The publication of a National Audit Office royal property report earlier this month saw a fresh wave of public outrage engulf Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as it was revealed the former Prince charged staff to live on his Windsor estate while only paying peppercorn rent himself. Vitriol was also directed towards his hitherto untarnished daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who were shown to have been living rent-free in royal palaces for years, despite having their own careers and not undertaking official royal duties.
While there is no suggestion of any official wrongdoing on the trio’s part, Baroness Margaret Hodge, former chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, questioned the ethicality of the arrangements. “Now, is it appropriate for non-working royals to be subsidised by the taxpayer from a fund that belongs to the taxpayer?” she told the BBC. “The Crown Estate is our money, it’s taxpayers’ money, it’s not theirs, and whoever runs that has always to ensure the taxpayers’ interest.”
Yet I wonder if Baroness Hodge and the sundry other folk who spoke out critically are missing the whole point of monarchy? We are led to believe royals are cut from a superior cloth – and most people voluntarily participate in this belief system. Yet at which point in the line of succession does the royal cloth become common enough that those who wear it must pay for its upkeep?
Perhaps drawing a distinction between working and non-working royals is quite logical in this regard, but if you agree, then I would question just how big a fan of royalty you really are. After all, plenty of us work for a living and don’t expect taxpayer handouts. If you truly believe in the concept of royalty, then surely you must believe that royals are superior to you, so why shouldn’t everyone in the line of succession receive the sort of perks that are so out of reach for the majority?
I’d love to hear your thoughts, so first vote in our poll and then expand on your selection in the comments below.
Read the full article here
