The Cost of the Crown (2022)


The Cost of the Crown (1)

IN BETWEEN the lists of battles won by Britain in foreign parts, Victorian school histories used to summarize the characters of our Kings and Queens. They were good or bad. Sometimes the label referred to their private morals; sometimes to their political achievements. King .John, for instance, was described in one book as “desperately wicked with more than ordinary wickedness.” Henry VIII was good because he gave us a navy, and bad because six wives are too many.

These historians failed to point out that a good King was likely to be followed by a bad heir; the son of a monarch who lived in conjugal bliss was inclined to take full advantage of the opportunities for promiscuous pleasure that his position so profusely offered. Thus, to go no further back, the son of the pious Charles I was a gay monarch; George III, always domesticated even when insane, followed his heavily amorous grandfather, George II. George IV, again, was the most notorious of libertines. Victoria created and sustained a new image of royal and national prudery. Edward VII revived the tradition of pleasure-loving monarchs. His son, George V, returned to the simple austerity of his grandmother. Edward VIII’s revolt against convention could have been prophesied. George VI restored the broken image, but the usual alternation has not followed his reign. He was succeeded by a daughter who is a pillar of propriety.

If this alternation is not invariable, neither is it accidental. It is the natural product of the education of Princes. Prevented by their exalted status from mixing with other children, they have lived secluded lives, been taught and supervised by tutors and governesses, have often been strictly disciplined in youth, only suddenly to be released into a world of unparalleled opportunity and no responsibility. Like other adolescents, they have commonly rebelled against their parents’ way of life. Their fathers, having crowns to preserve, have tended to be even more than commonly jealous of their parental authority and have viewed with marked distaste the rival establishments that inevitably grow up around the heir to the throne. Even in modern England, where we have outlived political assassination and wars of succession, the emancipated heir to the throne is likely to be surrounded by rich people who have failed to make the grade at court.

The task of educating the royal heir and harnessing his perhaps wayward fancies to the restricted life that is to be his has been tackled in a variety of ways by reigning monarchs, but seldom successfully. The usual problem of adjustment between parents and adolescent children is exaggerated in their case by the Princes’ knowledge that the inheritance is in any case theirs; they know, like Prince Hal, that if they are to have a good time, it must be while they are young; the time will inevitably come when the gilded cage of fictitious power will close around them. When that happens, whether they have behaved themselves or not, their mothers and sisters and aunts will curtsy to them. They may have to wait for middle age, or they may find themselves chained to a throne before pleasure or suffering has taught them anything. But the future is a gift; it has not to be earned.

The story of Edward VII’s education by Albert and Victoria needs no retelling. We understand why he “burst into tears” when on his seventeenth birthday he was presented with a lengthy “moving document” which began: “Life is composed of duties. . . .” When he was a boy the most striking concession made to pleasure or modernity occurred when some sprigs of the aristocracy, boys of his own age at Eton, were asked to come to the palace to tea. Even his courtly biographer admits that the presence of Prince Albert on these occasions tended to dampen their festive character.

Albert’s code of education for the heir to the throne was simple; it left no time for sport or relaxation, since the morning, afternoon, and evening had to be devoted to books. The one tutor Edward liked, the Reverend Henry Birch, was taken from him, much to his childish distress, apparently because Birch had won his affection and did not give an adequate report of his faults. Colonel the Honorable Robert Bruce, who took his place, was a disciplinarian, specially recommended for decorum, but neither he nor the two tutors who looked after Edward when he was at last allowed an independent establishment at Richmond ever succeeded in interesting him in books. Short periods of residence at the universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, and Cambridge equally failed to inspire the Prince with a love of academic learning. Though on Albert’s instructions many hours every week were devoted to memory training, Edward remembered nothing at any time of his life except what served his purpose; he remembered people, gossip, and the score.

As King, Edward did very nicely on what he learned from conversation, more especially from female conversation. He never saw any reason to agree with his father that life was composed of duties; on the contrary, he found that it passed very agreeably in a perpetual round of pleasures.

To Queen Victoria nothing he did was right; if he amused himself, she upbraided him. She never regarded racing as a sport fit for Kings. “I fear, dear Mama,” he wrote at the age of twenty-eight, “that no year goes round without your giving me a jobation on the subject of racing.” If he showed a desire to take his position seriously, she was no better pleased. She said it was unconstitutional for him to know secrets of state, and dangerous, too, since he was addicted to untrustworthy society and could not possibly be discreet. He was always the naughty boy who had given trouble to Albert. It was on a visit to Cambridge occasioned by his wayward behavior that Albert had caught the cold that led to his final illness. For this, Victoria bitterly blamed Edward. Moreover, he was in every respect the opposite of Albert, and that was enough.

WHEN George V came to the throne he was scarcely more trained for his job than Edward VII had been; however, the strict discipline of life as a naval officer led in his case to behavior which was the reverse of his father’s. He had not been born to the throne. His elder brother, Prince Eddie, who, fortunately for the British monarchy, died before his father, was a dissolute and unintelligent young man who caused his family great anxiety. The fact that such embarrassing heirs occur at unpredictable intervals in royal family trees is one of the strong arguments against hereditary monarchy. His parents’ idea of saving the throne from disgrace was to find a hardheaded, sensible wife, who would see to it that decorum at least was observed during a reign which could not in any case be very creditable. They chose Princess Mary of Teck, She fulfilled all the specifications. When Prince Eddie died, her affections, after an interval of mourning, were luckily found to be transferable to his brother George. Later, as Queen Mary, she became popular with the British public; and as her correspondence with George V shows, a marriage of convenience turned into a partnership of affection.

(Video) The Cost of the Crown - Mercedes Lackey & Shandeen

George V, a modest, shy, and timid man who hated any interruption of a routine which gave him a sense of security and adequacy, found this dominant and unimaginative woman precisely the wife for whom he would have prayed. She did not worry him with cultural interests, which he found merely boring; she put up with the poky little house which he decorated according to his own Philistine taste; she was even more deeply conservative than he — conservative in way of life, in social obligations, as well as in politics.

