Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

287 replies

User198174 · 12/11/2025 10:25

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

King Charles in the foreground of the image looks away to the left of the frame, whilst his younger brother Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is seen behind him, slightly out of focus.

Royal finances: Where does the King get his money? - BBC News

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement is "very brutal", royal historian Kelly Swaby tells the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5lzq94gqo.amp

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 13:48

didntlikeanyofthesuggestions · 12/11/2025 13:45

How ungrateful! After all the royal family do for us this is the least the government should be doing. I know Prince Andrew has had some bad publicity recently but let's not punish the others .

Love it! 🤣

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 13:47

Cleikumstovies · 12/11/2025 13:42

Leaving aside whether the monarchy should or should not exist. Should those with large wealth bail out a government who has mismanaged their country or bailout a government who has been voted in to govern a mismanaged country by predecessors?

The Tories salted the earth, and Labour is a deer in the headlights. But if the answer is that those with broadest shoulders should take the strain, why are the royals exempt?

OP posts:
didntlikeanyofthesuggestions · 12/11/2025 13:45

How ungrateful! After all the royal family do for us this is the least the government should be doing. I know Prince Andrew has had some bad publicity recently but let's not punish the others .

Cleikumstovies · 12/11/2025 13:42

Leaving aside whether the monarchy should or should not exist. Should those with large wealth bail out a government who has mismanaged their country or bailout a government who has been voted in to govern a mismanaged country by predecessors?

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 13:41

BorgQueen · 12/11/2025 13:34

I doubt £46million would run the NHS for an hour.

More troubling is that Charles didn’t have to pay Inheritance tax and I doubt William will either. ‘Cos it’s all tied up in lovely Trusts that the plebs don’t know about.
We’ll never get to see HMQ Elizabeth’s Will, not in my lifetime anyway, despite Wills being public documents.

Agreed. That £46 million royal funding increase (on top of obscenely lavish pre-existing state funding) might not go far in the NHS, but would definitely help with local transport initiatives for example. It could also save many libraries, or swimming pools, or help with school estate maintenance. In short, there are multiple better ways of spending £46 million.

OP posts:
Bagsintheboot · 12/11/2025 13:39

I don't particularly care if they get the £46m or not, but £46m is absolute peanuts compared to the money this country needs.

It would run the NHS for approximately two hours @BorgQueen !

QuenchedSquirrel · 12/11/2025 13:36

The cost of property upkeep and official business done by working royals is not going to increase by £40+ million.

Unless they decide that they may as well do some renovations somewhere. And do extra, more expensive state visits, and walkabouts.

It's ludicrous that the amount they receive is linked to profits, therefore they can increase their expenditure on property and official work to fit the amount.

It would be more sensible to allocate a set amount, that rose with inflation.

BorgQueen · 12/11/2025 13:34

I doubt £46million would run the NHS for an hour.

More troubling is that Charles didn’t have to pay Inheritance tax and I doubt William will either. ‘Cos it’s all tied up in lovely Trusts that the plebs don’t know about.
We’ll never get to see HMQ Elizabeth’s Will, not in my lifetime anyway, despite Wills being public documents.

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 13:27

2 and a half hours in, not one person has jumped in to the thread to say that the Royal Family deserves or needs a £46 million increase in funding!

Rachel Reeves should take note - there’s an easy £46 million boost to the national piggy bank, which will be noticed by nobody except for the royals!

OP posts:
UnhappyHobbit · 12/11/2025 13:26

I don’t believe in getting rid of the royals. This does seem like a huge increase to them however, it depends on how much they are making back for the government/economy as a whole.

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 10:48

AlphaApple · 12/11/2025 10:34

I’d go a step further and disestablish the royal family altogether, nationalise the Crown Estate and their inherited assets. The whole notion of royalty is an anathema.

I agree, but I don’t think that will happen in the near future. It would be great to even get to a place where state financial support went only to the monarch.

OP posts:
AlphaApple · 12/11/2025 10:34

I’d go a step further and disestablish the royal family altogether, nationalise the Crown Estate and their inherited assets. The whole notion of royalty is an anathema.