Round Conference Tables

The main characteristics of the Royal Family and John O'Farrell's attitute towards it.?

Actually, this is my homework, but the text is really really difficult for me to understand (+ I am a zero in policy -_-), so, I would be very thankful if someone could help me at least a bit. Here is the text: What price a prince? When underground trains pull into Green Park station, the electric Tannoy recently began announcing: "Alight here for Buckingham Palace". This is very considerate of them, but I don't think the Queen has started using the tube just yet. On Thursday, Buckingham Palace proudly boasted that the royal family had halved its expenditure over the past 10 years, although most of that was probably achieved when Fergie's credit card was cut in two. The Queen's treasurer even went so far as to claim that the royal family now actually gives more money than it spends. Those poor royals must be getting really fed up with subsidising our luxury lifestyle. Prince Philip must keep seeing ordinary people in their three-bedroom semis and saying: "Why do they need that expensive Ford Minder in the car port? You know, in Sweden the subjects cycle everywhere." "Well, I know these ordinary families are expensive," says the Queen, "but they do do a lot for charity. And think of all that money they bring in tourism..." Sir Michael Peat also listed dozens of cutbacks that the royal family had made over the past year, while insisting that the search for savings would continue. Sir Michael has the job description of the "keeper of the privy purse". Well that's one economy that could be made for a start - why does the Queen need a purse in the privy, let alone someone whose job it is to keep it? Maybe they still have those old-fashioned lavatories where you have to pay a penny to get into the cubicle, and because Her Majesty doesn't carry money, we're paying fifty grand a year for this bloke to stand outside the royal privy all day with a purse full of old one penny coins. This week's press conference was part of a sustained PR effort to open the royal accounts and justify the huge amounts that are still spent every year. Closer scrutiny of the royal finances had been long overdue. For example, it was discovered that helicopters were being used for journeys of only a few miles - such as going to the bottom of the garden. Use of the royal train was costing £30,000 a trip, although it was only £28,000 if they travelled after 9.30am. And less money is now given to the Ogilvys for Lady Marina, since it was discovered that she was in fact a car that they'd bought from British Leyland in the 1970s "No," said the Queen, "we're going to have cut back on non-essentials." At which point Prince Edward packed his bag and left. The rest of them sat round the kitchen table and all agreed to try to find a way to make savings. They let go of the footmen who took the corgis for a walk by carrying them in a sedan chair. But even after they'd cancelled the subscription to the Sky Sports Dressage Channel and agreed to stop buying What Castle magazine, they were still £30m over. The Queen thought she could save a few more pence if she simply handed her mum the telegram for reaching 100, but it was still not enough. Then she looked at her phone bill and realised that she could update her "friends and family" list, as she doesn't ring those numbers in Nepal any more. Maybe the only way to make any real dent in the cost of the monarchy is to introduce a public finance initiative. This is supposed to be the solution to everything else, so I don't see why the royal family should be spared. Private companies could be brought in to run the royal family more efficiently. Foreign dignitaries attending state banquets would have to queue up and opt for Chicken McNuggets or Big Mac and fries. This will never happen of course; this is the British royal family we are talking about, not just some school or hospital. Funny how it's only the things that we really value that we can't afford to pay for.

Public Comments

1. If this is your homework, Heaven help you. I don't understand a word of it. What are you getting at?
2. This is not a question,it's a rant.I suggest you follow Yahoo guidelines when submitting so called questions like this.BTW what is an attitute?
3. Question perhaps: What is John O'Farrell's attitude towards the main characteristics of the Royal Family as revealed by article? O'Farrell write article..."What price a Prince?" From article, can deduce Royal Family make attempt for reduce expenditure...however O'Farrell poopoo effort, suggest still not good enough. [1] John O'Farrell is a British novelist, columnist and comedy script writer. O'Farrell currently writes a weekly column in The Guardian newspaper. The column usually takes a humourous or satirical look at a major event in British or World politics of the previous week. His views are somewhat left-of-centre and though a member of the Labour Party, O'Farrell has been a consistent critic of his party's policy in Iraq. Previously he wrote a similar column in The Independent.
4. My dear boy. Anybody who writes for a left-wing commie newspaper like The Guardian should be ignored. I would not wipe my backside with that rubbish. That O'Farrell fellow has never had anything good to say about anybody. I have seen him on that television programme 'Grumpy Old Men'. If ever a programme described its contents appositely then this certainly did.
5. Using humour in the form of sarcasm he takes the view that the British Royal family not only costs too much but is lying about how cost effective they are and what cuts they've made to ensure cost efficiency, furthermore, he seems to believe they aren't serious about cutting costs. He then lists several inventive, but not serious methods he believes they could utilize to be more cost effective. My opinion is that this author has no idea what he's talking about, is an idiot, and that your teacher is both an idiot and unethical to require something like this for an assignment....which is why my parents sent my sister and I to public schools.
6. Yoshi, This writer takes a humorous or satirical look at a major event in British or world politics of the previous week. ------------------------- This article was written on 30 June 2001, and is meant to be funny. ------------------------- The day before the royal household had just released it's first financial report for the previous fiscal year (31 March 2000 to 31 March 2001). ------------------------- The financial report lists in detail where the taxpayers money was spent. How much was spent on palace upkeep, how much was spent on flowers, how much was spent on travel, etc. He is making fun of the report. ------------------------- He is trying to be funny by mixing in things that normal citizens worry about with the expenses he sees by the royal family. For instance since 1977 the royal family has had a private train which was built for the silver jubilee. It costs about £1,000 an hour to run. They take it out for the day and have several meetings, and then it pulls into a siding where everyone gets to sleep. So on a 30 hour trip it costs about £30,000 . He is pretending that it is a normal train ticket where an early morning ticket has a discount, so it would only cost £28,000 if they left before 9:30 AM. ------------------------- The two things that many common people list to explain the cost effectiveness of the monarchy is (1) they do do a lot for charity (2) they bring in a lot of money in tourism. He is trying to imagine the royal family looking at ordinary people and saying the same thing. ------------------------- He is making fun of the medieval titles of some of the royal positions like "keeper of the privy purse". Since these job titles were developed hundreds of years ago, they sound funny in the modern world. ------------------------- His comment, "the royal family now actually gives more money than it spends" refers to something called the "crown estate". This is the traditional property of the king. The king agreed to give up this property in 1760 and turn over the revenue to parliament. In exchange parliament agreed to finance the military and the rest of government. In compensation the king was given a "civil list" to manage his own expenses. Since the "crown estate" makes much more money than the the expenses of the royal household, technically the royal household is subsidizing the government. The "crown estate" two most visible properties are Windsor Castle and Regent Street in downtown London. But they own thousands of buildings and millions of acres of land. ------------------------- So try reading the article again and think of a report detailing expenses that amount to £100,000 a day. In the imagination of the writer he is picturing a normal family thinking of ways to cut expenses and complaining about politics. The family decides to cut magazine subscriptions, etc. Remember the article is meant to be satirical and funny.
7. Seems to me that the article is very humorous and is meant as a send up of the Royals and their budget woes. I must admit that I don't understand why Pr. Edward left the table. It must have been time for his shift at the Chutney Ferret.