The royals spent £32,000 on travel to the ‘No Time to Die’ premiere in London

Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace released their accounts on Wednesday, and all of the palace spokespeople were throwing out a lot of numbers, hoping that people wouldn’t focus on… any of it, really. The inability of the royals to travel like regular people or take commercial flights or public transportation is really infuriating. Don’t let individual event costs go unnoticed – even for something as stupid as “the royals attended the big No Time To Die premiere,” the burden on the British taxpayer was extraordinary.

The Queen will continue to tighten her belt as a post-pandemic credit crunch bites even at Buckingham Palace. Sir Michael Stevens, the monarch’s Keeper of the Privy Purse, said yesterday that while her annual review reflected ‘something of a return to normality’ for the royal household – with travel, investitures and garden parties starting up again – it also continued to be a ‘challenging’ time for the monarchy.

Expenditure was £102.4 million last year – a rise of 17 per cent – with the majority being siphoned off by the major ten-year-programme of building works going on at Buckingham Palace. There was a 41 per cent increase in spending to £54.6 million on the renovations alone. The Sovereign Grant – the pot of taxpayers’ money provided by the Government to cover the cost of the Queen’s official duties and residences – remained static at £86.3 million.

£32,000 was spent on travel for the royals to the premiere of Daniel Craig’s last James Bond movie No Time To Die in September 2021.

£31,769 was spent on the royal train being used to ferry the monarch to the G7 summit in Cornwall in June 2021.

£28,036 was spent on a charter flight for Charles and Camilla to visit the memorial service to the Battle of Britain in September.

The Queen’s trip to Scotland on the royal train for Royal Week in June 2021 cost more than £46,400, while William and Kate’s charter flight and helicopter journey for a visit to Scotland in May 2021 amounted to nearly £45,200.

Royal aides recognize that there is a “tension” between the royal family’s desire to cut carbon emissions and their environmental work — like William’s Earthshot Prize and Charles’ sustainability and climate control efforts.

“Travel is an important part of members of the Royal Family, whether it’s visiting communities or overseas travel at the requests of government. It is part of the core role of members of the Royal Family,” a senior royal source says. “We will take advantage of some of the things we have learned during the pandemic like virtual engagements, but there isn’t any substitute for the physical engagements.”

[From The Daily Mail & People]

Clarence House openly briefed the media about how Charles is “allergic” to using royal helicopters, perhaps emphasizing the fact that William and Kate use helicopters constantly, for work and for their private travel. Charles’s allergy to private transport doesn’t extend to private planes and chartered flights though, and clearly William and Kate never use public transport or even just… cars. And the rare moments they do use cars, it costs the taxpayer £32,000 for the royals to travel a few miles to a London movie premiere. WTF??

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

107 Responses to “The royals spent £32,000 on travel to the ‘No Time to Die’ premiere in London”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. OriginalLaLa says:

    These numbers are INSANE – The BRF lives in an alternate universe, to spend that much of public money during the current economic climate while Britons go without enough food or healthcare is just mind boggling..I hope people wake the eff up!! get rid of these bloviated losers!

    • Geegee says:

      What are the British taxpayers getting for all this expense? A great big nothingburger in a sparkling dress.

    • SarahCS says:

      I’ve just checked and the current average salary is £38k (with a median of £26k). So yeah, when will we #abolishthemonarchy again?

    • Jan90067 says:

      Considering UPKEEP for the residences is BUILT INTO the SG, *why* is no one asking why hasn’t BP been *kept up* in all the previous decades?? WHERE WAS THE MONEY DIVERTED?? It obviously wasn’t spent on the intended purposes. We know some went on a helicopter bribe for the Keens, but that’s a drop in the bucket. So, what else? WHY are they NEVER made to justify what they’re spending it on? Blanket terms like travel? What is hiding under that?

      • C says:

        The royals successfully lobbied to made exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, so people can’t really make inquiries about their finances. The result is they’ll release the numbers and try to fudge them, but it speaks for itself.

      • Lost in Austin says:

        I’m guessing it doesn’t really cost 32K to travel around London to a movie premiere, but they’ve got to pad every entry to cover their costs in paying off Andrew and his victims.

