Raises For Royalty

Queen Elizabeth II surprised Parliament last May by sending a "gracious message" to Westminster asking for a raise in her allowance. In an age when most of her subjects take an annual wage increase for granted, the Queen was struggling to run the royal household on a budget of $1,187,500 that had not been increased since she succeeded to the throne in 1952. During that time, wages in Britain had increased 126% and prices by 74%; last year, expenditures for the royal household exceeded the allowance by $675,000. which Her Majesty had to make up from other sources of income.

Financial Plight. In response to the plea, Commons established a select committee, headed by Chancellor of the Exchequer Anthony Barber, to examine the royal family's financial plight. Its report provided Britons with a rare glimpse of budgetary problems at Buckingham Palace. Since 1952, the Queen's food costs have risen from $72,175 a year to $110,000, upkeep of the royal carriage horses from $11,103 to $28,770, and newspapers from $663 to an imposing $3,638.

To offset rising costs, the Queen has dropped 70 people from her domestic staff, leaving only 46 to run Buckingham Palace. The job of winding and cleaning palace clocks has been contracted to a private firm. Even the royal gardens are now expected to pay their way; in a good year, sale of their flowers, mushrooms and vegetables returns a small profit.

Last week, following a brisk debate on the costs and benefits of the monarchy, the Commons voted 300 to 27 to raise the Queen's allowance by 106%, to $2,450,000. That cleared the way for a less controversial government proposal--to increase M.P.s' pay by a relatively modest 38%, to $11,250 a year, a measure that is expected to pass easily this week.

What galled some opposition M.P.s about the raise was that the Queen's allowance, which is paid from the "civil list" and is intended to defray her official expenditures, represents only a small portion of her total income, none of which is taxed. In addition to the allowance, she has the use of the "privy purse," about $750,000 a year in revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, lands that Henry III seized from two rebellious barons in 1265. This revenue pays for the Queen's personal expenditures as head of state, including clothing (about $75,000 worth a year) and upkeep of Sandringham and Balmoral castles, which she owns outright.

Furthermore, various government departments spend $7,500,000 yearly on such queenly perquisites as the royal yacht ($2,097,500), air travel ($1,750,000) and stationery ($115,000). Beyond that, the Queen--clearly one of the world's wealthiest women--has a vast inherited private income.

What the Blazes. In arguing for the raise, sympathetic M.P.s made the point that the Queen performs her extensive state duties with skill, dignity and without the slightest hint of indiscretion. "The total cost of all aspects of the monarchy." said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "does not much exceed the cost of the embassy in Washington." Some Laborites, however, objected to voting the increase at a time when nearly 1,000,000 Britons are out of work and the government is trying to hold union wage demands to 5%. Mainly, the dissenters concentrated their fire on the raises for other members of the royal family: the Queen Mother, to $237,500; Prince Philip, to $162,500; the Duke of Gloucester, to $112,500; Princess Margaret, to $87,500; and 21-year-old Princess Anne, to $37,500.

Fiery Labor M.P. William Hamilton was particularly appalled by the increase for the Queen Mother, who has a staff of 33, including five ladies of the bedchamber and eleven women of the bedchamber. "What the blazes do they do?" he asked. "What size bedchamber is this?" Hamilton may have gone too far in bluntly describing Princess Margaret as "this expensive kept woman." Snapped a Conservative M.P.: "This is an obscene speech." Perhaps so, but many Britons share the concern of a Labor M.P. who wondered how the government can afford raises for the royal family but not for old-age pensioners, "to keep them from dying of cold and starvation this winter."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.