On the perils of inbreeding
Prince Harry has apologised for using a racist term to describe a member of his army platoon.
There he is pictured in a Nazi uniform attending a sedate gathering of like-minded intellectuals, sorry, I meant a Colonials and Natives party. Snigger, snigger.
A few days ago his cousin's car was stolen after she left the keys in the ignition of her unlocked car. By the way, she's supposed to be the family brainbox because she achieved an outstanding A and two Bs at A' level in such difficult subjects as Politics, Art and History of Art.
It's sobering to think that we subsidise this family of twits to the tune of £37.4m a year. What on earth do these shameless freeloaders spend such a magnificent sum on? Champagne cocktails, racehorses and deluxe skiing holidays? Well, yes, actually.
Look, don't get me wrong, I don't begrude them these harmless pleasures. I just object to paying for them. They could, at the very least, have the manners to ask my permission before they spend the money I have no choice in giving them each year. Ok, so it's only 62p but it's not the point, it's the principle. And that is that I shouldn't have to shell out for a whole family of wealthy leeches. They have enough accumulated personal wealth anyway - and is that even taxed at the appropriate rate? In 2005 Prince Charles paid just 23% tax on his income, though as far as I'm concerned he should definitely be in the higher rate 40% bracket. Incidentally, why isn't more of a fuss being made about this?
I'm prepared to be reasonable about this. I propose a deal. I pay for their security - fair's fair, after all - and they pay their own way after that. Even with interest rates plummeting as they are, the Queen's estimated fortune of £349m would, with a little judicious economising, safely cover her, her husband and her brood's living costs.
Think of what we could spend all the millions of pounds sterling their lavish lifestyles cost per annum. Some would naturally suggest more in the way of schoolz 'n' 'ospitals. But that would be unimaginative. No, the money would be better spent, especially in these dark days, on the nation's gaiety. I'd suggest a radical programme of ice-rink building, with a target of, say, an olympic sized ice-rink per medium-sized town or London borough and bouncy-castle ownership - a free one for each family within ten years. Who on earth could object?