As Rachel Reeves struggles to balance the books, the Royal Family should forgo a £46 million increase in their funding. AIBU?

[User198174]

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

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?

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”.

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.

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

Indeed! 🤣

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

Bad publicity 😂

Surely a "hard working " Royal is an oxymoron? 😄

Actually, the thread is about whether or not the royals should receive an uplift of £46 million pounds on top of their already lavish funding. You haven’t as yet provided a compelling reason for the huge cash boost they are expected to receive for no discernible change to their duties.

Benefit claimants do nothing profitable for the country.

What exactly is it that they do for us ?

I think they're being sarcastic? If not, I'd also like to know exactly what they ALL do for the money they receive...and I mean actual work...not "they attract tourism'.

@User198174 Also, the idea that members of the monarchy will be upstanding and incorruptible if we give them enough money is shown to be hopelessly idealistic by the (piss artist) formerly known as Prince Andrew.

This! A lot of books on political theory argue that corruption exists because politicians don't get paid enough. It's a nice theory but practice suggests that nobody has yet done anything about human greed and often there isn't an amount of money big enough that some people will ever be satisfied with.

The idea that the royals are somehow incorruptible just because they don't need the money or the titles is just as theoretical as an argument that any king is without sin because he is the Head of Church. And are they truly apolitical or is it easier to be apolitical in a system where two main parties from which people elect their government have practically become the right and the left arm of the same body, which is being so heavily lobbied and influenced by transnational corporations and the superwealthy that it may just as well declare it its sole purpose to legislate and regulate in their favour rather than any interests of the people of the country?

As for representing "our interests" abroad... I am sorry but I am not seeing how they are being adequately represented by cutting ribbons, shaking hands and kissing babies on their overseas travels (all by private jets, of course!).

Fantastic comment.

This is off topic but I wonder if the seeming reluctance of MPs to tackle Windsor greed is linked in any way to maintaining the current FPTP system . The UK isn’t particularly high on the democratic index - that’s partly to do with the medieval remnant that is the monarchy but surely it is partly first past the post too.

BTW , there is groundswell of support for many reforms re the Windsors - and there are longstanding public reps who have worked to expose the injustices imposed on us .
I think the establishment knows that one crack - eg no more swearing allegiance to Charles rather than the people , or insisting on financial transparency re the Windsors - and the whole facade crumbles .

I would house MPs in something like a Holiday Inn under a bridge near the train station somewhere. The prisons are over-full or else that would be the logical place for most of them.

I would replace the so-called royals with their Mme Tussauds replicas (how long would it take anyone to discover the difference?) and, having recovered what I could of the assets the family have helped themselves to, let them go seek refuge with some of their "royal" counterparts to whom they are related overseas. Hopefully they would have luck with this route and not be abandoned and left to their fate as the Romanovs were by the British Royal family in 1917, when George V refused to offer his cousin and his family asylum lest it stir up anti-royal feeling here!

What a feckless, self-interested lot they are and always have been.

“I would replace the royals with their Mme Tussauds replicas (how long would it take anyone to discover the difference?)” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great point about the Romanovs too.

I agree that vested interests are at work. I also believe that many MPs have an eye on their possible ermine robe-wearing futures in the House of Lords, and the £300 per day for life that comes with a seat in the Lords.

I wonder what it would take for the facade to crumble. I do feel that a lot of English people (as opposed to British) have a feudal mentality about the royals, and that’s what allows the system to flourish.

Now Rachel has shelved plans to raise income tax. Maybe she has been reading this thread, and is looking at making royal savings! (🐷✈️)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget

I suspect happy to is... inaccurate. People with disabilities or caring responsibilities incompatible with work, people actively searching hard for work without luck...

Also, if we set the moral standard that everyone needs to pursue a job that can keep a family out of poverty... who's working at the supermarket, providing care in nursing homes, being a band 5 nurse in the South, collecting bins, managing hotel receptions, serving food in cafes, staffing nurseries, being a teaching assistant or any of the 1000s of jobs that wouldn't cover a family as a sole or main income.

Back on topic, I think I would respect the Royal Family more if they declined the grant/donated it to specific causes.