Queen Mary, in fact, did much to atone for George V’s lack of training for his job, and she rescued him from the embarrassment of Queen Alexandra’s possessive and unwise affection. She herself was possessive in another way. She had a genuine love of antique furniture and some expert knowledge in this field. People who possessed beautiful things that she coveted seem to have lacked the courage to refuse to give them to her. The pain of loss was no doubt offset by the prestige of making gifts to Her Majesty. Queen Mary’s greed may be dismissed as a royal foible. What is hard to forgive is her treatment of her eldest son after his abdication. That she should have been deeply upset at his behavior is intelligible enough, but that she should never have received his wife, even as much as to give her a cup of tea, seems outside the character of normal motherhood.

Neither George nor Mary developed even the rudiments of common sense when it came to the education of their children. George was a martinet. Like his father, he was passionately concerned and minutely informed about every detail of uniform and all the protocol of dress. He could spot and deeply resent a misplaced button on any British regimental uniform, and he applied the same type of criticism to his children. Margot Oxford once told me that she was with George V when his eldest son came into the royal presence in a knickerbocker suit. He was sternly ordered out of the room to change his clothes and report to his father properly dressed. She ventured to remonstrate with the King about the unwisdom of so wounding a sensitive boy in front of visitors. The story has been related that Lord Derby, at a later date, suggested to George V, who was his guest, that the King might cultivate the friendship of his sons. George V replied: “My father was frightened of his mother; I was frightened of my father; and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me.”

George V’s eldest son, called David in the family, and destined to be King of England for a few months, has described his childhood in what is probably the most illuminating book ever written about the education of Princes. He was psychologically in revolt from the first, from the time when, almost a baby, he was regularly brought to his parents in tears because a sadistic nurse pinched him. It is a strange reflection on George and Mary that it was months before they discovered that their son was crying from pain, not from a rebellious nature. He was a sensitive child who quickly understood the feelings of his misfit tutor, whom he once discovered looking wistfully out to the free view beyond the palace gardens. He hated cricket, but wanted to be with other children. Even at Oxford he was surrounded by perpetually interfering tutors. The 1914 War was his first opportunity. He wanted to share dangers like other young men, and he felt for a few brief months the happiness of being “a proper chap” among fellow officers who treated him as an equal with a job to do.

After the war David found the palace as intolerable as he had as a child; the only difference was that his father no longer summoned him to his study to rebuke him for some reported peccadillo. In the days of his childhood the only relief had been holidays at Sandringham with his indulgent grandfather, who took his side against governesses and tutors and who seemed, as he recalls in retrospect, to have offered a life “bathed in perpetual sunlight.” Now, his father’s routine, “fixed like a planet in its orbit . . . moving with precision at precisely the same time every year from one royal residence to another,” was completely intolerable. He loathed the vast battues which his father found most pleasurable. It was of no interest to him that on a single day two thousand brace of pheasant or partridge could be entered in the royal gamebook. He detested the “musty smell of Buckingham Palace.” He saw in the wide open spaces under British rule a chance for freedom and selfexpression. He became, as the newspapers irreverently put it, Britain’s traveling salesman. His father, unable to disapprove, was constantly alarmed and astonished at David’s restlessness.

When David came to the throne as Edward VIII he was in a muddle, which was the result of many factors, the chief of which was his education. But he had done much to educate himself, and it could be said that when he ascended the throne he was, in the matter of understanding world events, more nearly fitted for the job than any other British monarch had ever been.

KING GEORGE’S second son, Albert, destined to take his brother’s place as George VI, suffered even more than his elder brother from his parents’ utter incapacity to understand their children. As the Duke of Windsor remarks, their father successfully hid his affection from them, treated them like unruly midshipmen under naval discipline, and in fact loved his children “in the abstract” rather than in the particular. Queen Mary did nothing to interfere, though she seems to have occasionally remonstrated with her husband when he seemed Unnecessarily severe. If David was pinched by his nurse, Albert suffered no less by her neglect. The two Princes were happy with her successor and got on well enough with Finch, an apparently sensible fellow who looked after them as small boys. But the appointment of Mr. Hansell, who chose a staff of tutors under him to take charge of the boys education, was even more disastrous for Albert than for David. He was appointed because he was a scholar of indubitably correct opinions, good at games, a crack shot, and an expert yachtsman. To do him justice, he saw that the boys ought to be sent to school; when he suggested this to their father, he was rebuffed. The boys should be brought up as far as possible in the same way as their father; they must not mix with ordinary children. The navy would complete an education begun by private tutors. Mr. Hansell did his best to create the atmosphere and the conditions of a public school.

John Wheeler-Bennett, George VI’s biographer, revealed the unhappy secret of a series of leatherbound notebooks containing the weekly, and sometimes daily, reports of Mr. Hansell on the progress and conduct of the boys. They make shocking reading today. “Both boys must give a readier obedience.” They were not getting on with their arithmetic; one little boy had tried to kick another, and so forth. Each of these disgraceful revelations was followed by a summons to the library, graphically described by the Duke of Windsor, where, in the coldest terms, their father admonished and warned. Albert made so little progress in his studies that it was only with difficulty that he was accepted at Osborne and at the Royal Naval College. He was often at the bottom of the form. It was considered a triumph when he ranked sixty-third out of sixty-eight. At Dartmouth he discovered some of the joys of companionship and was even flogged with sixteen other boys of his own age with the navy’s traditional severity and publicity. Unlike David, however, he found compensation for his inner conflicts and unhappiness, not through revolt, but through religion. Perhaps he was most genuinely happy when mingling on easy terms with boys in camp life. Parental influence won the day, and he became as nearly as possible a replica of his father. Marriage to a confident and socially gifted woman finally made public life possible for him.

NO SUCH psychological problems appear to have troubled the life of the present Queen. No experiments were made in her education or in that of her sister Margaret. Many details of her childhood and education have been revealed in unnecessary, but no doubt lucrative, detail by her governess, Crawfie. A more authoritative account is given by her official biographer, Dermot Morrah, who explains that the children were educated according to “a clearly conceived plan, which was framed by their mother. By comparison with the curricula of the leading girls’ schools of that day or this, the plan would be considered somewhat old-fashioned; indeed, Queen Mary, who was by temperament more inclined than her daughter-inlaw to put a high value on strictly intellectual discipline, sometimes expressed her misgivings.” But the Duchess of York “pursued her course, untroubled by other people’s doubts.”

The children were to be in the open air as much as possible. They were to learn to love country life. This appears to mean they were to find pleasure in racing and riding; the Queen is excellent on horseback. The Princesses were “to acquire good manners and perfect deportment and to cultivate all the distinctly feminine graces.” It was also desirable for them “to develop a civilized appreciation of the arts, and especially of music,” and to “gain as much reasonable book learning as might prove to be within their capacity.” But when it became apparent that “Princess Elizabeth would never progress beyond the simplest elements of mathematics, it did not worry the Duchess at all.” There was, after all, no necessity for Elizabeth II to become a bluestocking like Elizabeth I, who mastered five languages as a child and could converse fluently in any one of them with archbishops or ambassadors.

(Video) 「Nightcore」→ Cost Of The Crown

Princess Elizabeth learned French, but, unlike all her Hanoverian ancestors, failed to master German. From Lhe Provost of Eton she learned what an heir to the British throne must know about English history, especially constitutional history, and the working of our institutions. Toward the end of the war she had a brief period of serving in uniform and, like other girls of eighteen, got dirty learning about the inside of a motorcar. She ascended the throne with very much the dutiful and highly conservative outlook on life which she had learned from her mother, but it must be added that she was not lucky enough to learn the secret of an easy, smiling, personal aplomb which made the Queen Mother a social success. Elizabeth’s marriage with Prince Philip was exactly what was expected of the Queen of England.

Princess Margaret, gayer and more lively in disposition, found affairs of the heart less simple. She was not the sort of girl to marry one of the numerous minor royalties who are out of work on the Continent. The marriage she contemplated with Group Captain Townsend was abandoned. It would have involved, as Edward’s marriage with Mrs. Simpson involved, a breach with the Church of England’s prohibition of marriage with divorced persons — a rule frequently overlooked — and therefore was possible only if she, too, forfeited the dignities and position attached to royalty. Mr. Armstrong-Jones, though a commoner and a member of a much-divorced family, was eligible as a husband for the most eligible bride in Europe.

It is clear that Elizabeth and Philip have thought very seriously about the problem of their children’s education. They had too much understanding of the world around them and too clear a warning from the past to think it possible that their son Charles should be brought up in all the ignorance of private tuition.

The Duke of Edinburgh had roots in a quite un-English background. He learned at the unusual school of Gordonstoun to share with other boys a modern interest in science and to pay less than the usual British attention to organized games. The founder of Gordonstoun has very clearly explained his objectives. A German who came to England in the early days of Nazidom, he has displayed something like genius in educating boys. He inspired boys with the notion that if they started to climb a mountain in bad weather, they must get to the top; he taught them that enduring the hardships of sailing was preferable to success in cricket or football. The Duke of Edinburgh has for some time wanted Prince Charles to follow him to Gordonstoun.

The problem of royal education is certainly difficult. How can a child grow into a normal adult if the national anthem is played on his birthday and headlines announce every stage of his progress with more emphasis than they give to the deaths of a thousand people in a battle or a famine? How is he to grow up in a sensible relation with other boys if his first jolly experience of kicking a football is photographed on ten million newspaper pages?

In none of the Duke of Edinburgh’s skirmishes with the press does he so unreservedly deserve public support as when he attempts to preserve his children from being prematurely involved in royal glamour. One applauds the anger he displayed when a load of press photographers at Cowes followed the boat in which he was teaching his son how to sail. On one occasion, defending himself against the charge of rudeness to the press, he is reported to have said that he certainly is “bloody nasty to the photographer who pokes his long lens through the keyhole into my private life.” Special requests were made to the press to prevent ambitious photographers from taking photographs of Charles from outside the walls of his present school. On two occasions Commander Colville, in charge of public relations at Buckingham, issued appeals to the press to allow Prince Charles to grow up outside the glare of publicity. On the whole this appeal for decency has been successful.

It will probably be agreed that the heir to the throne need not be a scholar, that modern languages will be useful to him, that he needs a general understanding of the world and a special knowledge of the Commonwealth. He needs to grow up with a modest idea of his own position and qualities and to avoid the fantastic snobbery which, so far in the history of monarchy, has always surrounded the court. From an early age he knows that he belongs to the most exclusive and privileged club in the world; he knows, even as a schoolboy, that the day will come when none of the elders and betters of his youth will question his opinions or criticize his actions.

Brave suggestions for the solution of the problem of the Prince’s education have not been lacking. The Queen and the Duke have had plenty of advice on this matter, from many quarters. Herbert Morrison (now Lord Morrison of Lambeth) has argued that the best solution would be to send the Prince to an ordinary county school, “moving onward by examination and scholarship to higher education at the University.” Will not the King be better qualified if he has mixed as a child with ordinary children?

Lord Altrincham, whose father was at one time equerry to Edward VIII when he was Prince of Wales, is an aristocrat who despises the concept of hereditary aristocracy. But his advice about Prince Charles’s education is not basically very different from Lord Morrison’s. Of the Queen, who disappointed him by failing to emancipate herself from her conventional role in a class society, he writes: “Will she have the wisdom to give her children an education very different from her own? Will she, above all, wish to see that Prince Charles is equipped with all the knowledge he can absorb without injury to his health, and that he mixes during his formative years with children who will one day be bus drivers, dockers, engineers — not merely with future landowners or stockbrokers?”

Passionately believing that the monarchy should be the unifying factor in a disintegrating Commonwealth, Lord Altrincham wants the Prince to grow up equally at home in India, Canada, Ghana, Australia, and London. His main contention is that monarchy cannot last if it remains the pinnacle of a class hierarchy. A class society, he believes, is doomed in any case. The monarchy may survive and play a unique and saving role if it rises above class and welcomes the new type of society which is struggling to be born.

