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 · 13/11/2025 13:50

CruCru · 13/11/2025 13:43

This is an interesting thread. I think the issue is more that some people don't like the way that the contract was drawn up - under that contract the RF get a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estates with the rest going to the Treasury. I am not convinced that a contract can just be torn up for political reasons - it would set a terrible precedent.

That is an interesting point. However, governments can and do tear up contracts. The UK government is terminating some train company contracts early. The Scottish government terminated parking contracts with private companies in most of its hospital car parks, so that visitors and staff could have free parking.

OP posts:
CruCru · 13/11/2025 13:43

This is an interesting thread. I think the issue is more that some people don't like the way that the contract was drawn up - under that contract the RF get a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estates with the rest going to the Treasury. I am not convinced that a contract can just be torn up for political reasons - it would set a terrible precedent.

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

WaryCrow · 13/11/2025 13:28

Not only that, they should pay the inheritance tax they’ve been dodging, and give up a couple of the many large properties they own to be converted into flats. They can pay for the conversion too.

They appear to own so many properties and estates. It would make sense for them to move into one or other of them. Buck and Kensington Palaces could be handed over to the nation as galleries and museums. Perhaps the living quarters could be repurposed as accommodation for MPs, thereby putting an end to the practice of MPs receiving subsidised 2nd homes.

OP posts:
WaryCrow · 13/11/2025 13:28

Not only that, they should pay the inheritance tax they’ve been dodging, and give up a couple of the many large properties they own to be converted into flats. They can pay for the conversion too.

QuenchedSquirrel · 13/11/2025 13:15

There is a debate somewhere about whether or not they (the Crown estates) were George III's to surrender in 1760.

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

angelos02 · 13/11/2025 13:01

I have to turn the TV over when any of them are on. Turns my stomach. A family with such vast wealth in the same country with over 2000 foodbanks.

Yes, it just seems so wrong and immoral.

OP posts:
angelos02 · 13/11/2025 13:04

.

angelos02 · 13/11/2025 13:01

I have to turn the TV over when any of them are on. Turns my stomach. A family with such vast wealth in the same country with over 2000 foodbanks.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 12:56

Ukisgaslit · 13/11/2025 12:52

Sorry I see someone upthread has explained

Yes a lot of deliberate confusion surrounding this issue . You see it when a royalist says ‘ the king gives us money from the crown estates’ . Swallowed it hook line and sinker

Some people are so invested in maintaining the status quo, in spite of no obvious benefit to them, other than the soap opera aspect of the royals.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 12:52

Ukisgaslit · 13/11/2025 12:41

No, we do own the estates

This is more smoke and mirrors public / private obfuscation

What your Wiki link ( wiki is not the most reliable ) says is that the ‘monarch/ head of state’ holds it by virtue of their position as head of state . IE the Windsors do not own it as individuals
. If the Windsors weren’t there , there would be no symbolic monarch and no money at all going to the Windsors .

BTW they don’t own the Duchys either

I can see why people they do own the crown estates - the name for one thing- and the Windsors like to propagate the idea that they are generously ‘giving’ us some revenue . When the opposite is true . They take .

Show quote history

Smoke and mirrors is a great description.

OP posts:
Ukisgaslit · 13/11/2025 12:52

Sorry I see someone upthread has explained

Yes a lot of deliberate confusion surrounding this issue . You see it when a royalist says ‘ the king gives us money from the crown estates’ . Swallowed it hook line and sinker

Ukisgaslit · 13/11/2025 12:41

vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:34

It doesn't look like we own it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And I guess we can assume that it's the taxpayer who foots the bill for the management and administration of the estate that we or the government don't own.

Show quote history

No, we do own the estates

This is more smoke and mirrors public / private obfuscation

What your Wiki link ( wiki is not the most reliable ) says is that the ‘monarch/ head of state’ holds it by virtue of their position as head of state . IE the Windsors do not own it as individuals
. If the Windsors weren’t there , there would be no symbolic monarch and no money at all going to the Windsors .

BTW they don’t own the Duchys either

I can see why people they do own the crown estates - the name for one thing- and the Windsors like to propagate the idea that they are generously ‘giving’ us some revenue . When the opposite is true . They take .

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 11:56

vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:45

I am just very puzzled by what I can only call a set of very strange arrangements around it: the monarch owns it but it's not in private property of any monarch. There is some body that administers it on behalf the monarch but the money it generates goes to the Treasury for the "benefit of the nation" and yet the government also doesn't own it and neither can any government independently make all decisions related to it but it's being managed for "the benefit of the nation". Having said this, there is no transparency as to how it is being managed for the benefit of the nation. The Crown Estate Act 2015 reinforced independence of the Crown Estate but it will report annually to the Parliament and the monarch for the sake of transparency and proper governance.

