New York Times Accused of Bashing Britain Over Queen Funeral Cost Query

Coverage of Queen Elizabeth II's funeral left British commentators accusing The New York Times of making "sneering attacks on Britain."

The newspaper linked the bill for events marking the death of Queen Elizabeth II to the cost of living crisis, which had dominated news cycles up until the U.K's longest reigning monarch passed away on Thursday, September 8.

"The queen's funeral will be paid for by British taxpayers," a headline on the Times' website read.

A tweet on the official Times account added: "Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, which will involve elaborate processions, vigils and rituals, will be paid for by British taxpayers as they deal with soaring energy prices and high inflation. The British government has not yet said how much it will cost."

The backlash was swift and led by journalists and prominent commentators, who characterized the article as the latest in a line of attacks on Britain.

Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter: "Oh shut up, you clowns. You have no understanding about how we Brits feel about our great Queen, or you'd stop click-baiting all this negative garbage."

Quoted by The Daily Mail, Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, said: "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."

The Daily Mail followed up the Twitter backlash with a news story pointing to the fact the Times had to issue a correction over its account of inflation in Britain, which it had said was above 10 percent but had actually been slightly below 10 percent.

Some also took issue with its account of the funeral carrying a "huge price tag" estimated by the Times at £6 million ($6.8 million).

Ben Judah, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, 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 [around 6 cents per household]."

Meanwhile, an article in the right-of-center magazine The Spectator said: "First it was Brexit, now it's the queen. That the New York Times has a near-pathological loathing for Britain is nothing new at this point, but it seems that the motivating factor for the 'Gray Lady's' Anglophobia has switched in recent days from the 2016 referendum result to the passing of our beloved monarch.

"Barely had the Queen's death been announced then the NYT was furiously publishing opinion pieces denouncing the woman as a symbol of British imperialism.

"This was just hours after her death and ignored the salient facts that Elizabeth's reign coincided with the end of the British Empire and that she loved the multi-racial Commonwealth. Even Cyclops would struggle to write something so one-eyed."

There have long been rumblings from sections of the British media accusing the NYT of bias against Britain.

An article in The Spectator in 2018 carried the headline: "What's the New York Times's problem with Britain?"

Then in 2020, Douglas Murray, author of The War on the West, wrote an article for the website Unherd, which read: "In no area in recent years has the NYT made itself more ridiculous than on the subject of the United Kingdom.

"Since those of us who live in the U.K. might be regarded as, if not experts, then at least well-informed observers, the paper's coverage has stood out as being especially ridiculous or defamatory, depending on your mood that morning."

This is by far the biggest backlash, however, and served as touch paper during a time of national mourning for Elizabeth.

Newsweek has reached out to the The New York Times for comment.