Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Expenses latest: 'Queen claimed for bejewelled hat'

As our MPs, both Labour and Tory, are steeped in scandal over expense claims, Newsbiscuit draws attention to an even greater abuse of the public purse:

Her Majesty the Queen has become the latest public figure to become embroiled in the expenses row, after a leak to the Daily Telegraph revealed that Elizabeth II has been passing on the cost of a diamond encrusted crown which she claimed was somehow essential for her to do her job as ‘Monarch’. Other bizarre items on the Queen’s expenses claims included something called a ‘sceptre’, valued at hundreds of millions of pounds, several ‘orbs’ and a number of ceremonial swords, none of which the Queen paid for out of her own money.

‘Apparently she doesn’t even wear this ‘crown’ thing very often,’ claimed the editor of the Daily Telegraph Will Lewis, ‘but keeps it locked up at public expense in the Tower of London, just so that she can look at it from time to time.’

A Buckingham Palace press officer said that the jewel encrusted crown was worn for major state occasions such as the State Opening of Parliament, but struggled to provide an answer for why the Queen needed the most expensive hat in the world to wear once a year for a visit to the Palace of Westminster. ‘Because she’s the Queen’, repeated the Palace spokesman.

Further investigations have revealed that Her Majesty has also been claiming for the fixtures and furnishings at her second home in Windsor, and her third, fourth and fifth homes in Balmoral, Holyrood House, Sandringham not to mention several other extensive London properties in Kensington and St James’s.

 

Posted on 05/12/2009 5:01 AM by Mary Jackson
Comments
12 May 2009
alison

Mmmm. At least she does her job with some 'aplomb' and our heritage in this respect generates some revenue.  Just wish her position hadn't been so diminished by these bastard politicians and a lame stupid public that for her to step in and chuck Parliament out, as she constitutionally should be allowed to do...would be seen as unnecessary 'royal meddling'