The newspaper published a story this week that, with apparent surprise, it would be up to UK taxpayers to foot the bill for the funeral on Monday.
Its report described the ceremony as a ‘hefty price tag’ for taxpayers amid rampant inflation and a cost of living crisis in the UK.
The New York Times estimated that the state funeral would cost around £6million, claiming the figure would add to the financial issues currently faced by British families.
But it has now been revealed that the actual cost per household in Britain will be just five pence.
Author Ben Judah wrote: ‘Let me fix the headline for you @nytimes — “Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, which will involve elaborate processions, vigils and rituals, will cost 5p per household.”‘
Today, The New York Times had to admit it was wrong and promptly publish a correction to its story – noting that inflation was not actually as bad as it had initially reported.
Rather than the more than 10 percent inflation the newspaper had pushed, the correction said: ‘The country’s inflation rate is at nearly 10 percent; it does not exceed 10 percent.’
The correction added: ‘While the Bank of England said last month that it expected a long recession to begin this year, that was before a new plan proposed by Prime Minister Liz Truss to cap soaring energy costs.’
The Prime Minister’s plan will cap energy bills at £2,500, which economists say will lead to inflation peaking at 10 per cent at the end of this year – as opposed to soaring above 13 per cent next month as had been feared.
The apology comes as readers have been left were unamused, with some announcing they were cancelling their subscriptions following a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen’s death.
The New York Times has received more criticism over its reporting of the Queen’s funeral, including a new report noting – with apparent surprise – that it would be paid for by taxpayers
Andrew Neil suggesting it wasn’t exactly revelatory to point out that a funeral for a head of state would be funded by that country’s taxpayers
America’s ‘paper of record’ has long been accused of displaying a haughty ignorance of the reality of life in the UK, with reports in recent years suggesting Brits spend their time ‘cavorting in swamps’ and, until recently, existed on a diet of ‘porridge and boiled mutton’.
For many, its latest report only confirmed this impression, with Andrew Neil suggesting it wasn’t exactly revelatory to point out that a funeral for a head of state who had served with unfailing duty for 70 years would be funded by that country’s taxpayers.
‘Amazing scoop from the New York Times reveals that the Queen’s funeral will be paid out of taxation,’ he tweeted. ‘Must be a first for any head of state anywhere. Or … maybe there are no depths to which the @nytimes won’t stoop in its anti-British propaganda.’
Former London Assembly member Peter Whittle was similarly damning of the piece, writing: ‘I can do without the fake concern of the @nytimes It’s hatred of Britain is now pathological.’
Others pointed out that the Queen had served the UK and the Commonwealth with remarkable dedication and loyalty for 70 years so was entitled to a state funeral.
British conservative commentator Nile Gardiner added: ‘The sneering attacks on Britain and the Monarchy from The New York Times and America’s hate-filled woke Left are tedious, nasty and unpleasant.
‘They may appeal to a small audience of elite Socialists, but the vast majority of Americans, who love the Queen, will not be impressed.’
Tom Harwood, another political commentator, noted that the British government was already committing billions of pounds to tackle inflation.
‘The Queen’s funeral [cost will] be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that,’ Harwood wrote. ‘You absolute ghouls.’
Readers have also attacked the paper for its recent coverage. One tweeted: ‘Your coverage of the Queen is a disgrace, the story also does not belong to you. Giving up my 10 year subscription.’
Tom Williams wrote: I am cancelling my online @nytimes subscription tomorrow. The bizarre anti-UK shtick is just so tedious. I understand why they do it – clickbait for both sides of the political divide – but people want to pay for quality.’
The financier Ben Goldsmith said he had done the same.
The backlash came a week after the paper garnered criticism over an article by Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard University, where she said it was wrong to ‘romanticize’ the crown due to Britain’s colonial history.
‘The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged,’ she wrote in the piece, published hours after Her Majesty’s death.
New York Magazine’s The Cut has been seen as the biggest offender over its coverage of the Queen’s death and the British Royal Family.
Critics accused the NY Times of yet another ‘sneering attack’. Others pointed out that the funeral will cost individual taxpayers a matter of a few pennies
The left-wing magazine, which published an in-depth interview with the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, in August, has recently targeted King Charles in a new piece that was published online on Wednesday.
The latest story is titled: ‘King Charles’s Reign of Fussiness Has Begun,’ and comes days before the Queen‘s funeral, which is scheduled for Monday.
The article points to reported that a grieving Charles went through two ‘tantrums’ in the days after the death of his beloved mother.
One was about him reacting angrily during a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland when a pen leaked on him, and another described how, at his accession ceremony, he ‘trussed up in tails and hissing at palace aides who failed to move a pen tray off his table with due haste.’
The king apparently gestured to aides to help him to make some room on a cluttered desk.
The Cut went on to mention a report from the Guardian in which it was alleged that Charles chose to tell close to 100 employees that he was letting them go as he prepares to move into Buckingham Palace during a memorial service for his mother.
A source told the newspaper: ‘Everybody is absolutely livid, including private secretaries and the senior team.’
The article concluded with one of Meghan Markle’s many unproven allegations that a member of the Royal Family was racist about her son, Archie. It also accused Charles of ‘mundane cruelty’ to his wife, Princess Diana.
Some readers have announced they are cancelling their subscriptions following a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen’s death
Infamously, shortly after the Queen’s death, The Cut published an article titled: ‘I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor.’
The piece was an interview Carnegie Mellon linguistics professor Uju Anya who tweeted on Thursday: ‘I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.’
Anya told the Cut that the Queen was a ‘representative of the cult of white womanhood.’
Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is ‘a child of colonization,’ and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian Civil War.
‘My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today,’ she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government ‘she supervised.’
Maya Jasanoff, a Harvard professor specialising in the history of the British Empire, wrote for the NY Times last week that it was wrong to ‘romanticize’ the Queen’s rule
‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,’ Anya said.
‘There’s this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.’
New York Magazine’s The Cut, which published an in-depth interview with Meghan Merkle, has been seen as the biggest offender over its coverage of the Queen’s death
Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is ‘a child of colonization,’ and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian Civil War.
‘My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today,’ she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government ‘she supervised.’
‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,’ Anya said.
‘There’s this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.’
Uju Anya, a black applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, said on Friday: ‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood’
Shortly before the Queen’s passing was announced on Thursday, Anya tweeted that she hoped her death would be ‘excruciating’
Readers turn on Meghan’s new favourite magazine The Cut after it published article branding King Charles a ‘big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff’ as he walked behind the coffin carrying his mother
By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter for MailOnline and Paul Farrell for Dailymail.com
Meghan Markle’s favoured left-wing US magazine The Cut has launched an extraordinary assault on King Charles III – calling him a ‘big, fussy baby and a jerk’ – that MailOnline can today reveal was published online as he mourned and marched behind his mother’s coffin as she left Buckingham Palace for the last time yesterday.
The Duchess of Sussex is in the UK with her husband Prince Harry as part of ten days of mourning for the Queen ahead of her state funeral on Monday.
The offensive article in the liberal New York magazine is likely to upset the Royal Family as it grieves the loss of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch. The New York Times has also been accused of plumbing new depths in its campaign of ‘sneering’, ‘anti-British propaganda’ in recent days that has seen Britons cancel their subscriptions.
The Cut published an in-depth interview with the Duchess of Sussex before she came to the UK last week where she claimed Harry felt he had ‘lost’ his father over his decision to quit his public duties.
Meghan made a series of other apparent swipes at her British family, claiming they had been treated differently to other senior royals, and warned she could ‘say anything’ in an interview promoting her Spotify podcast.
And in a new attack by The Cut, staff writer Claire Lampen, who appears to cover sex, gender and the royals, calls the monarch a ‘big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff’ and a ‘persnickety snob’. She also refers to King Charles III as the ‘Queen’ throughout and makes claims about the King and Queen Consort’s sex life. Last month she also made lewd comments about Prince William and speculation about the sexual proclivity of his royal relatives.
King Charles III has been branded a ‘big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff’ by The Cut – Meghan Markle’s favoured US magazine
Lampen says of the late Queen and her son: ‘While there are valid criticisms to be made of his mother — that she was the figurehead of a colonialist empire who never apologized for the crimes committed in her name, for example — Charles has applied his own special flare to the job. It is a flare for being a big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff; not very queenly material if you ask me’.
The piece from the New York Magazine offshoot even accuses Charles of racism towards his own grandson Archie – a claim his own spokesman said was ‘fictional’ last year.
There are also false claims that the King stormed out of a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland when a pen leaked on him. This was a reference to an incident this week when he was seen venting frustration over pens which leak ‘every stinking time’ while signing a visitors’ book. Footage of the incident shows Charles completed the task before leaving.
Lampen also says he threw a ‘tantrum’ and ‘hissed’ at his staff for not removing a pen quick enough when he was confirmed King at a ceremony on Saturday. In fact he merely motioned to an aide to urgently move a pen box from his desk which was getting in his way as he went to sign the historic Proclamation at St James’ Palace.
The Cut published the article titled: ‘King Charles’s Reign of Fussiness Has Begun’ at around the time the mourning monarch, his siblings and his children accompanied the Queen’s coffin on her final journey to Westminster Hall to lie in state yesterday afternoon.
It has sparked outrage from some of the publication’s own readers who slammed its timing and content. One declared it was ‘a half ar*ed article bad mouthing the subject of that article with no real truths behind it’. Another said: ‘It is sad to read such nonsense. But maybe this should be expected from a little comic that recently ran an article called “Meghan of Montecito”. Yesterday’s pictures from London will have shown the world how much we love and respect our Monarchy, including our wonderful new King’.
One critic said: ‘Your snark isn’t that clever, and your ignorance is astounding. I like the Cut, and have been a reader for many years, but the sentiment of this article has really made me reconsider their objectives’.
An emotional King Charles III follows the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II as it is carried on a horse-drawn gun carriage to Westminster Hall yesterday, around the time The Cut published its latest royal hit piece
The Cut goes on to mention a report from the Guardian in which it was alleged that Charles chose to tell close to 100 employees that he was letting them go as he prepares to move into Buckingham Palace during a memorial service for his mother. A source told the newspaper: ‘Everybody is absolutely livid, including private secretaries and the senior team.’
Lampen blames the King for the decision, calling it the ‘culling of the royal herd’. He was in Edinburgh at the time. The article also accuses him of ‘mundane cruelty’ to his wife, Princess Diana.
The latest attack from the magazine Charles III comes less than a week after his mother’s death
The Cut’s assault on the mourning monarch came as The New York Times launched another attack on the monarchy, this time in a front page article criticising King Charles III for enjoying tax privileges while the British public is ‘reliant on food banks’.
Sex and gender writer behind latest hit job on the royals by US magazine The Cut
Claire Lampen (right) is Bates history major and recipient of a Fulbright Study Research grant to aid her research into German history. She has written about The Great War and the Second World War – and the impact of the battlefield.
But since moving into journalism, she has written widely on gender, sex, women’s issues and reproductive rights.
These include articles such as: ‘If Your Vibrator Is Hacked, Is It A Sex Crime?’
Since becoming a staff writer for The Cut, she has written more royal stories.
Before the much-criticised piece on King Charles, last month she penned an article about Prince William’s ‘sexy nickname’ and another piece on whether the new Prince of Wales ‘dropped the F-bomb’.
Claire also wrote a piece called: ‘Is the Queen Beefing With Her “Favourite” Cheese?’
The piece was an interview Carnegie Mellon linguistics professor Uju Anya who tweeted on Thursday: ‘I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.’
Anya told the Cut that the Queen was a ‘representative of the cult of white womanhood.’
The Cut was launched in 2008 as a section on New York Magazine’s website and made into a standalone brand in 2012. It owned by Vox Media, who publish titles such as Thrillist, Eater and The Verge.
It has published such controversial removed pieces such as a 2018 article that referred to Priyanka Chopra as a ‘global scam artist’ with regard to her relationship with Nick Jonas and an open forum for spreading unconfirmed reports of sexual misconduct by men in journalism.
Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is ‘a child of colonization,’ and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian Civil War.
‘My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today,’ she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government ‘she supervised.’
‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,’ Anya said.
‘There’s this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.’
In August, Markle told the Cut that what the couple asked for when they wanted financial freedom was not ‘reinventing the wheel’.
The article also heard from Harry who suggested some members of the Royal Family ‘aren’t able to work and live together’, while Meghan revealed that her husband told her that he had ‘lost’ his father Prince Charles.
Meghan also said: ‘I’m getting back … on Instagram’ – with Davies describing ‘her eyes alight and devilish’. It comes after she closed all of her social media accounts ahead of her wedding to Harry in 2018. But further down the article, it says: ‘Later, Meghan would relay she was no longer sure she would actually return to Instagram.’
The latest attack from the magazine Charles III comes less than a week after his mother’s death
And Meghan said she spoke to a Lion King cast member from South Africa in London in 2019 who told her: ‘When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison.’
Meghan said that she and Prince Harry were ‘happy’ to leave Britain and were ‘upsetting the dynamic of the hierarchy… just by existing’ before they stepped down as frontline royals and moved to North America.
Prior to the release of their interview, The Cut published an article titled: ‘People Will Accuse Meghan Markle of Lying About Anything.’ That piece dealt with Markle’s claim that there had been a fire in Archie’s room prior to the formerly Royal couple attending an event, and cited numerous commentators allegations that the event was exaggerated.
The Cut reported today that 41-year-old Meghan listed a ‘handful of princes and princesses and dukes who have the very arrangement they wanted’, although none of these royals are named in the article.
And Meghan, speaking to New York-based features writer Allison P Davis, said: ‘That, for whatever reason, is not something that we were allowed to do, even though several other members of the family do that exact thing.’
Asked ‘Why do you think that is?’, she simply replied: ‘Why do you think that is?’, with the interviewer Davis saying that she said this ‘right back with a side-eye that suggests I should understand without having to be told’.