Richard Kay is reporting that the Queen and Prince Charles have referred the ongoing train wreck of Sarah, Duchess of York’s financial position to 10 Downing Street. He writes:

For weeks, they have watched the catastrophic unravelling of the Duchess of York’s life with a dispassionate dismay. But as stories of her mounting debts and legal liabilities show no sign of slowing, I understand Downing Street has been consulted.

According to well-placed sources, [Prime Minister] David Cameron has had discussions about the chaos surrounding the Duchess with representatives of the Queen and of Prince Charles. ‘It has simply become too big an issue to ignore,’ I am told.

While sympathetic, I understand the Prime Minister’s view is that the matter is one for the royals.

In May, it emerged that Fergie was struggling with £2million [$3m+] of debts after she was trapped by an undercover reporter, posing as a businessman, into asking for £500,000 in return for access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew.

Astonishingly, she is reported to owe £65,000 ($100,000) to her fitness instructor. Doesn’t it occur to her that it’s a vast sum to pay for what could be attained more simply: jogging and press-ups, for example?

She has now sacked her eleven-strong contingent of staff, who are all said to have been paid in full, presumably by her ever-loyal ex-husband.

A “senior figure” is quoted as saying, “There is a wider feeling within the Palace about the Duchess’s long-term situation. They can’t afford to cast her totally adrift, but at the same time they can hardly welcome her back into the bosom of the family. They all feel Andrew has been magnificent towards her over the years.”

David Cameron is believed to have been a good listener, but he can’t pay her debts out of public funds in a time of severe austerity.

In the meantime, Fergie has been on trips to the U.S., Italy and the Caribbean. In August she’s off on a holiday to Spain.

If you’ve never seen a walking disaster, the Duchess is your gal.

The Crown Estates, now generating £226 million annually for the Treasury, could partly be used to fund the Monarchy and its annual expenditure.

The Estates were ceded to Parliament in 1760 by George III, in what must be one of the worst business deals in history.

Nominally, the Queen now pays 96.5% tax on the Estate, receiving just 3.5% of its income as a grudging Civil List award.

The Civil List is currently £7.9 million and has been frozen for 20 years. In real terms, the Palace now receives only 20% of the revenue granted in 1991. No wonder bits are beginning to fall from the roof of Buckingham Palace.

Thirteen years of a Labour government have deliberately worn down the Queen’s annual income, even during the years of a wildly booming economy. The spite of Gordon Brown against the Monarchy is fully revealed in his treatment of the Queen during his long years in office.

Sir Alan Reid, the Queen’s treasurer, is reported to have informed Government officials that the Monarch’s expenditure is now running at around £7 million more than the annual allowance, despite hefty savings over the years.

Conservative MP Edward Leigh, former Chairman of the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, which scrutinises the Royal finances, said, “The Queen needs substantially more money to carry out her duties and responsibilities.”

In Tuesday’s Emergency Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, once again froze the Civil List at £7.9 million for one year, driven by his own injunction that “everyone will suffer equally”.

He could hardly excuse the Queen. However, a rider was carefully added. The Civil List is to be scrapped and a new mode of funding the Monarchy to be introduced.

There is some speculation that the Palace could be funded directly out of the Royal Estates, now known as the Crown Estate, subject to review by the National Audit Office.

This leaves the way open for a dramatic increase in revenues for the Royal Family and the Palaces.

Not before time.

Apotheosis of George Washington, The Capitol, Washington DC

We wish all our contributors and readers a splendid Christmas, followed by a very successful New Year.

John Evans

The Daily Mail has an interesting piece on how Princess Beatrice seems almost a reincarnation of the young Queen Victoria (pictured below).

There is certainly a remarkable likeness.

The article also reproduces a whole series of stunning pictorial comparisons with present Royals and their predecessors, some going back centuries. Check out the one between King Edward I (1239-1307) and Prince William. The old King comes to life before our eyes.

My favourite though, is Louis Frederick Prince of Wales (1707-1751) and Freddie Windsor. Frederick was the eldest son of George II and father of George III as well as the Great-Grandfather of Victoria. He died before his father, allowing his son to succeed to the Throne.

Lord Frederick Windsor — spookily bearing his lookalike’s name — has very individual eyes and a face that bears few comparisons. Until now.