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 09:48

slowsakura · 13/11/2025 09:32

Agree.
I'm always fascinated by the people that defend it!
Particularly after all the scandals.

Show quote history

Yes! It’s as if they genuinely believe that these ordinary, flawed people are innately superior.
I am always struck by the slightly slack-jawed, glazed looks of awe people have when they are meeting these apparently magical beings. Photographs capture the gormless expressions perfectly.

OP posts:
slowsakura · 13/11/2025 09:47

IsawwhatIsaw · 13/11/2025 09:36

Assume this is a joke?!

Show quote history

I assumed Randy Andy had so much time on his hands these days that he had started a Mumsnet account Grin

I will happily open the odd hospital ward and make small talk at a few garden parties in exchange for owning vast swathes of England and being paid millions out of the public purse though if people really think that is a worthy cause

IsawwhatIsaw · 13/11/2025 09:36

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 .

Assume this is a joke?!

slowsakura · 13/11/2025 09:32

XWKD · 12/11/2025 22:27

I'm always stunned by the bullshit about them wanting to modernise the monarchy. How do you modernise being a head of state by birthright?

Agree.
I'm always fascinated by the people that defend it!
Particularly after all the scandals.

Original poster
User198174 · 13/11/2025 08:33

XWKD · 12/11/2025 22:27

I'm always stunned by the bullshit about them wanting to modernise the monarchy. How do you modernise being a head of state by birthright?

It is indeed a load of feudal nonsense.

OP posts:
XWKD · 12/11/2025 22:27

I'm always stunned by the bullshit about them wanting to modernise the monarchy. How do you modernise being a head of state by birthright?

Timeforabitofpeace · 12/11/2025 21:09

The less we spend on the RF, the better. They are beyond rich, and the country needs the money.

Timeforabitofpeace · 12/11/2025 21:09

The less we spend on the RF, the better. They are beyond rich, and the country needs the money.

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.

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:54

Ukisgaslit · 12/11/2025 20:52

I’ve just thought- if some people still think the Windsors own the Crown estate ( I do agree the name is confusing and it should renamed the National Estate) then they may also think that 125 million is the total cost of the Windsors

It isn’t . Many costs are kept secret but the real annual cost is closer to half a billion .
Half a billion annually to a family who protected Andrew for a decade before we found out …

Mind-blowing amount of money for one already hugely privileged family…

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:53

Ukisgaslit · 12/11/2025 20:40

I haven’t read the full threadbut not this again.
The Windsors DO NOT own the crown estate - we do.
100% if the profits went to the treasury before Elizabeth finally got her way via Osborne and Cameron and had her funding changed from the civil list ( which was debated ) to the Sovereign Grant - the fat % they take today. Elizabeth also had a little proviso that the debate linked to the Civil list also be scrapped. Handy for the increasingly unpopular Windsors now but not so much for democracy.

It’s an absolute disgrace that the Windsors take as many millions as they do annually -never mind getting their arm in for an increase. This is not their money.
Time for a cut - or a tax increase like the rest of us

And 86% agree with you OP . I hope someone in government sees this . An easy win for them. It would be extremely popular

Edited
Show quote history

I hope so too!

OP posts:
Ukisgaslit · 12/11/2025 20:52

I’ve just thought- if some people still think the Windsors own the Crown estate ( I do agree the name is confusing and it should renamed the National Estate) then they may also think that 125 million is the total cost of the Windsors

It isn’t . Many costs are kept secret but the real annual cost is closer to half a billion .
Half a billion annually to a family who protected Andrew for a decade before we found out …

Ukisgaslit · 12/11/2025 20:40

sittingonabeach · 12/11/2025 14:46

But the balance of the Crown Estates money goes to the Treasury. If the Crown Estates was say owned by Duke of Westminster the taxpayer wouldn't see any of it, apart from any tax paid on the income

I haven’t read the full threadbut not this again.
The Windsors DO NOT own the crown estate - we do.
100% if the profits went to the treasury before Elizabeth finally got her way via Osborne and Cameron and had her funding changed from the civil list ( which was debated ) to the Sovereign Grant - the fat % they take today. Elizabeth also had a little proviso that the debate linked to the Civil list also be scrapped. Handy for the increasingly unpopular Windsors now but not so much for democracy.

It’s an absolute disgrace that the Windsors take as many millions as they do annually -never mind getting their arm in for an increase. This is not their money.
Time for a cut - or a tax increase like the rest of us

And 86% agree with you OP . I hope someone in government sees this . An easy win for them. It would be extremely popular

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:25

jumpingthehighjump · 12/11/2025 20:22

Yes, and to prove it....

(Royalists hate me putting up this. I get a lot of negative comments about it)

Show quote history

Wow! Says it all so concisely.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:23

Londonrach1 · 12/11/2025 18:14

You find most people on the street agree but those in power won't do it.

Very true. Those politicians like Sir Keir Starmer who are already ennobled have a vested interest in the status quo. Those who are yet to be ennobled are looking ahead to their possible seat in the House of Lords, and are not willing or able to show leadership on this issue.

OP posts:
jumpingthehighjump · 12/11/2025 20:22

User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:09

Yes, imagine the good that could be done over many years if the royals were to live within their means. Other European royal families are far less flashy and costly.

Show quote history

Yes, and to prove it....

(Royalists hate me putting up this. I get a lot of negative comments about it)

As Rachel Reeves struggles to balance the books, the Royal Family should forgo a £46 million increase in their funding. AIBU?
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:20

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.

How convenient!

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:15

CreativeGreen · 12/11/2025 17:32

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.

Show quote history

😂

OP posts:
UnderTheStarryNight · 12/11/2025 20:12

Disgusting. The country’s broke and we’re handing out an extra £46m to those scroungers!!

Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 20:09

vellichoria · 12/11/2025 15:58

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.

Show quote history

Yes, imagine the good that could be done over many years if the royals were to live within their means. Other European royal families are far less flashy and costly.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 19:56

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

Exactly.

OP posts:
Original poster
User198174 · 12/11/2025 19:54

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

Hard agree. Well said.

OP posts:
wantam · 12/11/2025 19:29

Rachel should consider charging 90% tax on disbursements from Crown profits to the RF.

They can claim a full refund when they open their books and show their wills.

XWKD · 12/11/2025 19:26

User198174 · 12/11/2025 19:16

£46 million could fund construction of a school, with several million left over. It could also fund a small hospital.
It could fund plenty of things which would bring benefit to communities.

Show quote history

Or pay for new hospital beds for a year in a larger hospital. The list is endless. So many things could benefit from £46m.

NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag · 12/11/2025 19:24

There's not much else left that hasn't already been rinsed. Royal asset stripping must be approaching. If only it could be for the common good ✊🙏

Swipe left for the next trending thread