Page 10 | As Rachel Reeves struggles to balance the books, the Royal Family should forgo a £46 million increase in their funding. AIBU?

User198174 · 2025-11-12T10:25:54+00:00

Due to an increase in Crown Estate profits, the government is set to increase its grant to the Royal Family from £ 86.3 million to £132.1 million. As the Royal Family appear to be getting by at present on an £86.3 million grant, AIBU to say that they should share in the pain of the national squeeze on finances? [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5lzq94gqo.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5lzq94gqo.amp]]

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:35

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 16:05

Do you have a reputable and current source that they bring in more money than they cost the UK tax payer?

Show quote history

You probably won't consider it reputable, but chat gpt says that the royal family likely provides a net positive financial effect, mostly through tourism and the Crown Estate mechanism, but the exact figure is highly debated.

Meadowfinch · 12/11/2025 17:34

It depends what it's for. If to replace the roof, replumb and rewire Buck House, then maybe. That is a national asset.

I'd want a detailed breakdown of their budget plans.

CreativeGreen · 12/11/2025 17:32

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:29

I used to believe the checks and balances idea, but when the queen failed to stop Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament, I saw it for the hoax that it is.

Show quote history

Exactly. All the years we've had this line trotted out, and the one time it would actually have been quite useful, the Queen instead chose to articulate her (apparent) opposition to Brexit by wearing coded hats and brooches, or something. Absolute nonsense.

wantam · 12/11/2025 17:32

Well that's Charlie paid back for providing digs and funds for AMW.

He waited until the accounts were published, then got A sorted "from his own funds ya know", safe in the knowledge that he would get a massive lump from the Crown Estate (our asset, not his) to bump up his bank account again.

If any apologist comes along to try and justify all this, I'll have my fingers in my ears right! Optics dear boy, optics.

CreativeGreen · 12/11/2025 17:31

If £46 million can be raised with just £1 from each household... why do we decide that should go to this family? Ok, it won't sort the NHS, but it's not nothing! So why should it all go to one wealthy family?

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:29

RedTagAlan · 12/11/2025 14:27

We could pay them 500 million a year, and they would still be cheaper than having a Trump as head of State :-)

But seriously, I think it is worth it because having a King is the ultimate check and balance on our elected Parliament.

In theory, the King can sack Parliament, and Parliament can sack the King.

Untested in modern history of course ( but the late Queen did sack the Ozz guv in '75). Hopefully it's a system that means we don't get a Trump.

I used to believe the checks and balances idea, but when the queen failed to stop Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament, I saw it for the hoax that it is.

OP posts:

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:26

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:18

Whatever your opinion of foreign aid, it’s indisputable that its recipients need it more than the royal family needs another £46m. I can’t think of any area of government spending which is more profligate that cut by

Show quote history

Sorry, phone went berserk. I was trying say that I can’t think of another area of government spending which is so profligate with taxpayers’ money. It’s as if it’s an unspeakable idea to cut royal funding.

OP posts:

5128gap · 12/11/2025 17:24

RedTagAlan · 12/11/2025 15:39

Yup. I totally get you re accident of birth, but what you are saying above is actually half of my pro RF argument I am making.

If the King goes power mad, Parliament can sack him.

Show quote history

I don't think the ability of parliament to sack a king is a pro RF argument. At best it's a mitigation against a risk. A risk that would be non existent if there was no king in the first place.

RainbowBagels · 12/11/2025 17:23

ScholesPanda · 12/11/2025 16:10

It's the nature of the deal that was agreed. If the profits go down, so do their earnings. If they go up, so do their earnings. Replaced the previous civil list arrangement.

Chicken feed anyway, so a waste of time for the government to revisit the deal. YABU.

IIRC the stupid deal agreed by John Major was that if the profits go up, they get more, but if the profits go down their income doesn't go down, it stays the same. The Civil List was more transparent as they got paid to do duties and the rest was paid for out of the Crown Estate- buildings etc.

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:18

surreygirly · 12/11/2025 14:14

Just stop foreign aid that is much more than 46 m

Whatever your opinion of foreign aid, it’s indisputable that its recipients need it more than the royal family needs another £46m. I can’t think of any area of government spending which is more profligate that cut by

OP posts:

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 16:18

coxesorangepippin · 12/11/2025 16:14

First poster nailed it

Get rid of the royal family altogether

Why are they still there??

Why are they still idiolized??