(Video) The Cost of the Crown - Mercedes Lackey

Lord Altrincham’s concept of monarchy is no doubt romantic, and Lord Morrison’s will be thought unrealistic. In the end a decision has been made to send Prince Charles to Gordonstoun. This does not meet all the critics’ requirements. Gordonstoun is an upper-class establishment. But it is not like Eton, which has become somewhat unfairly a popular synonym for aristocratic privilege and jumped-up commercialism, often chosen by parents because it confers prestige on successful products of an affluent society. Charles may not receive as much intellectual stimulus as he might have had at Eton, nor will he rub shoulders with all and sundry, as some democrats have wished. But he may learn disciplines that will stand him in good stead.

THE cost of the crown is discussed, always inconclusively, in the House of Commons at the accession of each new sovereign. The occasion cannot be escaped, because legally each new monarch makes a bargain with the government; the monarchy owns crown lands which it surrenders in exchange for the civil list.

The sum voted for the Queen’s salary and expenses is called the civil list because, after the experience of Stuart rule three hundred years ago. Parliament was no longer willing for the King to pay for and control the fighting services. Until then, the monarchy (which meant, in effect, the government as well as the royal estate) had been expected to live “of its own” — that is, on the revenues of its own property, aided from time to time by special votes, for which the King came to Parliament. It was because Kings needed additional money to run the country and its wars that Parliament established its ascendancy and that Britain became a constitutional monarchy at a time when most countries were still arbitrarily governed. When William III arrived from Holland, a new system began. The King was to pay for the civil service, foreign ambassadors, and judges, not for the military establishment. For these purposes he was granted £700,000 annually, and it was not until 1820 that a special part of the civil list was earmarked for the King’s personal expenditure.

All Flanoverian Kings spent far more than Parliament offered them; they and their courts were grossly corrupt and extravagant. With William IV, a more businesslike system was introduced, and the civil list assumed the form in which it is presented to Parliament today. A bargain is struck between the Parliament and the new monarch. The vast properties which legally belong to the crown are exchanged for the civil list. On his accession the monarch “owns” some of the most profitable properties in central London, including Regent’s Park and much of the area around it, most of Regent Street and lower Regent Street, Carlton House Terrace, and other immensely valuable property in the Mayfair, Piccadilly, and Whitehall areas, in the City and West End, in Outer London, and on the South Coast, as well as in Ascot, Windsor, and other parts of the home counties. He also owns about 150,000 acres of English agricultural land scattered about the country; 105,000 acres, mainly moorland, in Scotland; 1000 acres in Wales; much of the foreshore around the British coast; and the bed of the sea, which produces revenue “from the right to take sand and gravel, from jettys, from oyster beds, and [in Scotland] from salmon fishing.”

Apart from large investments in government stocks, the sovereign surrenders a large number of antique rights from which her predecessors once drew revenue. They include wrecks, estrays (“any beast not wild, found within any lordship, not owned by any man”), various legal fines and forfeits, excise duties on beer and wine licenses, temporalities of bishoprics during vacancy, treasure trove, and other oddments.

The list is divided into four categories: Her Majesty’s privy purse, household salaries, household expenses, and royal bounties, alms, and so forth. Queen Elizabeth’s list, voted in 1952, was £474,000, which included a supplementary provision of £95,000, designed to insure the crown against the danger of inflation. Of this, £25,000 was to be available to provide for members of the royal family who are not ordinarily in a position to earn their own living. About £100,000 was diverted from the duchy of Cornwall’s revenues for the future expenses of Prince Charles. He would receive the total revenue of the duchy when he reached the age of twenty-one; from the civil list £30,000 would be yearly devoted to his use between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one; £60,000 was regarded as necessary for the Queen’s personal needs; and an extra £40,000 was taken for the Duke of Edinburgh.

THE long debate in the House of Commons on July 9, 1952, was really a mixture of two debates. One was on the official opposition’s amendments, and the other on what was really the republican issue, for which the most effective speaker was Emrys Hughes. Mr. Attlee’s amendments dealt with the need of more parliamentary control; why not a review of royal expenditure every ten years? Again, was not the provision for Prince Charles excessive, and, as many members asked, was it not absurd to decide then and there what might be paid to the future widow of a child now only three years old? Other members asked why it was necessary to decide Princess Margaret’s grant on marriage without waiting to know how rich her future husband might be. And if you were insuring the Queen against the risk of inflation to the tune of £95,000, what about the 180 impoverished and distinguished persons who received in tiny allotments a total sum of £2500 from the civil list? (The government’s only concession was to consider altering the ceiling to £5000.)

One member wanted to know the constitutional duties of the Duke of Edinburgh before giving him £40,000 a year. Mr. Butler, the government’s spokesman, was on this point evasive. Hugh Gaitskell wanted to rationalize the civil list; couldn’t a much larger part of it be put under some departmental vote? But Mr. Butler would have none of it. If too large a part of the royal income was controlled in this way, it would “take the heart out of what is in our British Monarchy a personal household.” As for periodically reviewing the expenditure, that would be a bad thing, disturbing to the happy relations between Parliament and the crown.

Most Labor members would have been content with small concessions. They felt that any criticism of the monarchy was in bad taste and was bad electioneering; monarchy was undoubtedly an expensive luxury, but, they argued, an elected president might interfere more with Labor policies than a constitutional monarch. The most practical reformer was John Parker, once secretary of the Fabian Society. In a speech which infuriated some of the Tories, who thought all forthright discussion of the Queen’s income indelicate and unpatriotic, he argued that the House should know the size of the royal family’s income before deciding how much more its members needed to enable them to do their job. Monarchy, he said, was accepted in England as a convenient way of running the country, but it must be modernized. All revenues from the duchy of Cornwall should go to the Treasury; palaces, whose upkeep was included in the civil list, should be put under the Ministry of Works; it was absurd for the palace of Westminster, for instance, to be partly in the care of the Ministry and partly in the care of the Queen. The House should know what “alms” were included in the Queen’s vote — did the phrase mean that she still gave to the nationalized hospitals? Why must the Queen have thirty-five ceremonial horses; should there not be a pool of horses, as there was a pool of ceremonial cars? Why should not junior royalty be allowed to earn a living like other people, and why should royal persons not be paid salaries like other public servants?

