Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Queen wanted to use U.K. poverty fund intended for low-income houses to heat Buckingham Palace

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:18 PM
Original message
Queen wanted to use U.K. poverty fund intended for low-income houses to heat Buckingham Palace
Friday, Sep 24, 2010 12:10 ET
Queen wanted U.K. poverty fund to heat palace
Money is intended to provide subsidized heating to low-income houses
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press



A government fund intended to provide subsidized heating to low-income Britons got some interest from an unexpected source: Queen Elizabeth II, who wanted help paying the bills at Buckingham Palace.

The official response, according to documents unearthed by The Independent newspaper, was that the handout might prove to be an embarrassment if word got out. The paper quotes an unnamed functionary as gently reminding the royal household that the money was meant for local authorities, housing associations, and the like.

"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," the paper quoted the official as saying. "Sorry this doesn't sound more positive."

The newspaper said royal aides were looking for a way to pay the queen's spiraling utility bills, which had risen by 50 percent to more than 1 million pounds ($1.58 million) in 2004. A letter written that year and addressed to Britain's culture department asked whether the queen could get a community energy grant to upgrade the heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, the monarch's favorite weekend residence.

Officials were receptive to the idea, but eventually decided against it, the paper said Friday, citing documents obtained under Britain's Freedom of Information Act.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman confirmed that royal officials had explored the possibility of getting money under the program, saying it was part of an attempt to reduce both its burden on the taxpayer and improve the palaces' energy efficiency. She claimed the royal household was not initially aware that the money had been earmarked for low-income Britons.

She spoke anonymously in line with royal policy.

The queen's finances have been controversial in the past, with occasional debates about whether Britain's head of state -- whose role is almost exclusively ceremonial -- costs too much. The queen has royal residences across Britain, including Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in eastern England.

Other residences, such as the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and St. James's Palace in London, are used as offices or for functions.

Still, the queen has a reputation for frugality and the monarchy has recently been keen to show it gives value for money. Taxpayers fund the royal household to the tune of 38.2 million pounds ($60 million) a year, which the royal website points out is only 62 pence (less than a dollar) per person.

That amount doesn't include the cost of providing security for the queen and her family.

Expensive or not, word that the royal household had toyed with the idea of trying to get money intended for some of the nation's poorest citizens had a medieval ring to it and the drew the ire of Republic, which campaigns for the abolition of the British monarchy.

The group said the story provided "clear evidence of the contempt the palace has for ordinary people in this country."

The report also raised eyebrows among some of those interviewed on the streets of north London Friday. Nick Bowring, a 23-year-old fitness instructor, said he didn't think the queen should get help paying her heating bills.

"There are people who need it a lot more than she does," he said.

But Ian Laming, a 49-year-old carpenter, disagreed, saying he didn't see why the government advised the palace not to apply for the funds. He said he admired the queen and was pleased when she volunteered to pay more taxes some years ago when royal finances were under scrutiny.

"She helps a lot," he said, explaining that the monarch was big boon to the U.K. economy.

"You just have to walk down to Buckingham Palace to see all the tourists."

http://www.salon.com/news/england/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/09/24/eu_britain_queen_s_bills
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey, Queens get cold too, yah know ...
it's not all tea and crumpets living in a palace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The part that "warms" my heart...
...is their primary fear of "an embarrassment" if the plan became public.

Otherwise, it seems like they'd pounce on it in a minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. That's terrible ...
worth all that money ... but then, that's how people get all that money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Woah!
I imagine it costs a lot to heat that place but maybe close off some rooms and use a space heater.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yeah, a space heater the size of Cleveland
:rofl:

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Or rent some rooms out and use the money to pay the utiltiy bills.
Or she could make those palaces more energy efficient with better windows, insulation, tankless water heaters, etc.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Or get rid of this antiquated, embarrassing tradition of still having a queen
and her nitwit offspring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Right on, replace the whole family with animatronics like in Disney's Hall of the Presidents.
They won't mind the drafty palaces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Disney's Buckingham Palace!
They wouldn't have to pay for guards anymore, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. They should use the fireplaces like back in ye olde times.
Seriously. Then again, maybe they would go through $1 million in firewood...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Maybe the Queen could list a brooch or 2 on ebay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Queen's 'royal officials' wanted . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. A little sympathy and understanding, please
She's just a public employee on a fixed income living in government housing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Note to UK, the Queen fucking hates you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. When we lived there this bothered me...
which the royal website points out is only 62 pence (less than a dollar) per person.


I always wanted to know if I could have the remaining 38 pence...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. The royals are expensive pets, aren't they
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC