Prince Charles Hard Up For Cash Money (7/8/09)

Ruh-roh! You know the economy's in the pooper when bonny Prince Charlie cuts his "personal spending" (whatever that means) down to a paltry £1.7 million. That's a savings of £500,000, kidz! However can the figurehead be scraping by on a mere £141,667 per month? Has he made the big switch from tp to leaves? Is he making his own ink out of beetle shells? (Answers: No and No. Apparently, there's been a big "clampdown" on the use of paper, electricity, and gas, which is to say that parchment letters stamped with the royal seal are so 2008, but rugby-watching by candlelight is so now.)


I may love the Brits, but I just don't get the royals. Prince Charles owns oodles of land, and he rakes in some major rent from that, Lord Fauntleroy-style. But IN ADDITION to his crazy cash flow from the fruit of the land, he's got all of this taxpayer money rolling in to the tune of £3 million. Honestly, y'all, I could buy 166,759 full-price copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for £3 million. OR I could buy 62,500 broomsticks from Alivan's. (Erm...have I mentioned how excited I am that Half-Blood Prince is dropping in a couple of weeks? 'Cause I'm pretty excited.)

Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth is cutting back, too. By buying a £3 million jet.

So, yeah. Being a royal must be nice. Maybe I should start macking on Prince Harry. I might even let him compete with Rupert Grint for the title of Everybody's Favorite Ginger. What do you think?




Aw! They're both so adorbs!

Really, though, I'm just not sure what the point is of the British people (per capita GDP £22,661, or $36,600) funding a royal family when there is a government (a thieving government, as seen in the Telegraph's awesome photo gallery, but a government nonetheless) to run the country. I mean, at least American "royals" put out bad albums and worse movies in exchange for our hard-earned money. Amiright?

(P.S. The comments tab was broken. Now it's fixed, so if you've got somethin' to say, spit it out!)