In this story about the Royal Expenditures Report, Alan Reid, the “keeper of the privy purse,” said of the Royal family:
I just thought this was so fucking funny I had to share it. Sometimes I think the monarchy are really just the British national kennel. They want a quality monarchy for their money!
They get what they pay for.
I’m reminded of the old Meineke ads.
“I’m not gonna pay a lot for this monarchy!”
“And we want quality!”
I was so pissed off from not being invited to William’s 21st, I sent a Osama-Bin-Laden-ogram instead.
I’m no fan of the Windsors myself, but in what way is this “fucking funny”? Do you know what the money is spent on or what savings might have been suggested?
If somebody in the USA suggested downgrading Airforce One to save cash, or advocated spending less on state banquets at the White House, or complained about the projected cost of redecorating the White House itself what comments would you expect people to make for and against?
Eh, everton, I think Lizard just found comedy in the comparison of the Royals’ cost to the nation with such a mundane object as a loaf of bread.
Myself, I’m picturing the next Royal portait: The Queen, Prince Philip, and the loaf of bread.
That’s what he quoted from the article (and I agree it’s an amusing image), but what he said in his own words was:
Why should the citizens of any country not be entitled to expect quality from all aspects of public expenditure?
Relax everton. Can’t you see the funny side to that quote? I’m a Brit too and i think its pretty funny.
Everton: I don’t think they think its funny because we expect quality from aspects of public expenditure.
They think its funny (i think) for the same reason i do - the comparison between a load of bread and the monarchy, and the juxtaposition of the images that royalty and monarchy evoke on one hand, against mondern day mundane concerns about getting value for money.
Well, some of them probably have the I.Q. of a loaf of bread. Maybe not the corgis though. 
Remember it was said of Diana Spencer that if her I.Q. were any lower, she would require daily watering.
everton, it’s just that some people don’t realise that in the UK ‘a loaf of bread’ (equal to ‘two pints of milk’) is the Standard Imperial Newspaper Unit of Wealth. The equivalent units for height, length and area are, of course, the ‘Nelson’s Column’, the ‘London bus’ and the ‘football pitch’.
Because they are people, not cars, or any other material object whose “quality” supposedly increases with pounds spent. Much hay is made in the article about the Royal Train, and how rarely it was used, money spent on plane flights, etc. In the U.S. the money spent on things like the Presidents transportation, security, etc. is considered money spent in the national interest. That’s because he is the elected head of government with real power, not a ceremonial figurehead like the British monarchy.
To me, it’s amusing to talk about a “quality monarchy,” because from my American perspective, every dollar spent on them is wasted. How can the “quality” of a thing be assesed when the thing itself essentially serves no purpose?
(Not to step on the toes of any Brits who are big fans of the Royals. If you like 'em, keep 'em. It doesn’t matter to me. It just seems a little bit nonsensical, that’s all.)
So, are two Hog’s Heads still equal to a Barrel, or did I get that mixed up.
(a little off the main topic, sorry)
APB: Yes, and ‘the Swindon’, ‘the Wales’ and ‘the Switzerland’ for bigger stuff. I used to shout at the screen when some prick on Blue Peter compared something to a London bus as if we didn’t have double-deckers anywhere else.
Lizard: you obviously overlook the partly ceremonial nature of your president’s role, which many other countries separate from their head of government and give to a different person. Is it really necessary for your president to live in a building the size of the White House? Is money spent on maintaining and decorating it in any way relevent to “the national interest”?
As I said in my first response, I’m not a fan of the Windsors and would be happy to have an elected president, but don’t anybody try to kid me that it would be cheaper automatically or that any money spent on public ceremonial involving a president is in some way more justifiable.
Does anyone else who defended the OP think they were right in their interpretation of it now?
I think that may be part of the issue. The role of the monarchy is completely ceremonial. For me, given the status and nature of the British monarchy, I found “It is not necessarily our aim to have the cheapest monarchy possible; quality is also important.” very funny. It makes it sound like they’re comparison shopping for monarchs and looking to give the British public a good deal.
Well, the president and his family only occupy the second floor. Most of the first floor is never redecorated and is open to the general public for tours (or was, before 9/11. Not so sure now.)
All heads of state have ceremonial roles. This hardly makes the British monarchy in any way comparable in relative importance to the U.S. presidency. If the I.R.A. managed to plant a bomb that wiped out the entire Windsor family, Tony Blair would still get up in the morning and attend to the affairs of government like he does any other day. But if the President of the U.S. is assassinated or somehow dies, until the VP is sworn in “the most powerful nation on earth” is effectively leaderless.
That’s no small difference. Given the vast differences in importance between them to the functioning of their respective countries’ governments, the difference in lifestyle is practically obscene. The only building maintained for the president’s use at public expense is the White House, and he doesn’t even get to use all of it. He has an official plane and helicopter. And that is pretty much it. No Royal Train, no castle in Scotland, no palace in the Capitol.
And it’s not as if he could have these things just for the asking, either. U.S. public opinion simply wouldn’t allow the level of expenditure the British public does on anything that solely benefits one family/person.
Now, would you just chill out? Read Marley23’s post. Have some tea and crumpets. And stop being such a stick-in-the-mud.
This is simply a way of making our monarchy look like good value for money and the method is part of a long tradition.
It is also very spurious.
All that happens is that some simplistic PR person divides the amount the Royals are supposed to cost, by the population of the country.
Things such as the fact that folk pay differing amounts of taxation, some pay none at all such as children, unemployed etc, companies pay tax and it all becomes a complete load of bollocks.
Mention is not often made of lots of consequential costs, such as painting and tidying up every town that one of the Royals cares to visit, or the cost of their security is greatly undercosted, or the fact that they pay tax at a far lower rate than a ‘commoner’ with such wealth.
The figures are a nonsense.
This fine tradition of divvying up a cost into smaller and smaller parts to make one large outlay look more reasonable is something used elswhere in UK public life.
The UK tv licence is said to cost some few pence per day - therefore the hundred odd £ per year isn’t much at all really.
Its used by insurance companies especially £20k cover for 20 per day or somesuch, seasonal rail tickets are another one I have seen treated this way.
It’s all arse.
The funniest thing I ever read about the royal family is:
“Princess Anne is the daughter of Queen Elizabeth II and a noted equestrian performer.”
But that’s just me.
A Brit friend on another messaging board uses as her sig the following:
We used to be an Empire, and had an Emperor. Then we became a Kindom, and had a King. Now, we’re a Country…
She’s not a fan of the Royals, She’s a dog breeder, and keeps on saying the bloodline is too closed. If a breeder did what the royals have done, they’d be ostracized for unsafe practices. She’s probably right.
Funniest one I ever heard was when Charles and Diana got married…way back when.
Someone was toasting the bride and groom with a loooong speech that went on and on, and at the end he said " So drink up
Chuck and Di" (with the pause in the wrong spot, it came out “So, drink, upchuck, and die!”)