The New York Times has come under fire for allegedly going to new lengths in its campaign of “sneering,” “anti-British propaganda,” after one of its articles revealed, with a look of apparent surprise, that the UK taxpayers would be responsible for covering the cost of a funeral for their own head of state.
In light of Britain’s high rate of inflation, the article called it a “hefty price tag,” but readers weren’t amused and several said they were cancelling their memberships after a storm of criticisms of the monarchy only days after the Queen’s passing.
In recent years, reports have suggested that Brits spend their time “cavorting in swamps” and, until recently, subsisted on a diet of “porridge and boiled mutton,” which have long been accused of being published by America’s “paper of record” as displaying a haughty ignorance of the reality of life in the UK.
According to Andrew Neil, it wasn’t particularly revelatory to note that a burial for a head of state who had served with unswerving devotion for 70 years would be paid for by that country’s taxpayers. For many, this perception was further reinforced by its most recent report.
He tweeted, “Amazing revelation from the New York Times discloses that the Queen’s funeral will be funded by taxes.” For any head of state anywhere, this must be a first. Or, maybe, the “@nytimes won’t go to such depths in its anti-British propaganda.”
Peter Whittle, a former member of the London Assembly, said on Twitter: “I can do without the faux concern of the @nytimes.” Its animosity for Britain has become pathological.
‘Let me alter the headline for you @nytimes – ‘Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, which will feature elaborate processions, vigils, and ceremonies, will cost 5p per family.” said author Ben Judah.
Others said that the Queen was deserving of a state burial since she had dedicated and loyally served the UK and the Commonwealth for 70 years.
The mocking assaults on Britain and the Monarchy from The New York Times and America’s hate-filled woke Left are tiresome, rude, and unpleasant, said British conservative pundit Nile Gardiner.
The great majority of Americans, who adore the Queen, will not be pleased, notwithstanding the possibility that they will win over a tiny group of elite Socialists.
A second political analyst, Tom Harwood, pointed out that the British government had already committed billions of pounds to combating inflation.
According to Harwood, “The Queen’s funeral [cost] will be a fraction of a fraction of that.” You ghouls are absolute.
The newspaper has also come under fire from readers for its recent coverage. “Your coverage of the Queen is a disgrace, and the story also does not belong to you,” one person tweeted. I’m cancelling my membership of ten years.
I will be terminating my membership to the online @nytimes tomorrow, Tom Williams wrote. The crazy anti-UK nonsense is so tiresome. People want to pay for quality, but I can see why they do it: it’s clickbait for both sides of the political aisle.
Ben Goldsmith, a financier, claimed to have followed suit.
The outcry occurred a week after the newspaper faced criticism for an article by Harvard University history professor Maya Jasanoff, who said that because of Britain’s colonial past, it was inappropriate to “romanticise” the queen.
In the article, which was released shortly after Her Majesty’s passing, she said that “the queen helped disguise a terrible history of decolonization whose dimensions and legacies have yet to be truly recognised.”
The Cut from New York Magazine has been criticised the most for its coverage of the Queen’s passing and the British Royal Family.
The left-wing publication, which in August featured an in-depth interview with Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, has lately attacked King Charles in a new article that was posted online on Wednesday.
The most recent news item, headed “King Charles’s Reign of Fussiness Has Begun,” was published a few days before the Queen’s planned burial on Monday.
According to the story, Charles had two “tantrums” in the days after the passing of his cherished mother.
In one, he was reported as being enraged after a pen spilled on him at a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland, and in another, he was described as becoming “trussed up in tails and snarling at palace staff who failed to clear a pen tray off his table with proper speed.”
The monarch seemed to signal his helpers to clear some space off his crowded desk.
The Cut continued by citing a Guardian article that said Charles decided to inform around 100 staff that he was firing them while he was getting ready to move into Buckingham Palace and at a funeral ceremony for his mother.
Everyone is tremendously furious, especially the top team and private secretaries, a source told the publication.
The piece ended with one of Meghan Markle’s many unsubstantiated claims that a royal family member had been prejudiced toward her son, Archie. It also charged Charles of treating his wife, Princess Diana, with “mundane brutality.”
Famously, The Cut published a piece titled “I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor” not long after the Queen passed away.
Uju Anya, a professor of linguistics at Carnegie Mellon, was interviewed for the piece. On Thursday, Anya tweeted: “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving, raping, genocidal empire is finally dying.” May her suffering be unbearable.
The Queen, according to Anya, “represents the cult of white womanhood,” according to the Cut.
Anya, a professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, was born in Trinidad to a Trinidadian mother and a Nigerian father.
She claimed to be “a child of colonisation” and claimed that Britain’s involvement in the Nigerian Civil War had shaped her perspective, according to NBC News.
My earliest memories are of living in a war-torn area, and even now, reconstruction is still ongoing, she recalled.
She defended her anti-monarchy comments and added that the Queen was not above the choices the British government made, which “she supervised.”
It is incorrect to “romanticise” the Queen’s rule, Harvard professor Maya Jasanoff who specialises in the history of the British Empire wrote last week for the New York Times.
Anya stated that “Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of the cult of white womanhood.”
As if she resided in this place or space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown, there is this idea that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and purses and little dogs and everything.
Anya, a professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, was born in Trinidad to a Trinidadian mother and a Nigerian father.
She claimed to be “a child of colonialism” and said that Britain’s involvement in the Nigerian Civil War had impacted her worldview, according to NBC News.
My earliest recollections are of living in a war-torn environment, and even now, reconstruction is still ongoing, she said.
She defended her anti-monarchy comments and said that the Queen was not above the choices the British government made, which “she monitored.”
Anya said that “Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of the religion of white femininity.”
As if she resided in this location or area in the imagination, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a role in the slaughter of her Crown, there is this idea that she was this tiny-old-lady grandmother type with her little hats and bags and small dogs and everything.