Royal Family Costs "Less than Two Pints of Milk"

At a time when many households are struggling, the Royal Family has had a 5.3% pay rise, well above the government's 2% target for public sector pay. In the last financial year, they received £40M, while in the year before, they managed to struggle along on just £38M. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said that the cost of the Royal Family was equivalent to two pints of milk or an MP3 download—per taxpayer.

It reminds me of the old joke that you can get rich by asking everyone in the country to donate 10p. They won't notice the loss of 10p, but you will be rich. Somehow it never happens, though. Someone gave me 5p last week when I had no change for the car park machine, but that's the closest I've got. (If my benefactor is reading this, though, I'm very grateful! That 5p saved my day.)

One of the strange spin-offs from my marketing job is my junk mail collection. No doubt when I die, museums will be fighting to raise money so they can save it for the nation. For now, though, it is a source of marketing ideas. I've got them all: good ones, and cheesy ones that humbug people with nonsense about pints of milk and things like that. So, now the Royal Family is being sold like a downmarket book club, here are a few ideas:

• "... at a price you will appreciate!"
• "Ask [the Inland Revenue I suppose] about our affordable payment plans!"
• "Eminently affordable!"
• "... for less than you expected!"
• "Get more than your money's worth!"
• "Gives you so much for so little!"
• "Once in a lifetime savings!"
• And last but not least, the magic of ambiguity: "A toast to extraordinary prices!"

Of course the reality is that this sort of treatment devalues the Royal brand. The Royal brand is about mystique, leadership, luxury. So imagine going to a shop selling luxury goods, and seeing a sign in the window saying, "A toast to extraordinary prices!" You would be a bit surprised, and what would it mean anyway? That you can get a £50,000 Patek watch for £45,000?

Soon the monarchy will pass to Charles, as the Queen is already long past normal retiring age. Perhaps we should say instead that, after the death or abdication of the Queen, we will switch to an elected President. Alternatively, we could be the first country with an elected king or queen; that would be reasonable too. Charles would, of course, be welcome to stand and royalists would be welcome to vote for him. On the other hand, the change would have made the country more democratic. It would also protect us from the possibility that the heir to the throne might be someone unsuitable.