The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1909-04-23
COST OF MAX
Ing A KING.
The Expenses Of King Edwards
Coronation Were
$l,797,445.
Il IKI'IH


Expenditure accounts for King Ed
wards coronation have only just been
made public. Considering the enor-
nous figures involved, it is rather
significant that these accounts have
taken six years to audit. Monarchs
of the past often have been described
as being spendthrifts wien it came to
lavish 81 Lsndering on their corona
tons, but it is quite evident that
King Edward is a record breaker in
this respect. His coronation cost Eng
land the tidy" sum of $1,796, AS
quite a considerable figure considering
that Edward is regarded as one Of tire
most democratic souvereigns.
Strange to say, the recent revelation
of the enormous figures involved has
not created even G flutter of excite
ment in official or other circles in
England. Tie only question that has
been raised is one of technicality. TIE
committee which had to pass or
audit the vouchers for the coronation
has pointedly drawn attention to the
fact that the accounts, as finally sub
mitted, were not in keeping with the
original estimates. No question Of
propriety is raised concerning the
spending Of more than $1,7OOO0O on
the court function. TIE committee
only feels slightly hurt that these ex-
penses made the original estimates
presented to Parliament look sick. In
fact, these estimates stated that tie
coronation would cost only $725 ,0OO
King Edwards coronation has excell-
cd in expense that of any other court
function Of its kind on record. For
instance, George Tvs coronation in
cluded a dinner that cost S125,942 and
$655,5O0 for furniture and decorations
for Westminster Hal, while on robes
alone that monarch spent $125,O0O.
Snuff boxes for Foreign Ministers"-
a curious item Of royal expenditure
came alone to more than SAL, 900, and
there We're many otter items of ex-
travagance. And yet George Tvs cor
onation, was not a patch on that
of King Edwards. 1t is said WITH
more or less accuracy that TIE King
made it point to blow" a lot of
money on MS coronation because his
subjects had complained for many year
that Queen Victoria was q miser. Size
removed Ter court from London to
Windsor to save money, and ttouga
the royal family WIGS costing the Eng
fish people the huge sum of nearly
100000 per annum Queen Victoria
spent practically nothing. 1t was main.
ly to offset this unfavo.abie opinion
that King Edward decided to plunge
1t also wGs for this reason that he
once moo restored the court TO Lon
don. wiz tie royal family living in
London, cl course, London t~&desmea,
court dressmakeIs and costs Of offers
receive TIE benefit Of royal patron
age, where's with tae King living
out of town-especialiy in little place
like Windsor-the funds are more or
less boarded up.
1t is c singular fact that King Ed
ward ras curTied popular favor by
spending libei ally since coming to
the thro2e. TIE main unpopuarity Of
his motoer-at least among tie trades
people-was due to the fact that size
held on to her allowance" and tie
people derived little benefit from tne
money they bestowed upon her. 1t
is mainly for the opposite reason that
there is no SEVERE criticism passed on
the Kings coronation expenses. Ev-
EN- If they doubled tie sum named the
English people would feel that they
got their moneys worth in tie fact
that the King spent a large portion
Of this money among the decorators,
chefs, caterers, florists, court dress
makers and other royal functionaries.