Helping the (Royal) Family Farmer

Matt Welch | March 31, 2005

Next time some Old Country terroirist tries to tell you that the EU's agricultural subsidies are the only way to keep the humble family farmer afloat in these turbulent times, tell them that "the Queen and Prince Charles received 1 million [pounds] during the past two years."

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Meanwhile, Back at the Water Board | Main | Breakfast of Champions →

See all 10 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|3.31.05 @ 1:55PM|#

Gee, government programs advertised as helping the little guy are really used to funnel money to the well-off. This is news only to the people who vote for these sorts of things.

|3.31.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Well, maybe they really need that money, you know?

|3.31.05 @ 2:27PM|#

Well, maybe they really need that money, you know?

Well, maybe things are a little tight around the royal household since the govt started making the Windsors pay income taxes.

|3.31.05 @ 4:38PM|#

As long as we're on the subject of hereditary rulers getting farm subsidies, is W getting any subsidies for that ranch of his?

|3.31.05 @ 5:00PM|#

Well according to this he's not one of the top recipients:

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/top_recips.php?fips=48000&progcode=total&yr=2003

The blog entry linked gives this website:

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/

One of this bloggers complaints is that in the US this is a matter of public record, whereas the Guardian had to use the UK Freedom of Information Act to get this info out ogf the gov't.

Ashish Hanwadikar|3.31.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Here is a good debate on freeing up agricultural subsidies. I argue that developing countries can open up their imports and enjoy the cheaper produce.

|3.31.05 @ 9:28PM|#

Christie Todd Whitman's story should surprise no one. Farmers have long been paid exhorbitant sums to not grow stuff.

|4.1.05 @ 6:50AM|#

I don't remember the details, but back when Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, required round-the-clock police protection against Khomeini's fatwa on his life, Prince Charles actually complained about how much money it was costing the British taxpayers to keep Rushdie safe. Rushdie responded by saying something about how much gall it took for a member of the Royal Family to complain about wasting taxpayer money. Good for him!

clarityiniowa|4.1.05 @ 11:18AM|#

The Royal Pain's being the recipient of huge ag subsidies is old news, as is his perpetual rant about ag biotech. We have quite a few "gentleman farmers" of Chas.' ilk here in Iowa, although their blood is considerably less blue, as their subsidies often are tied more to how much acreage they plant or don't plant as over against their actual production or lack of same.

AND, according to a friend of mine on the county board of supervisors hereabouts, if your land is classified agricultural, but you are raising nothing but kentucky bluegrass, you can put in for CRP dollars even though you're using the acreage only as a residence with a big back yard. Preposterous.