      • sid says:

        Jan, I suspect QEII was squirreling away some of that money to help pay for the upkeep of the elderly relatives and old employees she had hidden away on various crown properties. Some of it is probably also going to the sex offender Andrew, to help up top trust funds of certain grandkids, etc. Similar to what C said, if my memory is right QEII is not required to give a full breakdown of exactly how the Sovereign Grant money is spent.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Hang with me because I’ll be scattered in my thoughts.
        Years ago there was an article explaining specifics. The Queen needed more money for BP renos and there was nothing left in the allocated funds for BP renos yet nearly nothing was done. So she cut funding to a service for the disabled that helps them get transported to jobs. Security were lifting people in wheelchairs out of the building. It was insanity.

        Anyway, there wasn’t enough in those dedicated BP funds because the money kept getting diverted. Deliveries enough times that it eventually went into a place that the Queen could access it and bam. Gone.

        That’s how this happens so often.
        If you can find the details for a timeline I’ve listed you’ll probably find the articles.

    • Elizabeth says:

      The narrative they’re trying is utterly at odds with the actual math.

      “The Queen will continue to tighten her belt as a post-pandemic credit crunch bites even at Buckingham Palace.” That’s their claim, BUT:

      “Expenditure was £102.4 million last year – a rise of 17 per cent – … There was a 41 per cent increase in spending to £54.6 million on the renovations alone. The Sovereign Grant …remained static at £86.3 million.” Those are the facts (as reported by them so… lol).

      A “rise,” an “increase” (of over 40%!), and even “remain[ing] static” do not mean “tightening the belt.” They are spending more or (in terms of the sovereign grant thing) the same, not less. Totally mendacious.

      I can’t believe how using over a hundred million pounds in one year is supposed to be so frugal and careful. Especially as a significant portion of this (?) is taxpayer money!

    • PrincessK says:

      This should be top news instead of the ridiculous bullying allegations nonsense.

  2. K8erade says:

    I need the media to freak out over these excessive travel expenses the same way they freaked out over the remodel of Frogmore. Especially helicopter expenses. I guarantee you the media in the UK will help the BRF cover this up…

    • Kels says:

      They already are..not many seem to care….
      Some Sussex fans are doing a good job of ignoring the “bully” report and reminding people of the costs but there’s too much apathy.

      • Siobhan says:

        I’m so curious how they come up with these numbers. Someone must have had to come into London by helicopter or chartered plain for that 30,000 pound figure to travel to the James Bond movie to make sense. I also agree that they are probably allocating the maintenance and overhead costs of having a helicopter amongst the few official functions that they use them to travel to/from. I wonder if they also allocate a portion of those overhead costs (maintenance etc.) to their personal use?

    • Blithe says:

      I still don’t understand all of the issues with refunding the money spent to renovate Frogmore Cottage. The house needed renovations anyway, although perhaps those renovations wouldn’t have returned the structure to its original plan as a single family home? The Sussexes had a short term lease. If they had not renewed their lease, they would have paid a considerable amount of money to some entity, for a property they don’t own, just because they decided to leave their jobs. Well, and because of the “public” outrage in the press.

      I wonder if the total cost of renovations was much more than that — so that the Sussexes repaid money for customization— but not structural repairs? Are there precedents for these types of repayments? In any case, “repaying” millions, for a property they don’t own, and don’t even have a long term lease for, seems odd, and even odder now that I see how much other Royals spent to go to a movie. Perhaps it was simply one more effort to try to punish the Sussexes any way they could?

      • Shawna says:

        I don’t think it EVER made sense for the Sussexes to repay the renovation costs. It was just an attempt to make it seem hypocritical when they first announced their desire to seek financial independence.

    • Sandy says:

      YES BUT DO THEY HAVE 15 BATHROOMS? Or was it bedrooms? Who cares, clearly spending this cash doesn’t even raise the rotas eyebrow, compared to – insert anything m & h related here -.

  3. Talia says:

    My first question is HOW!!??? How can they spend £32,000 to go 5 or so miles across London? Even if they are taking into account Kate’s dress etc., I just can’t see how they managed to spend that much.

    • Maggie says:

      When you pay staff barely a living wage I am sure they have ways of padding their salary… like a family member car service

      • Mim says:

        This. When I was a consultant, they paid us OK wages, and allowed per diem expenses without receipts. The more seasoned consultants told us to max those out every day.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I imagine that W&K were in Norfolk and had to helicopter in and back to Norfolk after the premiere. #abolishthemonarchy

    • Sid says:

      I read that apparently it’s just an 8 minute drive. That is an insane amount of money just for that. And apparently the security costs of the BRF are not included in this amount, so what was it for exactly?

      • IForget says:

        It is, I put it in CityMapper and it’s a 10 minute walk. Sure, maybe they couldn’t walk for security reasons, but it’s a very very short drive. What on heckin earth are they paying for?!

    • BeanieBean says:

      When I travel for work as a government employee, my travel expenses include just that, the travel expenses: the actual transportation (plane ticket, taxi/rental car, gas), accommodations (government rate hotel room), and per diem (adjusted per location). My wages are not included. These numbers they’re giving us make no sense & need further explanation. Is this type of reporting truly all they have to do? Lump sum expenses? Because when my agency submits its annual report to Congress, there’s a lot more detail provided.

    • aang says:

      Security to close roads for a motorcade? That is all I can imagine. Maybe the London police charge $$$$ to close roads? Sweeping the venue for bombs? I have no idea how it can cost that much. Needs to itemized to see exactly where all that money goes. I have family that work for a defense contractor that also does private aerospace work and he says that any work done for the government is automatically upcharged because they will pay more than the private sector. So I’m guessing contractors see an easy target and the BRF doesn’t hagle.

    • Shawna says:

      Did they pay for a brand-new car and then set it on fire?!

    • MY3CENTS says:

      I must have missed the part where they parachuted out of the plane, landed on top of the building and then escanded by rope down, a la James Bond style. That the only plausible explanation.

    • Debbie says:

      You forget the cost of paying someone to attach that dead possum onto Kate’s head. That’s gotta run into the thousands.

  4. equality says:

    A more in-depth report that details how exactly it costs thousands to travel such a short distance would be fascinating. What expenses are they hiding in those huge amounts?

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, what was the basis for the cost of the trip? i’m sure that does not include Kate or Camilla’s wardrobe and someone else said that protection costs are not part of SG spending, so it wouldn’t be the RPOs either. closing down roads? IDK.

      • Anna says:

        Clearly someone was jet setting straight from exotic vacation, probably with whole family (the Midds?). They are shameless. And brits are crazy for tolerating this.

  5. Becks1 says:

    This is nutso.

    so the SG remained static but expenditures were up. Who makes up that difference? Does more sovereign grant money kick in, under a different name or category?

    There may be no “substitute” for physical engagements but it is definitely worth asking if the physical engagements are necessary. Why did W&K need to travel to Scotland in May 2021? Because Kate had a new plaid coat she wanted to wear? and IIRC they were only there for a handful of days.

    The train, helicopter and plane expenditures are insane but the fact that it cost as much for the four to go to a James Bond premiere IN LONDON mere miles from W&K’s house (and i’m assuming fairly close to CH as well) as it did for the Queen to travel by train to Cornwall is just bonkers. And that premiere cost MORE than C&C’s plane for the Battle of Britain!!!! Like, WTF.

    • Jais says:

      I think I read the difference is made up by dipping into a reserve fund? Money they’ve put aside for a rainy day? I didn’t quite get the details. But so much craziness. All I can think is slimmed down monarchy? Yeah right. It doesn’t matter how many people are working royals if the few are spending like this.

  6. First comment says:

    A rise to the expenditure while there are less working royals and the country was “closed ” due to the pandemic for the most part?And what about renovations costs? Are the renovations of William ‘s third house included? And wasn’t it last year that the Sussexes returned the money to the sovereign grant forfrogmore, therefore the cost of the renovations should be less? To tell the truth, I don’t really know how this works that’s why I ask….Side note, this article from daily fail and people refers to the cost of Charles and the Queen’s travel but doesn’t mention anything about the costs of the cambridge’s travel…

    • Shawna says:

      Maybe the DM is going to drop a separate article about the Cambridges’ expenses?

      Or we’re about to get a nasty leak about Charles or Meghan….

  7. s808 says:

    completely and utterly off topic but my goodness does kate look like a real housewife of norfolk or like she got lost on her way to the CMAs.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    I don’t understand the costs. How can they be spending so damn much? There needs to be a break down of why it is so expensive.

  9. Mslove says:

    Its important that the citizens pay taxes to the monarchy, as the monarchy provides protection to their subjects from invaders. Oh wait…..

  10. Amy Bee says:

    They really went all out for that Bond premiere. It was like they wanted to prove something to Harry and Meghan. But I don’t understand why it cost over £30,000 to travel to the premiere. We need a break down of those numbers.

  11. E.A says:

    Even when Meghan and Harry was around I was really tired of hearing the cost every year get rid of the royal family or stop discussing money. As a British person there’s really this culture obsession with money. i.e royal family spending or just general population who are on benefit, its a tedious cultural discussion every year.

    • First comment says:

      Unfortunately, getting rid of the monarchy is quite difficult for Britain due to a number of factors..I agree that it is tedious to talk about the costs but at the end of the day, there must be some sort of accountability for them

      • E.A says:

        oh I understand I’m British and indifferent about the family, but its the same discussion similar to when Meghan first arrived and the cost of her engagement dress, I mean I’m getting married to a prince when else can I wear really expensive engagement what’s the point of royalty if I can’t even wear expensive clothing etc. Truthfully its a mixture of envious rather than how much tax goes into the family, again the same with people on benefit they are not allowed to have nice things, we pay for you no nice things keep it to minimal. I guess Im just over money discussion.

      • C says:

        What? It’s not the same at all. Meghan married into this family with money of her own and she was treated like a golddigger. The discussion of the money about her dresses from people defending her centered on why it was fair for Charles to open his coffers for Kate’s unlimited wardrobe and not Meghan’s, not whether it was fair for money to be spent on Meghan and other royals. Now she is back to paying for her own clothes with her money.

        As for the rest- I don’t know….This is where your money is going. If you find the conversation tedious that all this is being spent on people you don’t even elect (and when I paid taxes there I found it irritating indeed) then that’s your prerogative I guess. The conversations about dole scroungers are manufactured to defend the existence of this family sitting on top of stolen jewels and land. It’s bad enough to be paying for corrupt officials in Washington in the US, but at least we’re not paying for a whole other second set that not only is unelected but their privileges are hereditary, is how I see it.

      • JT says:

        I honestly believe that Meg was paying for her own wardrobe. The cost for Charles the year she married in hardly went up all. It was basically the same and we know that the palace told her to keep working because “there wasn’t enough money for her.” I think she, or Harry, paid for the engagement dress themselves.

      • C says:

        JT- I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised. Charles said he was still funding their security even when he’d cut them off. I would not put it past him to lie and say he paid for her clothes and then never did.

      • Jaded says:

        Meghan came into that marriage a millionaire. I’m sure she paid for most of her clothing herself, and as a reminder, Charles suggested she go back to work as an actress so she wasn’t a drain on the royal coffers.

    • BUBS says:

      How swell to be able to be over discussions about money, especially when that money is coming out of the taxpayers pockets in the midst of a cost of living crisis! 14 million pounds more in a year that saw them financing 3 less royals (no Harry, Meg or Philip!) Must be nice!

    • Shawna says:

      Of course, the conversation has to be annual by necessity. They became necessary when the Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant in 2011. IIRC, the periodic reports of where the money went last year are necessary to set the next year’s grant size, in addition to seeing how much revenue the Crown Estates generated over the last year. So I see why you can perceive it as tedious because it’s a very predictable, always renewed conversation…but it really has to happen.

    • Dee says:

      I’ve heard how entangled the monarchy is in the laws of Britain, but you might just cut funding for them and they will extract themselves.

  12. lucy2 says:

    But H&M’s house has a lot of bathrooms!!!!! 15, 30, 102 bathrooms!!!!

    BRF costs are insane. I get they can’t just catch a taxi or walk down the street, but FFS it shouldn’t cost that much to drive a couple people to a movie premiere, and if it does, DON’T GO.

    • Debbie says:

      I wonder if they have a budget, either a yearly budget they can spend or if they’re given a monthly 6 or 7 figure stipend from Charles. That would be one way of controlling costs – that is, if they are truly interested in doing that.

  13. C-Shell says:

    Expenditures went up with two fewer royals “working.” It’s obscene.

  14. Noor says:

    32k for A 8 MIN CAR RIDE. THE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT IS ASTONISHING. Taxpayers should be asking why they are paying for helicopter rides for William and Kate to and from their Norfolk country residence to Kensington Palace.
    Since Kensington Palace is their official residence, trips to and Norfolk should be borne by William and Kate and not the taxpayers.

  15. Inge Kersten says:

    I checked Google Maps when I read about the GBP32000. The premiere was at the Royal Albert Hall. Royal Albert Hall is 4 min from KP by car(11 min if you walk) and 8 min by car from Clarence House. How does this add up?!