Fun in the debate came from Emrys Hughes, who proposed to reduce the Queen’s £474,000 to £250,000 and to cut the Duke’s allotment to £10,000. He pointed out that the Queen of Holland seemed comfortable enough on £14,000 for herself, £28,000 for Prince Bernhard, and £33,000 for the upkeep of the one royal palace that she had not passed over to the nation. He proclaimed himself a republican “like President Eisenhower.” He described the list as “the largest wage claim in the country.” He told the Tories that when they “are demanding a scrutiny of the expenditure of the nationalized industries they should demand economy in our oldest nationalized industry.”

(Video) Mercedes Lackey - The Cost Of The Crown (with lyrics) - performed by Margie Butler

The House of Commons always cherishes at least one licensed jester, and Mr. Hughes, who is usually well informed as well as witty, remained persistently popular. After all, he could not be dangerous; only twenty-five members supported the proposal to reduce the civil list, and fifty-six voted to cut the Duke’s salary.

The subject of royal finance is a carefully maintained mystery. The reason, for instance, why Commonwealth countries are not encouraged to contribute to the upkeep of the royal family, except for sharing in the cost of entertaining it on royal tours and perhaps providing the Queen with a house, is that they would have the right to make inquiries about the civil list if they contributed to it. Ministers and palace officials divulge no detailed information; the excuse is that it would involve prying into the Queen’s private affairs. But, then, what is private and what is public?

Inquisitive citizens constantly ask where the money comes from to pay for the marvelous dresses which the Queen wears on ceremonial occasions. Such questions are considered rude, and when the answer is, very naturally, that they are paid for out of the privy purse, it is easily assumed that this means that she pays for them herself — which is true, provided we remember that the privy purse is part of the civil list voted by Parliament. Any full inquiry into the mysteries of the Queen’s expenditure is considered dangerous; it might lead to a serious proposal that the state should take over the duchy of Lancaster, the duchy of Cornwall, and other properties which are not included in the crown lands. If that were done, the Queen might be paid a salary like other public servants. She might be reduced, as one commentator remarked, to the position of the King of Denmark, who at his accession was voted £100,000 a year, subject to variation with the cost of living, like the wages of some trade unionists.

THE truth is that we are all supposed to like a romantic and traditional haze around the crown. What would journalists do if, in ignorance, they could not speculate about the Queen’s “housekeeping problem"? They solemnly discuss whether she can make ends meet in view of the increased cost of laundry and food. Forty families, we are told, reside within the royal mews, and the Queen has to supply the servants who live there with annual suits of clothes. There is good journalists’ material in the fact that the common mute swan holds a unique position in Britain as a royal bird and that “although anyone may keep swans as captives on his own private waters, and if they escape may pursue and recapture them provided the pursuit be continuous, all others at liberty on open and common waters belong to the Crown by prerogative right.”

The Queen receives silken flags each year from the Duke of Wellington “as quit rent for Stratfield Saye and one fleur-de-lys from the Duke of Marlborough for Blenheim Palace.” I long to know what has happened to these flags; is the same one used every year, or are they stowed away in a storeroom at Windsor Castle? The Queen has other traditional obligations. She pays £3 to each mother of triplets and makes a present of £27 annually to the poet laureate (whose total salary is £99 a year). On Maundy Thursday and Christmas and Easter she bestows gifts on the aged poor and aids the education of children whose fathers have been killed in the armed services. She subscribes to many charities and provides London hospitals with daffodils from the royal gardens.

This is the picturesque side of royalty. There has been much rivalry in English and American magazines to estimate the size of the Queen’s private fortune. One American magazine guesses £50,000,000 and calculates that she is the third richest woman in the world. Lord David Cecil makes it £10,000,000, He is clearly not including her unique collection of pictures and furniture. Her pictures alone were valued at £15,000,000 in 1958; 2000 of them are presumed to be the work of old masters. They cannot be regarded as personal property in the full sense, since she could not dispose of them even if she desired. There would certainly be an outcry if she sent a couple of Rembrandts to be sold at Christie’s.

The value of the Queen’s furniture and objects of art cannot be estimated; seventy-five large volumes are needed to catalogue these valuables at Windsor. She also owns the most remarkable and precious collection of jewelry in the world. It includes scores of items whose exact pedigree is known and whose value depends as much on their history and association as on the magnificence of the stones. She has the world’s most famous collection of stamps. George V devoted three afternoons a week to their care, and when told that “some fool had paid several thousand pounds for a stamp,” merrily replied that he was that fool. Other sources of the Queen’s private income, apart from that derived from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, no doubt include large investments; on these financial matters the crown has been well advised. Sir Edward Cassel was valuable to Edward VII as a financial consultant as well as a friend. All this omits the huge private fortune the Queen inherited. In 1889 it was officially admitted that Queen Victoria had saved £824,000 from the civil list during her retirement, and an eccentric named John Nield left her another half a million pounds. She owned at least £2,000,000 when she died. Much of this has come down to Queen Elizabeth, and it should be noted that Queen Mary left £406,000. It would seem, all in all, that the estimate of Queen Elizabeth’s private fortune as £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 may be well within the mark.

The usual palace handout, which has been useful to innumerable journalists and popular writers, is that the monarchy is really very cheap indeed, even in strictly financial terms, since the Treasury receives a net annual income of over £1,000,000 from the crown lands, which is more than it pays out in the civil list. This maintains the legal fiction that a large part of central London, as well as all the other properties surrendered at the accession, really belonged to the Queen when they were surrendered. It also totally omits large sums of expenditure on royalty which are included in the army, navy, air, and civil estimates.

Public attention has fastened on the royal yacht Britannia, which was fitted out for about £2,000,000 and costs the public £7000 a week when in service and £4000 a week when stationary. This amount goes into wages for twenty officers and 237 ratings and seems not to include the cost of fuel. It can be argued, and often is, that this is not excessive, because to hire other suitable forms of sea transport would also be very expensive; that except on special occasions, such as the honeymoon trip of Princess Margaret and Mr. Armstrong-Jones, the yacht is used only for official tours when the Queen and Duke must show the flag in royal splendor; and that, anyway, the yacht is so fitted that it can be swiftly transformed into a hospital in time of war. The cost is borne by the navy, which is asked to regard it as a useful supplementary training ship. The air estimates include provision for the Queen’s flight; similarly, the constant ceremonial use of the Brigade of Guards and Household Cavalry in the Queen’s personal service is accounted for in the army estimates. Other indirect expenses appear in the civil estimates; the Ministry of Works, for instance, pays for the running costs of a number of royal residences. Some of these expenses would, of course, be incurred under any system of government. Just how much more we pay for them in a monarchical system than we would pay in a republic, no one can guess.

This is the strange part of the story. No one can say what the monarchy costs, since its finances are still confused with those of government. The pageantry and trappings of royalty are obviously expensive, but a fiction is maintained that they cost the nation less than nothing because the crown owns property that, in everything but law, belongs to the state. The Queen earns a salary and an expense account. Why should she not be properly paid like other public servants? The muddle and secrecy about royal finances are indefensible; they spring from the mist of antiquity and pretense with which the institution of monarchy is enveloped. The accepted argument in its favor is that we like its magic and value its traditions. But we really ought not to pretend that we do not pay for these hallowed survivals.

(Video) The cost of the crown [PMV]

If you want to get a tooth covered with a crown, you will most likely need two visits to the dentist.. Although you’ll have a brand new permanent crown, you should still try to floss from front to back and you should still avoid sticky foods.. Usually, a portion of the crown’s cost will be covered by any dental insurance plan.. A trick used by many people that need two or more crowns is to get one by the end of one year and the other one at the beginning of the next, to get the most out of their dental insurance plan and pay the least for the most benefits.. If you’re out of luck and have no insurance, then you’ll probably pay somewhere between $830 and $2,465 for every crown, having an average price of around $1,350.. The price for such a crown is at least $800 and up to $3,000 per tooth.. This makes the average cost of a single implant go at around $4,250.. Because gold crowns are more durable, they will require a lot less of the natural tooth to be taken down than for any other type of crown.. One gold crown has an average cost of around $900 , but the prices could vary if the patient has dental insurance coverage.

These crowns tend to cause more wear to teeth.. One of the biggest things that affect the price is the materials used to create permanent crowns.. Where you live The dental professional you choose to visit The location of the tooth or teeth The size and shape of the tooth The extent of the damage Any necessary visits before the procedure X-rays Anesthesia Follow-up appointments Aftercare Materials used. In other cases, parts of your tooth may need to be removed to create space for the crown.. According to WebMD , a permanent crown can last anywhere from 5-15 years, so a patient may have to replace their crown throughout their life which comes at an additional cost.. Dental insurance does not always help with the cost.

The regal price tag earned The Crown a fair share of attention ahead of its debut this Friday on the streaming service, but when asked about the experience of shooting such a costly production, the series’ cast was positively British about the whole thing.. Still, it’s hard to scoff at the importance of expense in a television production in which the recreation of Queen Elizabeth’s wedding dress worn by Foy in the first episode cost roughly $35,000 .. Watch in awe as well when, in Episode 2, Foy and Smith travel to Africa, where Elizabeth and Philip were on a goodwill tour during the final months of the life of her father, King George VI (played by Jared Harris), and mingle with elephants—a sight that on its own nearly puts the lifesize replica of Buckingham Palace or the show’s 7,000 costumes to shame.. There was the royal wedding shoot at Ely Cathedral, where Lithgow was so in awe he insisted on a tourist’s jaunt to the top of the tower and Smith looked at Foy in costume in surreal disbelief: “Oh my god, you’re the queen!” And there was the day of shooting in Winchester at the Great Hall where the Knights of the Round Table met 800 years prior.. But in line with writer Peter Morgan’s previous scripts about the life of Queen Elizabeth II, which include the film The Queen and Broadway play The Audience , the show is also at its core a character study, cracking open the palace doors to reveal the struggles and concerns of the people beneath all of the pomp and circumstance.. There’s an undeniable thrill in watching the rise of one of the most visible female figures in modern history at a time when, just days after The Crown debuts on Netflix, the United States could be electing its first female president—for all the intrinsic Britishness of the series, this is actually an American production, after all.. But as Elizabeth approaches her 91st birthday, as the world continues its front-page obsession with any news about the royals, and as the family still strengthens its armored façade, the series is also a tantalizing reminder of the human sacrifices made in such situations.. Smith acknowledges that it was “very emasculating” for Philip to go through that, but both he and Foy point to the strength of the love between the two as their entry point into understanding the characters on a human level.. “When we get off airplanes and out of cars and there’s loads of the extras playing the public and photographers, you go, ‘Why are they looking at me?’ And you realize, ‘Oh, because I’m playing the queen,’” Foy says.. The scope of the series extends outside of the royal family to Elizabeth’s dealings with Winston Churchill, illustrating the complicated relationship between the crown and the government.. Asked what’s it like, after having filmed the first season of The Crown , to see Elizabeth and Philip together now, Foy confesses, “I could cry!”

A dentist uses a permanent dental crown placed over a damaged tooth to restore your smile, and improve your appearance.. A dental crown takes on the same size and shape of a natural tooth, and ensures other teeth don't shift out of alignment.. Short answer: Permanent dental crowns generally cost between $600 to $1500 or more for each crown.. Porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns: from $500 to $1,500 or more per tooth Base metal alloys, or metal crowns of gold alloy: from $600 to $2,500 or more per tooth All-porcelain crowns: from $800 to $3,000 or more per tooth (Because they require a higher level of skill, and take more time to install than porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, or metal alloy crowns). Although the crown protects your tooth from further decay, it is important for you to protect the base of the crown from gum disease, and bacterial growth.. Besides how much does a crown cost, when a crown is needed may also be the thing that you are concerned about.. This is because the crown will work in tandem with the healthy foundation of the remaining tooth or implant in order to support the crown.. Chipped crown: If you have a porcelain crown, they can sometimes chip.. Crown falls off: If for whatever reason your crown falls off, call your dentist immediately for instruction.. Dark line: A dark line on a crowned tooth at the gum line is normal, particularly if you have a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown.

Dental Crowns Cost of Dental Crowns Cost Breakdown Aftercare Costs Cheap Crowns Insurance Coverage References. If you have a medical reason for a dental crown, also known as a cap , your dental insurance should cover part of the procedure and device itself.. If you want dental crowns for entirely cosmetic reasons, your insurance is not likely to cover the procedure.. If you don’t have dental insurance, you’ll need to pay for dental crowns out of pocket.. A dental crown or cap is a device that covers an existing tooth or part of an existing tooth, to recreate the shape of the original tooth and keep your mouth healthy.. If you need to have a root canal, have a tooth removed, or have a dental bridge put in your mouth, your dentist may use a cap to strengthen the tooth or the place where your tooth was.. Before you get a crown to replace or cover a tooth, you will typically need two separate dental visits.. They will examine the structure of your tooth to make sure it can support a crown, and they may begin shaving the tooth down so the crown can be installed.. Dental crowns are important if you need to cover or replace a tooth and they can be expensive, depending on factors like material, your dentist’s skill, and where the crown is placed.. If you have dental insurance that covers the crown, you may pay between $519 and $1,140.. Most professional dentists will use porcelain-infused metal crowns, metal or gold alloy crowns, or all-porcelain crowns.. If you need to have a tooth reconstructed with a crown, you may assume that your dental insurance will cover at least part of the teeth capping cost.. If you choose an expensive crown, the additional cost may not be covered by your insurance, and you will have to pay it out of pocket.. Many dentists offer payment plans, so you don’t have to pay the full cost of dental crowns up front.

For a crown to be fitted, your tooth will be shaped for the crown, an impression will be taken to make the crown, and then the crown will be permanently cemented onto the tooth.. Over time, most dentists have come to prefer ceramic crown materials rather than metal, especially for front teeth.. Temporary Crowns If your dentist is using a conventional dental laboratory to make your crown, they’ll fit your tooth with a temporary crown while the final one is being made.. Your dentist will then make an impression of your tooth.. They’ll then place the trays over your teeth and ask you to bite down.. Some dental offices offer digital dental impressions , which can be taken without impression putty.. 7 That model will then be used to fabricate the final crown from the material your dentist recommends (porcelain, metal, or a combination).. Your dentist will place the temporary crown over your prepared tooth, testing the fit and making adjustments as needed.. Once your dentist is sure that your new crown has a proper fit, they’ll attach it to your tooth.. Finally, they’ll provide you with instructions on how to care for your crown.. Temporary Crown Temporary crowns are generally made from weaker materials than final ones.. Metal-ceramic (PFM) crowns may outperform all-ceramic crowns over the long term (8 years or more), and zirconia crowns may last longer than other kinds of ceramic.. The process of preparing your tooth and making the crown can be complex.

The “most expensive TV show ever” is back – but as Netflix grandly unfurls season three of its uber-opulent monarchy saga The Crown , the landscape is different to the one in existence even two years ago, when the show launched.. Its two big openers, The Morning Show and See , are both thought to cost around the same as the final season of Game of Thrones .. As for HBO itself, the $85bn acquisition of its parent company Time Warner by AT&T last year means the cable network has money to burn on its own Netflix-killer, streaming site HBO Max, and it is still pumping out visibly expensive series such as Westworld and Succession on US cable.. Photograph: HBOThe flagship for the whole bigger-than-film, global-phenomenon era of telly, Thrones started out costing a reported $5m per episode, although showrunners David Benioff and DB Weiss still complained that some of their planned apocalyptic battles had been replaced with dialogue scenes due to a lack of cash.. Critical and audience acclaim helped to increase worldwide revenues and create demand for further giant rumbles, so that by the time the eighth and final season aired, with its constant war and explicit dragon-on-dragon violence, episodes were costing more like $15m.. Photograph: Netflix/PANetflix’s commitment to invest an estimated $130m in two seasons of The Crown was, when it launched in 2017, a huge statement of intent, even if it wasn’t quite the most expensive show on TV on a per-episode basis.. (Each new Game of Thrones was costing around $10m, compared to the Netflix royal epic’s $6.5m, although Netflix was making more episodes per season.). Photograph: François Duhamel/Allstar/Disney/LucasfilmThis Star Wars spin-off – taking place in a time between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens – has cost a vast amount if you count the version that was knocking around in 2012 before Disney bought Lucasfilm : it had 50 scripts written and a planned budget of $5-$6m per episode, which back then meant it was too expensive to make.. Top of the list is the Hamptons retreat in the opening episode of season two, closely followed by a New York State mansion later on in the run: both would cost more than $125m to buy, and lesser properties locally are $125,000 for a week’s hire, off-season.. Photograph: Hilary B Gayle/APNo mystery about where the money has gone here: Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston , the stars of Apple TV+’s most high-profile show, are reportedly being paid $1.25m per episode, each.. Thus a programme with no special effects and middling set and location expenses – it’s about the tribulations of a hit breakfast-news TV show – has ended up costing Apple somewhere between $12m and $15m per episode.. It has already had a knock-on effect, too: when Nicole Kidman came to renegotiate her pay packet for season two of HBO’s Big Little Lies , the news about her Lies colleague Witherspoon’s cushy new gig helped Kidman bump herself up from $350,000 per episode to a reported $1m.. This contributed to Big Little Lies itself also becoming as expensive as the last season of Game of Thrones.. Having not quite nailed it with major expenditures such as Jack Ryan (an estimated $8m an episode) or The Tick ($5m an episode, somehow), Amazon is pressing the nuclear button this time around with a mooted $1bn production budget .

How much does a porcelain crown cost?. According to an estimate made by Costhelper , the price range of dental crowns per tooth today can be as follows: The cost of Gold crowns can range between $600-$2,500.. Not only does the crown repair your damaged tooth, but it’s also carefully designed to match the shape and colour of your existing tooth – a process which requires the latest CAD technology.. Step 1: Mix a gallon of hot water with liquid dish soap.. Labors costs are also higher on average since porcelain is more difficult to cut.. Porcelain is a highly durable material for dental restorations, but it is not entirely indestructible.. When it comes to shower tiles, porcelain is the preferred choice due to its superior durability and water resistance.. Latex-based and epoxy products are appropriate for porcelain, but not oil-based or acrylic paint.. Enamel coatings are less durable and more difficult to drill than other materials, so use finesse when drilling.. If your sink is white porcelain, you can use regular bleach.. Vinegar is great for deep cleaning your cast iron bathtub.. Use a soft sponge to coat the bathtub in white vinegar.

As filming continues on The Crown season 5 we’ve slowly been getting insights into the new season which sees big changes with the entire cast being refreshed again.. Here’s everything we know so far about The Crown season 5, including the cast, film dates, and the Netflix release date.. However, Netflix recently followed that up with the reveal at the TUDUM event by the new Queen Elizabeth II herself (Imelda Staunton) that season 5 of The Crown is coming to Netflix in November 2022.. Colman and all of the cast members from the third and fourth seasons of The Crown will be replaced by a new cast that will portray the aging members of the Royal Family, respectively.. Imelda Staunton – Queen Elizabeth II Replacing Olivia Colman as Queen Elizabeth II is Imelda Staunton.. Like Foy and Colman before her, Staunton will portray Queen Elizabeth II for two seasons.. Imelda Staunton (top right) will be the third lead actress to portray Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown .. We have our first look at Imelda Staunton in her role as Queen Elizabeth II, and once again the casting director of the series has cast the role perfectly.. Elizabeth Debicki – Princess Diana Replacing Emma Corrin as Princess Diana is Elizabeth Debicki.. Prince Andrew’s divorce Princess Anne’s divorce Windsor Castle fire The separation/divorce of Prince Charles and Lady Diana The Queen sues The Sun newspaper The death of Princess Diana Tony Blair becomes Prime Minister

Instead it evokes that hour to draw a contrast in how Margaret’s once glamorous life is slipping away from her.. And Helena Bonham Carter turns in not just one of her best performances on The Crown, but one of the best performances of her career.. Yet as close as they are, Elizabeth still takes a business-like (if sympathetic) approach to informing Margaret of her new, lesser position within the family.. “The Hereditary Principle” really has two aims.. When the Queen Mother tries to explain that the situation is “complicated,” Margaret shoots back, “No it’s not!. And it is entirely in keeping with the ruthlessness I myself have experienced in this family.” The biggest problem with “The Hereditary Principle” is that while it effectively draws a parallel between Margaret and her cousins, it doesn’t do enough to highlight the contrast as well.. The Crown doesn’t exactly suggest that they are.. After Margaret has made her discovery, the sisters don’t even appear in the final third of the episode.. Peter Morgan’s script makes a point of having the Queen Mother explain that “imbecility” and “idiocy” were the official medical terms used to diagnose Katherine and Nerissa, which is shocking to hear.. She could have given up her royal title to marry Peter Townsend, just as she could now step away and become a Catholic.. Stray observations I loved that Elizabeth is the one to inform Margaret that her new would-be boyfriend is a “friend of Dorothy.” Philip notes that he and Elizabeth made the decision to have Andrew and Edward “after a tough negotiation on the yacht in Lisbon in a storm.” From what we already know of that conversation (which we saw in the second season episode “Lisbon” ) that means Philip agreed to have more kids in exchange for Elizabeth making him a prince.. The Crown usually features its characters in such limited combinations that it’s almost jarring to remember that Margaret is Charles’ aunt and that they have a relationship of their own.

Toyota is reintroducing the Crown brand to the U.S. market as it looks to boost sales of its premium Toyota-branded sedans, despite declining consumer demand for those vehicles.. Shorter yet taller than the Avalon sedan, the Crown’s proportions call to mind the Mercedes-Benz EQ line of vehicles, with a sloping rear greenhouse suggesting it’s a five-door hatchback, but it’s actually a four-door sedan with a new proportion.. The 2023 Toyota Crown looks like a hatchback, but it’s actually a sedan which Toyota feels has a more upscale appeal.. Toyota officials refer to it as a lifted-up sedan, hoping to appeal to customers who want the higher ride height, easier ingress and egress of an SUV, but packaged in a sedan with the same sort of performance.. Toyota was careful to remove Crown emblems from the car that you’d see in Japan.. Toyota wanted to make sure that consumers knew this was a Toyota.. It’s the same architecture that underpin the current Toyota Avalon, Camry, Highlander, RAV4, and Sienna among other Toyota and Lexus models.. While Toyota didn’t provide many specs about the new notchback, but they did say that trunk space was comparable to that of the outgoing Toyota Avalon.. Platinum models get Toyota’s new Hybrid Max driveline, which the company describes as a performance-focused hybrid system.. The Crown arrives as Toyota discontinues the Avalon sedan after the 2022 model year.. For its latest generation, redesigned in 2019, the automaker added a TRD (Toyota Racing Development) model with a lowered ride height, blackened exterior trim and a filtered engine sound through the audio system while juicing the exhaust note.. With the Crown, Toyota is looking to radically remake its premium sedan lineup.. Debuting in Japan in 1955 as Toyota’s flagship sedan, the car arrived in the United States in 1958 as the Toyopet Crown, and was the first Japanese automobile to be offered for sale in America.. Toyota’s own high-speed endurance testing in Japan showed that the engine suddenly started making loud noises and output fell when the Crown was driven on a highway.


1. Don D. Meares | The Cost of fulfilled Destiny
(Evangel Cathedral)
2. The Cost of a Crown
(Olanrewaju Gabriel Ibironke)
3. Nightcore - Cost of The Crown
4. Battle Dawn- Mercedes Lackey
5. 「Nightcore」→ Cost Of The Crown [1 Hour]
(Music The Sky)
6. The Cost Of The Crown | Lyrics
(Rare Wind)

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Velia Krajcik

Last Updated: 08/31/2022

Views: 5787

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (74 voted)

Reviews: 89% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Velia Krajcik

Birthday: 1996-07-27

Address: 520 Balistreri Mount, South Armand, OR 60528

Phone: +466880739437

Job: Future Retail Associate

Hobby: Polo, Scouting, Worldbuilding, Cosplaying, Photography, Rowing, Nordic skating

Introduction: My name is Velia Krajcik, I am a handsome, clean, lucky, gleaming, magnificent, proud, glorious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.