Yes...why ARE they idolised? What do they actually do apart from cutting the odd ribbon?

jumpingthehighjump · 12/11/2025 16:16

5128gap · 12/11/2025 14:12

Its not bailing out a government, its chipping in to support the society they are part of. And in the case of the Royals, justify their own roles by a claim of care and service towards.
Its all well and good hoarding wealth beyond the level you could ever need, provided you're content to live in a bubble, closing your eyes and holding your nose in the face of the poverty of those around you.
If the problems caused by deprivation, the crime, the sickness, the ugliness of it never has to cross your radar, you can sit in your luxury and keep your fingers crossed there won't be a revolution.
But the whole point of the Royal family is to be of service to the people, and to be seen to be, and I'm frankly amazed that people don't see the glaring hypocrisy in all their performative charity, while they contine a life of obscene excess on public money.

Show quote history

what a great post. Totally agree.

coxesorangepippin · 12/11/2025 16:14

First poster nailed it

Get rid of the royal family altogether

Why are they still there??

Why are they still idiolized??

ScholesPanda · 12/11/2025 16:10

It's the nature of the deal that was agreed. If the profits go down, so do their earnings. If they go up, so do their earnings. Replaced the previous civil list arrangement.

Chicken feed anyway, so a waste of time for the government to revisit the deal. YABU.

RainbowBagels · 12/11/2025 16:08

Vaxtable · 12/11/2025 14:38

The sovereign grant is only 12% of the crown estate profits (raised at the moment to 25% to cover repairs to Buckingham Palace) and is used for (according to chat)

What is the Sovereign Grant used for
The Sovereign Grant is funded from general taxation / public finances, based on the formula tied to the Crown Estate’s profits. It is used for:

The official work of the monarch (as Head of State). GOV.UK+1
Running and maintenance of the occupied Royal Palaces used for official purposes. Research Briefings+1
Costs of official travel (UK and overseas) by the King and members of the Royal Family when acting on his behalf. Research Briefings+1
Staff employment in the Royal Household supporting those duties. Research Briefings+1

and as the RF do a lot of work behind the scene, as the behest of the Foreign Office to help with various matters, trade deals etc and brings in tourism to the country I don’t begrudge them getting it

But my question would actually be what to the Government do with the rest which is a really considerable amount that gets shared across across different things

But as there are fewer of them doing less work, why do they need an increase in their money? Do these things cost £46m more than they did last year, despite having far fewer personnel?

RainbowBagels · 12/11/2025 16:05

Idstillratherbepaddleboarding · 12/11/2025 14:24

If they really care about all the charities they claim to support and early years education, they should offer to forgo their raise or refuse it.

Or just pay appropriate taxes. What they have saved through their 'voluntary' payment of tax ( In Williams case, that he has refused to disclose so we can only assume its less than the amount his father paid) is more that £46m I would imagine!

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 16:05

tapaw · 12/11/2025 14:57

£46 million increase? They bring massive interest and tourism. People all over the world are interested in that part of our culture. They come, spend money etc.

That increase is approx 0.01% of our welfare costs - and the welfare costs are the problem. The royal family is a net financial positive and not the problem here.

Do you have a reputable and current source that they bring in more money than they cost the UK tax payer?

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 12/11/2025 16:03

Unless I’ve misunderstood, the Crown Estates have massively increased their profits this year.

Of that massive increase, the majority will go to the government- to be spent on what?
The rest will go to the RF to be spent on all the things listed by a PP- transport, maintaining the various buildings etc. All sound future proofing, and improving the local economy as well. Presumably the current increase will help hugely with the Buckingham Palace repairs, so the additional award can be stepped down more quickly.

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 16:03

tapaw · 12/11/2025 14:57

£46 million increase? They bring massive interest and tourism. People all over the world are interested in that part of our culture. They come, spend money etc.

That increase is approx 0.01% of our welfare costs - and the welfare costs are the problem. The royal family is a net financial positive and not the problem here.

I'd love to see a reputable source that actually proves they bring in more than they cost.

vellichoria · 12/11/2025 15:58

Badbadbunny · 12/11/2025 13:50

£46m is chicken feed. Less than a pound per person living in the UK.

That may be but £46M could still build a small hospital in, let's say, one community which could make a lot of positive difference to that community, even if not the whole country. In another year, another £46M could build another hospital. Year after a year, a lot of difference could be made. Every little helps as they say. I'd rather spend my <£1 in taxes that way than on people who can live well with their own money.

