Big-spending Obamas cost 23 times more than British royal family

The Obamas dance at a coronation — er, inauguration ball
Photo credit
When compared to the cost of maintaining the first family, the British royal family members are a bunch of outright pikers.

We use the phrase, “live like a king,” to describe the epitome of living large. When we do so, we’re talking real mansions — not the fake “McMansions” popular among today’s nouveau riche. Also included are the second and third homes, annual European vacations, exotic cars, fancy yachts and private jets — the whole schemer.

But what would it take to live not “like a king,” but as a king?

According to Wikipedia, that would be 40 million pounds, or about $60 million. Now that’s what I call living, something a guy could get used to. But as it turns out, it’s nothing as compared to what the first family spends.

The cost of maintaining our own royal family — the Obamas — is a whopping $1.4 billion with a “B,” as reported by the National Review. That means that Queen Elizabeth and her family’s expenses are a mere 4.3 percent of the Obama clan. Stated differently, the Obamas spend more than 23 times what the British royal family does.

Particularly galling is that with the sequester cuts initiated Mar. 1, the president doesn’t believe he can continue paying the $18,000 per week for the White House tour staff.

The National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke notes:

There was a reason that the Founding Fathers rejected titles and honorifics in favor of simplicity. Thankfully, the straightforward address, “Mr. President,” won out over the pretentious names that John Adams suggested, which included “His Majesty the President,” “His Mighty Benign Highness,” and “His High Mightiness.” (The Senate rather cruelly mocked Adams by suggesting it refer to him as “His Rotundity.”) Too many in our government have forgotten which way around this is supposed to work. Here in America, it’s supposed to be small government, Big People.

Here’s a postscript on the British royal family. Although it costs Great Britain 40 million pounds to maintain the royals to the manner born, they return to the treasury 200 million pounds in rent received from royal land. So in actuality they make money for the kingdom.

Meanwhile, there’s still a group of disappointed Iowa sixth graders that doesn’t understand why they’re prohibited from visiting “the people’s house.”

Read more at the National Review.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles