Page 9 | 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]]

Thecows · 12/11/2025 19:17

It's a lot or it's nothing depending on the context

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 19:16

Andthatrightsoon · 12/11/2025 18:59

£46m is approximately 8 hours' worth of NHS spending, just to put it in context.

£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.

OP posts:

everytimeifall · 12/11/2025 18:59

It should be 0 until the books are balanced.

Andthatrightsoon · 12/11/2025 18:59

£46m is approximately 8 hours' worth of NHS spending, just to put it in context.

Burgerphone · 12/11/2025 18:53

The wealth inequality that this country was built on is alive and kicking in 2025.

£46m increase for the biggest grifters, meanwhile around 4.5 million children in the UK live in poverty. That's one third of all children.

Astounding really.

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 18:48

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?

Exactly. The apologists are conditioned to say “it’s only £x per household”. But why should all that extra money go to a family who live in immense luxury, who have vast private wealth, and who already receive huge taxpayer support.

OP posts:

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 18:38

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:53

I am always surprised at this attitude. I have no particular love for the royal family, but it’s been part of British culture for centuries. We wouldn’t suggest any other cultures just remove stuff - we would respect their culture. But we have zero respect for ours

as I say, financially chat gpt overall says they are a net positive

Show quote history

They aren’t even very British. They are the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, but they decided to change their name to Windsor in an attempt to seem more British.
I personally am not fussed about that, but it counters the narrative that they represent something fundamentally British.
Even if they were strongly British in their heritage, I would still argue that they don’t need to siphon so much money from the public teat. In the absence of a republic, I’d like to see a salary paid to the monarch alone, commensurate with that received by the Prime Minister.

OP posts:

XWKD · 12/11/2025 18:36

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:53

I am always surprised at this attitude. I have no particular love for the royal family, but it’s been part of British culture for centuries. We wouldn’t suggest any other cultures just remove stuff - we would respect their culture. But we have zero respect for ours

as I say, financially chat gpt overall says they are a net positive

Show quote history

You don't have to get rid of them to cut the cost of things that aren't necessary to the monarchy. Other countries with monarchies manage to do it without all the excess.

Hortesne · 12/11/2025 18:35

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:53

I am always surprised at this attitude. I have no particular love for the royal family, but it’s been part of British culture for centuries. We wouldn’t suggest any other cultures just remove stuff - we would respect their culture. But we have zero respect for ours

as I say, financially chat gpt overall says they are a net positive

Show quote history

What other countries do with their royals is up to them. On our institutions, I have a view.

socks1107 · 12/11/2025 18:30

I like the RF but in the current climate and public feeling no they shouldn’t be getting that. I know it’s small money to them but when the rest of us are facing higher taxes, higher train fares and food it’s a seemingly unjustified

noworklifebalance · 12/11/2025 18:23

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 !

I agree and would suggest that the £46million is split so each member of the public gets an equal share tax-free, so about a half million each.

Pearl69 · 12/11/2025 18:22

User198174 · 12/11/2025 13:41

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.

Show quote history

It would be a positive optic for an unpopular government. No one should argue the Royals need that huge increase.

slowsakura · 12/11/2025 18:20

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 18:18

YANBU but £46 million is piss in the wind. For context it’s a seven thousandth of what we spent on benefits and pensions alone.

It could pay for a decent number of teachers /nurses /playgrounds/bus services etc.
It's not to be sneered at

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 18:18

YANBU but £46 million is piss in the wind. For context it’s a seven thousandth of what we spent on benefits and pensions alone.

Londonrach1 · 12/11/2025 18:14

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

slowsakura · 12/11/2025 18:03

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:53

I am always surprised at this attitude. I have no particular love for the royal family, but it’s been part of British culture for centuries. We wouldn’t suggest any other cultures just remove stuff - we would respect their culture. But we have zero respect for ours

as I say, financially chat gpt overall says they are a net positive

Show quote history

Male only suffrage and slavery were part of our culture too but we managed to move on from that ok

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:53

Hortesne · 12/11/2025 17:45

Yep, fine by me. Get rid of the lot.

Show quote history

I am always surprised at this attitude. I have no particular love for the royal family, but it’s been part of British culture for centuries. We wouldn’t suggest any other cultures just remove stuff - we would respect their culture. But we have zero respect for ours

as I say, financially chat gpt overall says they are a net positive

XWKD · 12/11/2025 17:47

slowsakura · 12/11/2025 17:40

I think since QE died and post randy-Andy gate etc the royals are going to need to accept some fairly hefty cost cutting or the mood will swing more and more Republican. I dont know any young people who are royalists

I think they will become a political issue sooner or later.

Hortesne · 12/11/2025 17:45

lemonraspberry · 12/11/2025 13:52

Get rid of the crown you also need to get rid of the church. The two work side by side. Another man made entity which decides how people should, should not live and known for endless quests for power it does not deserve.

Show quote history

Yep, fine by me. Get rid of the lot.

Original poster

User198174 · 12/11/2025 17:44

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.

France is the most visited country in the world. I’m not suggesting the French solution to the problem of the royal family, but I don’t buy the tourism claims. In fact, tourists and the British public would get more access to the artistic treasures of the royal palaces if we were to become a republic.

OP posts:

Bagsintheboot · 12/11/2025 17:43

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:38

Ha ha ha ha 😂..the word "likely " makes this statement extremely ambiguous. Come on...there must surely be some substantive evidence somewhere?

Show quote history

Well in 2024-25 the Crown Estate generated £1.1bn of net revenue.

That goes to the govt, in exchange for a payment of £86m to the Crown.

I'd say £1.1bn for £86m is probably a good deal in anyone's books.

slowsakura · 12/11/2025 17:41

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

Agreed. Not acting then made the royals as a "check and balance" redundant.
Such a disgusting and shameful episode

slowsakura · 12/11/2025 17:40

I think since QE died and post randy-Andy gate etc the royals are going to need to accept some fairly hefty cost cutting or the mood will swing more and more Republican. I dont know any young people who are royalists

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:38

tapaw · 12/11/2025 17:35

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.

Show quote history

Ha ha ha ha 😂..the word "likely " makes this statement extremely ambiguous. Come on...there must surely be some substantive evidence somewhere?

Mangetouts · 12/11/2025 17:38

Where the money is going is relevant. Presumably they're not getting £46m to roll around the floor in.

I do think that once Charles snuffs it the whole royal ball game will change. And that's likely to be sooner than later given his age.