Royally Squeezed

That may sound impossibly luxe to most of us, but the monarchy isn't what it used to be. Even with her illustrious ancestry, the Queen's coffers pale compared to more modern royalty, like Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling, whose net worth, according to The Sunday Times of London, is estimated at about $1.1 billion. Rowling, of course, didn't earn that money from the tax rolls. And that's what continues to rankle the Queen's critics. Why should ordinary Brits, themselves struggling with rising household costs, have to foot the bill for the Queen?

In a press conference accompanying the release of the budget, Sir Alan claimed that the cost of maintaining the monarchy has not gone up as much as many other expenses. Overall, the total was 5.3 percent higher than the previous year although some expenses soared. The cost of food at Buckingham Palace, for example, was up 20 percent--to $1 million.

All of which made me feel more than a little guilty as I scarfed down the particularly delicious cucumber finger sandwiches and petit fours in the tea tent at the garden party. My mind wandered to thoughts of Nepal, where the parliament recently voted almost unanimously to get rid of its monarchy. It's unlikely that the current British monarch will face that fate. Even many of those who want to abolish her privileged position acknowledge that she has worked hard in the job (Charles will have a tough act to follow). And here's another tip for monarchs who want to keep their thrones: get Helen Mirren to play you in a sympathetic, Oscar-winning role. As I watched the real Queen chatting with her rapt subjects, I heard more than one partygoer comment that she seemed so much tinier than in the movie. True--but still somehow larger than life.

© 2008