff, and then use the savings pre and post to justify it for other buildings.

i.e
"We covered the roof with solar panels, updated the insulation (or added it), replaced the old plumbing with Pex, etc, etc. The bills related to the palace have dropped 45%. In 5 years, the savings will cover the renovations, and we'll start saving money after that. Short term investment, long term pay off."

And you'd have the ultimate marketing tool for getting people to renovate or update their buildings.

Do you think the Queen would mind a wind-mill or two on her palace grounds? I'm sure the dogs would....

[Kanastrous]

Buckingham Palace is big 'ol pile of ugly to begin with; somehow the addition of solar panels doesn't seem to promise much by way of aesthetic salvation...

...are corgis known for being afraid of windmills, or something...?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Buckingham Palace is big 'ol pile of ugly to begin with; somehow the addition of solar panels doesn't seem to promise much by way of aesthetic salvation...

What are you talking about? The East Face isn't any worse than your given court-house, and the west face looks like it belongs in Theed. It may not be a postmodern bastion of art-chitecture, but it's hardly hideous.

[Kanastrous]

*shrug* once again we find that aesthetics are subjective...

...although having to describe something as being...well, no worse than something else seems like faint praise indeed.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

The monarchy has been funding itself from the same stiped since the early 90s, IIRC, and it's not been adjusted for inflation. It's only a couple of million pounds, and they've broken even by dipping into a truly huge savings fund; if the Government had the sort of fiscal sense the Royals had, then there wouldn't have been a problem with massive deficit spending to stimulate the economy, because we would have been sitting on a huge pile of surplus cash.

In return for that (relatively) small stipend, the Queen gives the government all the revenue from the lands that personally belong to her, a sum that's apparently far larger than her stipend. I'd call that a pretty good deal, personally. Asking for money from that specific place was a terrible idea, because that's not what it's for and other people really do need it more. Instead, they should have asked for the stiped to be raised a bit to adjust for inflation. I wouldn't have a problem paying 25p a year rather than 20p to support the Royals. They're the most cost effective arm of government we have.

[Kanastrous]

I hope you don't mind indulging my American ignorance of the subject, but...effective arm of government? In what sense do they actually govern? I mean, sure, I understand that the monarch approves a prime minister's government, and presides over the opening of Parliament (right?) but beyond that what non-ceremonial duties do they have?

[Teebs]

Could the monarchy really 'use their power' for anything, in reality? I mean, okay, if some catastrophe were to somehow eliminate every last MP I guess the nation might rally around the monarchy as real leadership but somehow it seems that if the Queen (or any Royal) actually tried to impose their will upon Parliament for real, they'd get laughed at...

...should read up on the relevant law, I guess.

The last time the monarch rejected a bill from Parliament was 1708 and since 1961 the monarch has not even been given legislation to read before signing it and is simply expected to do so upon presentation of the bill.

[stormthebeaches]

In the US, the current president is often condemned for too much sitting around and being pretty and not getting enough results, come to think of it.

Frankly, this kind of expense is pocket change; it's annoying because the tangible merits of having a figurehead of state aren't all that high. But that's because Britain could function without a monarch, not because they need a president.

I'd argue that presidential democracy is a failed experiment, given how it performs in the US. It encourages the president to accumulate a mountain of executive power to carry out his responsibilities while allowing him to deny responsibility for the nature of the laws* he enforces, and it encourages the legislature to fool around with the laws while distancing themselves from questions of actual policy, enforcement, and practicality by distancing themselves from the responsibility for making sure the system works*.

At least in a parliamentary system all of any given person's complaints about the failures in the system go to the same person: their MP. The US system just leads to the electorate being given the runaround: throwing the bums out of Congress only to have a lack of progress blamed on a hostile president, then electing a pro-change president only to have a lack of progress blamed on trouble dealing with Congress.

*See what happened to health care, where Obama can deny responsibility for the failure to craft adequate legislation, citing Congress's obstruction... while congressmen will, in practice, get to shrug off blame if the Department of Health and Human Services can't make the insurance industry treat patients right.

What do you propose as a replacement government for the USA? A monarchy? A prime ministerial form of democracy similar to Britain? Anarchy?

It is a bit early to say that Presidentialism has failed. Many European nations have presidents and they seem to be doing fine.

[Bakustra]

In the US, the current president is often condemned for too much sitting around and being pretty and not getting enough results, come to think of it.

Frankly, this kind of expense is pocket change; it's annoying because the tangible merits of having a figurehead of state aren't all that high. But that's because Britain could function without a monarch, not because they need a president.

I'd argue that presidential democracy is a failed experiment, given how it performs in the US. It encourages the president to accumulate a mountain of executive power to carry out his responsibilities while allowing him to deny responsibility for the nature of the laws* he enforces, and it encourages the legislature to fool around with the laws while distancing themselves from questions of actual policy, enforcement, and practicality by distancing themselves from the responsibility for making sure the system works*.

At least in a parliamentary system all of any given person's complaints about the failures in the system go to the same person: their MP. The US system just leads to the electorate being given the runaround: throwing the bums out of Congress only to have a lack of progress blamed on a hostile president, then electing a pro-change president only to have a lack of progress blamed on trouble dealing with Congress.

*See what happened to health care, where Obama can deny responsibility for the failure to craft adequate legislation, citing Congress's obstruction... while congressmen will, in practice, get to shrug off blame if the Department of Health and Human Services can't make the insurance industry treat patients right.

What do you propose as a replacement government for the USA? A monarchy? A prime ministerial form of democracy similar to Britain? Anarchy?

It is a bit early to say that Presidentialism has failed. Many European nations have presidents and they seem to be doing fine.

It should be clear from the context that Simon is referring to parliamentary democracy. What European countries are these with presidential systems? France is a hybrid between presidential and parliamentary. Germany is almost totally parliamentary. Italy is parliamentary. Spain, despite the names, is parliamentary. The Low Countries are all parliamentary. The Scandinavian nations are parliamentary. Poland is parliamentary. Russia is a hybrid that is highly presidential. They're also not a good example to look to for democracy.

Presidential democracies are far more common in South and Central America, parts of Africa, and Central Asia. Many of these states have had significant problems with maintaining democratic traditions and have fallen under the rule of strongmen. While presidentialism isn't discredited as such, its record is not all that good. Of course, this is oversimplifying, as there are problems unique to parliamentary systems too.

[Stark]

Oh man, derailed from 'scandal' to 'Americans being ignorant' in one post; some kind of record.

Frankly I don't see why anyone is really surprised; the monarchy is closely linked at many levels to the government and the public purse, and frankly if they qualify for some kind of handout why not? As others say, the royal family give a giant pile of money to the government in exchange for another apparently smaller pile of money, so I simply don't care. I guess if people didn't know that the government had held the royal purse strings for hundreds of years you might be outraged?

[Lord of the Abyss]

A separate head of state who isn't subject to what passes for the democratic process in this country actually has some advantages, at least as long as they keep their side of the gentlemen's agreement allowing them to keep their theoretically sweeping power so long as they promise not to use it without a very good reason.

The best sounding (to me at least) argument I've heard for that setup is that it directs the common human tendency to idolize their leaders onto a person who lacks the real power to do much damage. Look at the people in America who treated a President like Bush II as some sort of Chosen One; a President has a lot more power to do damage than King or Queen who reigns but doesn't rule. If people refuse to criticism such a monarch because it's "just not done", it makes little difference because the monarch isn't actually doing much of anything; while a leader with real power can get away with doing all sorts of awful or stupid things when people are reluctant to criticize him because "you aren't supposed to criticize the President!"

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I hope you don't mind indulging my American ignorance of the subject, but...effective arm of government? In what sense do they actually govern? I mean, sure, I understand that the monarch approves a prime minister's government, and presides over the opening of Parliament (right?) but beyond that what non-ceremonial duties do they have?

Mostly diplomatic and 'public relations'. A lot of that involves 'style' as opposed to 'substance', and the Royals make a very good and very cheap vehicle to make people like us more, whether that be domestic or foreign. After all nearly everybody likes visits from a Queen or Prince and so on. I suppose I should have used 'establishment' rather than 'government', but given that they're used basically as a government tool to produce fuzzy feelings...

[LaCroix]

Don't forget the effect on tourism. Half the people I know who went to Britain did this at least in part with the reason to "see the royals"... Stupid, as the most they did see was the palace and the guards...