38656356325923

make contributions to the expenses of other royals on public duties out of the Privy
Purse and her private income.
‘No explanation had been given as to how the Queen Mother’s £70,000 allowance had
been arrived at,’ the Committee objected. The Lord Chamberlain, Lord Cobbold,
expressed it as ‘his personal view’ that it should be regarded ‘as something of the nature
of payment for services rendered over years of peace and war’. The Committee
unsentimentally took the view that as the Queen Mother’s duties would inevitably
contract with age, so would the necessity for ‘such an extensive household’ and
suggested that her annuity should not be in excess of the pension awarded to a retired
prime minister. If the most popular member of the royal family could receive such
treatment, it was hardly surprising that the Duke of Edinburgh should fare even worse,
despite recognition that he worked extremely hard. The report complained that
insufficient information had been provided:
Your Committee received evidence of the scope of the Queen’s activities, but as in other cases found it
impossible to distinguish between the public and private spending. Nor was it possible to determine to what
extent any current financial difficulties were due to inflation or to additional commitments voluntarily
undertaken. No accounts were requested or offered.
The Committee queried whether Philip needed a separate household and recommended
that he share one with Elizabeth and receive £20,000 a year for his expenses. As for
Anne, the Committee thought her present annuity of £6,000 should be retained, but the
rise to £15,000 on marriage should not be given automatically but be reviewed if
necessary (presumably depending on the wealth of her husband). ‘She is remote from
the Throne and has shown a marked desire for greater individual freedom than is
normally granted to the daughter of the Monarch,’ the Committee noted. While they
went on record as welcoming this trend, the implication clearly was that the Princess
could not expect to have her cake and eat it.
Margaret received rougher treatment. She had had an annuity of £15,000 since her
marriage and in addition about £80,000 spent on her apartment at Kensington Palace.
In 1970, the Committee noted, she had spent ‘only 31 days’ outside London on official
engagements. In their opinion, ‘Since the Princess has a working husband and since her
public engagements appear to be extremely limited in number, scope and importance,
Your Committee do not feel it right to ask the taxpayer to continue the annuity; free
housing should be adequate recompense for services rendered.’ The Queen’s uncle, the
Duke of Gloucester, was similarly dismissed. The Duke, apparently, had been receiving
an annuity of £35,000 since the accession of George VI in 1937, a sum unaltered in
1952. However, the Committee commented, ‘The Duke and his family are very remote
from the Throne. No evidence was produced as to the amount of public work engaged in
over the last 19 years’; they therefore saw no good reason for continuing this annuity
and recommended its abolition. They also recommended the abolition of the £10,000
annual payments to Andrew and Edward, calling them ‘indefensible’.