    • Lady Esther says:

      One possible explanation is someone was using the helicopter from Norfolk, and another person was using the helicopter from Berkshire. Separately….

      • JaneBee says:

        @Lady Esther +1 to this explanation. Although a car must have been used by TOB+K at some point (back to KP afterwards?) as we have those ‘lovey dovey’, not at all posed/photoshopped pics of them together in a back seat from the night of the Bond premier.

    • HeatherC says:

      That’s a lot of real human hair extensions weaved into a rat’s nest and stuck on the back of Keen’s head…..that’s all I got.

  16. Hannah says:

    For context, £32K is not too far off the mark for my annual salary working in PR in London. I’ve been working for almost 7 years, since finishing Uni & an internship

    • SarahCS says:

      I commented above on the current mean/median salaries in the UK. It’s grotesque. We need these comparisons to make the numbers mean something tangible. I just travelled to Mallorca and back (with a case in the hold – we didn’t hold back) for £236. Give me £32k that I’m only allowed to spend on travel and I’ll show you what you can do with that!

      • BeanieBean says:

        When I worked for the NPS in Hawaii & traveled to the mainland for work purposes, my trips usually cost about $2,000. Didn’t matter which part of the country, and usually for a week’s stay. $2,000. If I ever submitted a voucher for $32,000 (and I’m sure 32k pounds is a lot more), I’d lose my job. Granted, that’s a lump sum for four royals, but still. Are they seriously pretending they’re demonstrating some sort of accountability? Because this raises more questions than it answers.
        Just checked the exchange rate. 32k pounds is roughly 40 thousand bucks. 40,000!!

      • Shawna says:

        You feel like you splurged because you paid to check your luggage! It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and enraging.

    • C says:

      And in the cultural sector it rarely rises above, like, £28,000 (with exceptions but yeah). I’ve seen some full-time curator positions pay £15,000 per year – in London!! Crazy.

  17. Merricat says:

    The monarchy cannot afford the Cambridges. Neither can the people.

  18. ChillinginDC says:

    This is nuts and them saying in person engagements matter more are making me laugh. Sure. Whatever. You just had to go to a movie premiere?

  19. Dee says:

    Why did they even need to be at the premiere? Did they affect ticket sales in some way? Royals also showed up at The Lion King premiere and at the set of Downton Abbey (when it was already very popular and winding down). What is the point of showing up at wildly popular TV/movie photo ops if not to promote themselves?
    Why not promote less known films and new Brit directors? Oh, but that might not be as glitzy and glamorous.

    • Moonmade says:

      This is a really good point! A James Bond film doesn’t need advertising and has enough of a fan base it will always make a profit; and that goes to the millionaire producers anyway. So why are the royals helping rich people get richer? I understand it could be fun to go to a glam event but in that case they should pay for their travel and outfits themselves and go as private citizens, still with more privilege than most people because they are getting an invitation for being born royal.

  20. Concern Fae says:

    Having done budgeting, I am curious. Is there overhead that has to be paid annually no matter how few trips are being made? This would mean each trip would look astonishingly expensive.

    During lockdown, when I made two grocery store runs a month, my cost per mile would be incredibly high, because my monthly car and driver’s insurance payments were only spread out over 8 miles.

    Anyway, the royals suck, whining over budget numbers is a distraction, and I am very curious how overhead is being reflected in this system.

    • Becks1 says:

      To a certain extent this may be part of it; the cars and helicopters are all being maintained regularly, so its possible that cost is spread out among all the different trips. But I can’t believe it costs so much more to maintain a car than the queen’s train that the train trip cost the same as the trip to the movie premiere.

  21. Flower says:

    LMAO the uk gutter press cannot talk about W&K’s living circumstances so they circumvent that with stories like this, which in a sane society should get people asking the right questions, but invariably KP will kill the story.

    I feel like this story is really meant to alert us to the fact these two are separated and running multiple households hence the ‘travel’ costs.

  22. Well Wisher says:

    This is reported with a straight face by the Daily Fail, whose publisher is non-domiciled, home office is in the Bahamas and recently was asking for a tax break.
    They are kvetching about $32,000, to blame shift.
    Being out of the EU has wonderful for less than 20% of the population and the rest have the enduring misery of scarcity and lack.
    So point to the one of the many imperfect but successful if leading a properly democratic elected government as the fault.
    Let the people choose; facism or constitutional monarch.
    (despite the stupids-the Cambridges.)

  23. Sunday says:

    I mean, a trip to the movies can get a bit pricey nowadays, but this is insane.

  24. Lizzie says:

    The Cambridge’s should profusely apologize for the Caribbean tour massive failure and reimburse every penny.

    • SomeChick says:

      I can hardly wait to find out how much that cost! and the Jubbly! guess we will know a year from now.

  25. Lizzie says:

    Well, that awful Princess Margaret wig hanging off the back of Keen’s head probably cost a boatload of money.

  26. Jay says:

    £32 000??? My first thought is “How?” How could so much money be spent on travel to an event that was in their figurative backyard??? Did they have to buy out the whole theatre? Did everybody arrive separately by helicopter? Was Kate’s dress made from actual gold? I just…how?

  27. Cottage Cat says:

    My God, he’s repulsive. The Middletons must want that Crown, badly

  28. DiMi says:

    That outrageous cost means someone is SKIMMING. A LOT. And only the royals would be permitted to do so, just like the mafia did with exorbitant city contracts. The dons had to approve everything. The royals are a crime family.

    The reason no one can make the numbers make sense for a 10 minute drive is because they don’t make sense. The royals skimming thousands of pounds is what makes sense.

    The British person above who found reviewing the accounts tedious should instead be absolutely furious. As furious as Will is that Harry married a black woman.

    • equality says:

      Maybe that commenter was really William, bored of finance now along with racism.

    • SuzieQ says:

      I want to see a full accounting of the return on investment the British taxpayers get.

      Abolish the monarchy.

    • Becks1 says:

      We just watched Independence Day last night (tis the season) and the line about the ARea 51 funding stood out to me….what, you didn’t really think they spent 20,000 on a hammer, did you?

    • Bisynaptic says:

      THIS. This is the real business model: the BRF skims and launders money and, in return for a share, the RR protection racket distracts the public.

  29. Tessa says:

    Why did they all have to go there maybe Charles and Camilla should have gone so it would not result in a fashion show for Kate

  30. Birdie says:

    Damn, I didn’t realize gas was that expensive. £32,000 to drive across town.

  31. Kikie says:

    That hairstyle made her look older, she looks hideous in that dress. I don’t understand how she looked at herself in the mirror and said yes this is it. It was just not a good fit.

  32. Saucy&Sassy says:

    Well, well, I read in the report: “The Sovereign Grant meets the cost of official journeys undertaken by or in support of The Queen and other members of the Royal Family. Travel by The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge between residences is categorised as official. ”

    So, all of the helicopter trips for W&K just to get from one home to another even if it doesn’t have anything to do with “royal work” is considered as official travel. Somebody is really trying to hide all of those helicopter rides.

    If you want to see the report (and Kaiser will allow this) the link is:

    If I’m reading the report correctly (I’m not a CPA so remember that!), it states under the “not subject to audit” section that the cost of air travel by helicopters–including operating lease payments–£m 2.3. They also list helicopter maintenance contracts under a previous section of £m 1.4. They list the royal train maintenance contract under that section, so I assume this is the royals’ expenses. Remember this does not include fixed wing large or small wing air travel. This is just helicopters. Yes, they use the plural.

    Okay, so does anyone think that perhaps they padded the report to skim off money to pay Pedrew? The amounts they’ve listed for events, especially watching a frickin’ movie, seems a might high.

    • Becks1 says:

      Thanks for the additional information. So the theory that maintenance costs etc are covered under these trips and that’s why they’re so expensive is not accurate, bc maintenance is a different category.

      Travel between residences is official. Lordy.

  33. JanetDR says:

    I can see the SG paying for staff and upkeep on residences, but if I were the richest woman in the world, I would manage to pay for my family’s personal expenses.

  34. jferber says:

    Could his revolting velvet slippers with the airplanes on them have cost 32,000 pounds? I can actually believe this.

    • Gabby says:

      I think those are on next year’s report. Maybe they can get Tom Cruise to pay some of the costs.

  35. PrincessK says:

    All these chartered flights no different from using a private jet in my opinion.

  36. Lady Digby says:

    Lord Digby and self went by bus to local cinema to see James Bond, bought 2 cinema tickets , shared popcorn and it cost us £32!

  37. Steph says:

    Besides it being a ridiculously expensive, why did tax payers have to cover that? It was a social outing, not an act of service to the people of the UK.

  38. Bisynaptic says:

    The BRF is a giant money-laundering operation. Pass it on.