Why does it all need to be so complicated if there is so much transparency and proper governance?

Edited
Show quote history

It is quite deliberately kept opaque.

OP posts:
vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:45

User198174 · 13/11/2025 11:40

You can bet the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

Show quote history

I am just very puzzled by what I can only call a set of very strange arrangements around it: the monarch owns it but it's not in private property of any monarch. There is some body that administers it on behalf the monarch but the money it generates goes to the Treasury for the "benefit of the nation" and yet the government also doesn't own it and neither can any government independently make all decisions related to it but it's being managed for "the benefit of the nation". Having said this, there is no transparency as to how it is being managed for the benefit of the nation. The Crown Estate Act 2015 reinforced independence of the Crown Estate but it will report annually to the Parliament and the monarch for the sake of transparency and proper governance.

Why does it all need to be so complicated if there is so much transparency and proper governance?

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 11:40

vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:34

It doesn't look like we own it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And I guess we can assume that it's the taxpayer who foots the bill for the management and administration of the estate that we or the government don't own.

Show quote history

You can bet the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 11:38

vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:23

I'd love to see the same. I just don't think that tourists visit the country because the monarchy is there and would stop or significantly reduce if they were not. France, for example, generates a decent tourist interest without the monarchy and doesn't seem to suffer from any kind of reduced interest as a result of their monarchy not being there anymore and I am confident they make more money from all imperial palaces and residences being open to the public and tourists in full at all times as opposed to only their various sections being open as/when approved or desired by the existing residents as is the case in the UK.

Personally, it never occurred to me to visit or not visit any country because of some monarch or another still being or not being present there and maybe there are some people who are that interested in some monarchies that they would go to another country for the sake of them but I doubt that this is the main motivator for visiting any country for most tourists.

Show quote history

I completely agree.

OP posts:
vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:34

Ukisgaslit · 12/11/2025 21:00

@Bagsintheboot

You’ve completely misunderstood this mechanism
We own the crown estates .
We should - and were in the last- be getting 100 of profits .
It is not the case that the Windsors own it and hand over 75 % to us. No . We own it and are handing THEM 25%

As someone upthread said. That’s a small hospital a year. Or a school . Or a day centre.

Edited

It doesn't look like we own it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And I guess we can assume that it's the taxpayer who foots the bill for the management and administration of the estate that we or the government don't own.

Crown Estate - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

vellichoria · 13/11/2025 11:23

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 16:03

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

Show quote history

I'd love to see the same. I just don't think that tourists visit the country because the monarchy is there and would stop or significantly reduce if they were not. France, for example, generates a decent tourist interest without the monarchy and doesn't seem to suffer from any kind of reduced interest as a result of their monarchy not being there anymore and I am confident they make more money from all imperial palaces and residences being open to the public and tourists in full at all times as opposed to only their various sections being open as/when approved or desired by the existing residents as is the case in the UK.

Personally, it never occurred to me to visit or not visit any country because of some monarch or another still being or not being present there and maybe there are some people who are that interested in some monarchies that they would go to another country for the sake of them but I doubt that this is the main motivator for visiting any country for most tourists.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 10:42

User198174 · 13/11/2025 10:29

Today, the Guardian reports that Rachel Reeves is looking at the salary sacrifice scheme for bike purchase.
A Treasury source says “Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for luxury leisure.” 🤔

For comparison, the bike scheme costs £130 million. The royals, after their £46 million boost, will receive £132 million.

The Guardian article doesn’t seem to suggest that the bike scheme will be axed completely. My reading is that Reeves will look for savings in it. And yet, there’s no talk of looking for savings in royal costs.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 10:38

MeouwKing · 13/11/2025 10:32

Off to the tower with you op.

I will watch my step!

OP posts:
MeouwKing · 13/11/2025 10:32

Off to the tower with you op.

slowsakura · 13/11/2025 10:32

User198174 · 13/11/2025 10:29

Today, the Guardian reports that Rachel Reeves is looking at the salary sacrifice scheme for bike purchase.
A Treasury source says “Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for luxury leisure.” 🤔

Yes I noticed that, and thought of this thread!

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 10:29

Today, the Guardian reports that Rachel Reeves is looking at the salary sacrifice scheme for bike purchase.
A Treasury source says “Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for luxury leisure.” 🤔

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 09:54

IsawwhatIsaw · 13/11/2025 09:36

Assume this is a joke?!

Show quote history

I read it that way, but with royal fans, you can never tell. Some weird kind of self-abasing Stockhausen syndrome…

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread