Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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:
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:
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.

Andthatrightsoon · 12/11/2025 18:59

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

everytimeifall · 12/11/2025 18:59

It should be 0 until the books are balanced.

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:
Thecows · 12/11/2025 19:17

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

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 ✊🙏

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.

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

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.

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.

Hard agree. Well said.

OP posts:
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.

Exactly.

OP posts:
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.

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:
UnderTheStarryNight · 12/11/2025 20:12

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

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.

😂

OP posts:
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:
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.

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?
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:
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)

Wow! Says it all so concisely.

OP posts:
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