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
Pranaon · 14/11/2025 08:32

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 .

Bad publicity 😂

jumpingthehighjump · 14/11/2025 08:29

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 08:13

I simply compared the two examples of state funded claimants and pointed out that the ones being vilified on here work harder than the other and have no choice but to do so.
If other people pick up on that I have the right to reply whether you agree or not.

Show quote history

First I've ever heard of the "hardworking" royal family being compared to benefit claimants 🤣😂
Two different issues

Theunamedcat · 14/11/2025 08:15

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 08:13

I simply compared the two examples of state funded claimants and pointed out that the ones being vilified on here work harder than the other and have no choice but to do so.
If other people pick up on that I have the right to reply whether you agree or not.

Show quote history

So what lump of highly profitable properties did benefits claimants turn over to the government and why arnt they living in them?

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 08:13

jumpingthehighjump · 14/11/2025 07:56

Because this isn't the thread for your rant about benefit claimants

Show quote history

I simply compared the two examples of state funded claimants and pointed out that the ones being vilified on here work harder than the other and have no choice but to do so.
If other people pick up on that I have the right to reply whether you agree or not.

jumpingthehighjump · 14/11/2025 07:56

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 07:29

Why can't we knock benefit claimants?
UC had to be amended to tell these lazy people when and how much to work?
Surely anyone on benefits not constantly looking for ways to be self sufficient is using them as a lifestyle choice not a safety net.

Show quote history

Because this isn't the thread for your rant about benefit claimants

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 07:29

jumpingthehighjump · 13/11/2025 21:33

Please stop knocking benefit claimants and forget the tourism myth. It's been busted time and time again

Show quote history

Why can't we knock benefit claimants?
UC had to be amended to tell these lazy people when and how much to work?
Surely anyone on benefits not constantly looking for ways to be self sufficient is using them as a lifestyle choice not a safety net.

Gingernessy · 14/11/2025 07:21

User198174 · 13/11/2025 21:09

Why are UC recipients less deserving than multi, multimillionaires?
You say “The Royal Family work hard”.
Much of this work appears to involve making small talk at the opening of new buildings, cutting ribbons, reading out speeches written by other people…
It’s quite a stretch to call this “work”.

Show quote history

Because many UC claimants are perfectly capable of working but don't want to.
The rest are happy to work the bare minimum they can to get topped up - why do we have to have conditionality if that's not the case.
The royal family don't get asked if thry fancy a state visit or opening a centre somewhere they're told what they'll be doing and when.
imagine doing that to all benefit claimants - it's be against their human rights!

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 21:35

SoSoLong · 13/11/2025 21:22

So the Crown Estates profit has gone up by 70% or so in the last year, or did I get that wrong? Because if that's the case, forget about the measly £46mil, we need to get rid of Reeves asap and put the Crown Estates CEO in her place right now.

Indeed! 🤣

OP posts:
jumpingthehighjump · 13/11/2025 21:33

Gingernessy · 13/11/2025 21:01

Only if we decrease UC payments by the same percentage.
The Royal family work hard and whilst privileged have little personal freedom.
They bring tourism and revenue to this country and are our representatives overseas.
Unlike the 9 million + benefit claimants who also claim tax payer money but do nothing of any use for the country.

Show quote history

Please stop knocking benefit claimants and forget the tourism myth. It's been busted time and time again

SoSoLong · 13/11/2025 21:22

So the Crown Estates profit has gone up by 70% or so in the last year, or did I get that wrong? Because if that's the case, forget about the measly £46mil, we need to get rid of Reeves asap and put the Crown Estates CEO in her place right now.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 21:09

Gingernessy · 13/11/2025 21:01

Only if we decrease UC payments by the same percentage.
The Royal family work hard and whilst privileged have little personal freedom.
They bring tourism and revenue to this country and are our representatives overseas.
Unlike the 9 million + benefit claimants who also claim tax payer money but do nothing of any use for the country.

Show quote history

Why are UC recipients less deserving than multi, multimillionaires?
You say “The Royal Family work hard”.
Much of this work appears to involve making small talk at the opening of new buildings, cutting ribbons, reading out speeches written by other people…
It’s quite a stretch to call this “work”.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 21:03

charliehungerford · 13/11/2025 20:54

It seems that the money was for the then POW charities, but I agree that is suspect. The point I was making is that it’s very unlikely that the Monarch would be open to corruption due to their huge wealth. We have seen far too much corruption in government in recent years, free holidays, clothing, hospitality etc, I like to think that our head of state was above this, the late queen certainly appeared to be.

Show quote history

There are so many decent, uncorruptible people out there, quietly living decent lives, helping their communities. Does a head of state really need to be bribed by enormous amounts of public money, in order to prevent them being bribed by enormous amounts of private money?

OP posts:
Gingernessy · 13/11/2025 21:01

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

Only if we decrease UC payments by the same percentage.
The Royal family work hard and whilst privileged have little personal freedom.
They bring tourism and revenue to this country and are our representatives overseas.
Unlike the 9 million + benefit claimants who also claim tax payer money but do nothing of any use for the country.

charliehungerford · 13/11/2025 20:54

Ukisgaslit · 13/11/2025 20:27

@charliehungerford

Have you heard about bags of cash and /or cash for honours ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113#:~:text=The%20Prince%20of%20Wales%20accepted,department%20store%20Fortnum%20and%20Mason.

It seems that the money was for the then POW charities, but I agree that is suspect. The point I was making is that it’s very unlikely that the Monarch would be open to corruption due to their huge wealth. We have seen far too much corruption in government in recent years, free holidays, clothing, hospitality etc, I like to think that our head of state was above this, the late queen certainly appeared to be.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 20:41

Hadalifeonce · 12/11/2025 13:51

Isn't the funding from the crown estates,not the tax payer? Apologies if I have got that wrong. I thought the crown estates is effectively, a property company, and its profits determine the sovereign grant.

Yes, that’s correct. The crown estate income is a government resource, and since David Cameron’s time as PM, some of it is used for royal funding. The issue is that its revenues are used for government expenditure. That extra £46 million which is currently earmarked for a royal pay rise could be used by many more deserving and needy recipients than the royal family.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 20:32

wantam · 13/11/2025 19:33

I suppose though, if they did hand the rise back it would reinforce the idea that they don't need it at all. That's out of the question then.

Well yes, which is why it would be nice to see Rachel Reeves taking action. She seems to be applying rigorous scrutiny to areas of government spending which affect the public, and yet the royal expenditure appears mysteriously off-limits.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 20:30

Theunamedcat · 13/11/2025 19:56

I thought the uplift was because the estates have earned more not because they had asked for it? Or is it because of Buckingham Palace renovations?

Yes, it’s because of crown estate profits. The Crown Estate is a government resource, and royal funding is provided from it. There are some excellent explanations further upthread.
There’s also a post which explains how the royals hated the annual civil list debate, which was part of the process of allocating royal family funding . Consequently David Cameron and George Osborne created a new system whereby the royals received government funding from the Crown Estate.

OP posts:
Theunamedcat · 13/11/2025 19:56

I thought the uplift was because the estates have earned more not because they had asked for it? Or is it because of Buckingham Palace renovations?

Theunamedcat · 13/11/2025 19:54

Hadalifeonce · 12/11/2025 13:51

Isn't the funding from the crown estates,not the tax payer? Apologies if I have got that wrong. I thought the crown estates is effectively, a property company, and its profits determine the sovereign grant.

Yes

wantam · 13/11/2025 19:33

I suppose though, if they did hand the rise back it would reinforce the idea that they don't need it at all. That's out of the question then.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 19:32

IsawwhatIsaw · 13/11/2025 19:24

And the late queen and Charles lobbied ministers for favourable tax treatment on their vast private estates.
The pandora papers also showed they both had millions in tax efficient offshore trusts, some money invested in morally questionable areas.
such greed is offensive.

It shows horrible entitlement. However, the blame lies with the government for failing to rein in the greed.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 19:30

jumpingthehighjump · 13/11/2025 19:17

Well... QE2 requested a poverty grant to heat the palaces and it was explained that the handouts were aimed at schools, hospitals, councils and housing associations for heating programmes that benefited low-income families.

Wow!! 😱

OP posts:
IsawwhatIsaw · 13/11/2025 19:24

And the late queen and Charles lobbied ministers for favourable tax treatment on their vast private estates.
The pandora papers also showed they both had millions in tax efficient offshore trusts, some money invested in morally questionable areas.
such greed is offensive.

jumpingthehighjump · 13/11/2025 19:17

Well... QE2 requested a poverty grant to heat the palaces and it was explained that the handouts were aimed at schools, hospitals, councils and housing associations for heating programmes that benefited low-income families.