By Anonymous
Staff Writer
A few days ago I came across the odd news that the boiler used for the heating system in Buckingham Palace needs to be replaced – something hardly worth writing about apart from the fact that the costs are to be carried by the taxpayer. “Wait a second” you might think, “doesn’t the royal household already receive about £31 million each year for ‘official duties’ alone?” Yes they do, and even though the family has a large private fortune and the Queen received about £500.000 in farming subsidies from the EU in the past years (while the exact numbers are not being published since that information is deemed to be an invasion of privacy), British citizens are expected to happily cover the extra expense for the replacement of a boiler in the palace.
Even though the annual budget is set at about £31 million, the family’s expenses have risen up to £33.3 million, forcing them to dip into a reserve fund (which consists of taxes, naturally). As the Parliament criticised the financial excess, it has been concluded that a new boiler is needed in order to reduce heating costs in the palace – this will cost about £1 million, in addition to the standard expenses. So far, so good; one should also take a look at what the royal household costs each British citizen on average, which is estimated at between 80pence and 1£ per year – a seemingly small sum, which, however, excludes the cost of special events which require higher security standards such as the royal wedding.
One might argue that most of the costs are getting covered by the revenue through tourist attractions of weddings, birth of children and visits of the family’s estates, but yet the family has cut spending only by about 5% after the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, having kept all of the 430 household servants while the rest of the public sector is facing austerity. Furthermore, even though the royal family has been strongly encouraged to open up the Buckingham Palace for more than the current average of about two months per year in order to increase its income, it has chosen not to consider that option so far.
Of course one can bring up the counter argument that the royal family does have certain useful functions, namely representing the United Kingdom abroad in diplomatic matters as the Queen is also the head of state in the UK. Strangely enough, it is hard to see the legitimacy of a position that comes through inheritance – even more so when David Cameron declares the UK to be “modern” and a “soft superpower” it seems more than just a little bit anachronistic when the qualification for such an important position is granted to someone by birth. To put it in perspective: even in the Vatican the position of the pope is placed to the vote.
So what is left to be said? To me, it seems odd that the majority of the British population, about 66% precisely, favour the existence of an institution that represents oppressive and old feudalistic structures like very few other things; one that obviously does not concern itself too much with increasing income inequality, unemployment, and the moderate use of public funds. Which means that while William & Kate are getting their estate renovated for about £1 million (taken from taxes, of course), most of the British work hard in order to somehow get by.
