New York Times

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 unamused by a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen's death, with some announcing they were cancelling their subscriptions. 

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.    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.