For all other people, benefits are means tested. Maybe it's time for that rule to apply to the privileged too.

vellichoria · 12/11/2025 15:54

jumpingthehighjump · 12/11/2025 13:53

What do they do for us?
For me?

A 48% increase in the sovereign Grant whilst people are struggling so much is a joke

Show quote history

I am also interested in finding out what it is that they do for us and don't really want to hear "they bring in a lot of tourists" in response as I am not that convinced that we have more tourists because of them or would have fewer without them.

vellichoria · 12/11/2025 15:49

5128gap · 12/11/2025 15:06

Either the power of the king over parliament is theoretical, in which case entirely meaningless, or its actual. If the latter, does it not worry you that a person could weild such power in a democracy, for no other reason than an accident if birth? No requirement for a certain level of intelligence, capacity, experience or academic achievement, just who his parents were? Because frankly, if I thought the power was more than theoretical that would worry me greatly, as I have seen no indication at all of the inate superiority of this family, intellectually, morally or in any other way. Delivery of pre written speeches with varying levels of articulacy, shaking hands, waving and watching things doesn't evidence the skill set required to check a government.

Show quote history

Completely agree. Even the theoretical possibility that an unelected by anyone individual can be in a position to wield the aforementioned level of power is crazy and doesn't do much for the so called checks and balances.

RedTagAlan · 12/11/2025 15:39

5128gap · 12/11/2025 15:06

Either the power of the king over parliament is theoretical, in which case entirely meaningless, or its actual. If the latter, does it not worry you that a person could weild such power in a democracy, for no other reason than an accident if birth? No requirement for a certain level of intelligence, capacity, experience or academic achievement, just who his parents were? Because frankly, if I thought the power was more than theoretical that would worry me greatly, as I have seen no indication at all of the inate superiority of this family, intellectually, morally or in any other way. Delivery of pre written speeches with varying levels of articulacy, shaking hands, waving and watching things doesn't evidence the skill set required to check a government.

Show quote history

Yup. I totally get you re accident of birth, but what you are saying above is actually half of my pro RF argument I am making.

If the King goes power mad, Parliament can sack him.

RedTagAlan · 12/11/2025 15:33

5128gap · 12/11/2025 15:06

Either the power of the king over parliament is theoretical, in which case entirely meaningless, or its actual. If the latter, does it not worry you that a person could weild such power in a democracy, for no other reason than an accident if birth? No requirement for a certain level of intelligence, capacity, experience or academic achievement, just who his parents were? Because frankly, if I thought the power was more than theoretical that would worry me greatly, as I have seen no indication at all of the inate superiority of this family, intellectually, morally or in any other way. Delivery of pre written speeches with varying levels of articulacy, shaking hands, waving and watching things doesn't evidence the skill set required to check a government.

Show quote history

True. But as I said, it is untested. And it has worked so far.

The Military, Police, courts, civil service etc all pledge allegiance to the King, but it's Parliament that fund them. To me, that's a great way to stop coups. How would a coup even happen in such a situation?

The US though, they swear to the Constitution. And as we have seen with Trump, he appears to consider himself above the Constitution. There has been, and is, a real worry about a coup with Trump. Jan 6th, it really was a thing that if the National Guard had been called out, who would they have supported.

Our system makes us a coup free zone. Could anyone honestly say the same about the USA ?

That's my logic anyway.

5128gap · 12/11/2025 15:06

RedTagAlan · 12/11/2025 14:27

We could pay them 500 million a year, and they would still be cheaper than having a Trump as head of State :-)

But seriously, I think it is worth it because having a King is the ultimate check and balance on our elected Parliament.

In theory, the King can sack Parliament, and Parliament can sack the King.

Untested in modern history of course ( but the late Queen did sack the Ozz guv in '75). Hopefully it's a system that means we don't get a Trump.

Either the power of the king over parliament is theoretical, in which case entirely meaningless, or its actual. If the latter, does it not worry you that a person could weild such power in a democracy, for no other reason than an accident if birth? No requirement for a certain level of intelligence, capacity, experience or academic achievement, just who his parents were? Because frankly, if I thought the power was more than theoretical that would worry me greatly, as I have seen no indication at all of the inate superiority of this family, intellectually, morally or in any other way. Delivery of pre written speeches with varying levels of articulacy, shaking hands, waving and watching things doesn't evidence the skill set required to check a government.