Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

£99.9mil cost per year for Royal Family. Worth it?

98 replies

TalkToTheHand123 · 26/06/2026 22:31

Unreasonable - time to scrap
Not unreasonable - worth the money

OP posts:
HScully · 26/06/2026 22:38

Yes I think it is widely proven that the economy actually makes more from them than we spend.

The sovereign grant is taken as a percentage from the crown estate

HarrietSchulenberg · 26/06/2026 23:09

I am no fan of any royal family but ours generated double that in income tax last year, I believe.

Valpolichella · 26/06/2026 23:17

Yes. They are cost effective. The Crown Estates paid almost £500m to HMRC last year and over the last 10 yrs have paid more than £5bn. What more would you like to be paid by them op?

XenoBitch · 26/06/2026 23:19

A quick Google says that the royal family generate between £500-£550million annually in direct and indirect tourism spending.
Sounds worth it to me.

pinksheetss · 26/06/2026 23:24

Your voting is a bit awkward as I think you are being unreasonable by questioning it but you have unreasonable as time to scrap

I believe I voted unreasonable but going by your buttons I’m voting YANBU as they are absolutely worth the money generated and taxes they pay and work they do

didntlikeanyofthesuggestions · 26/06/2026 23:26

There's 60 million of us in the country. That's roughly £18 each. What else will people spend that money on? Football stickers? It would cost more than that to change all the coins and stamps, might as well keep them.

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 26/06/2026 23:28

The absolute shit we waste tax payer money on in this country this is a mere drop in the ocean.

Decacaffeinatednow · 26/06/2026 23:29

It’s actually quite funny - like supermarket pricing, staying below the psychological £100 million figure.

Valpolichella · 26/06/2026 23:32

I might start a new AIBU thread, to state that anyone who asks that about the Royal Family first has to prove that they are net contributors themselves. Can’t wait for the outrage around that!

Brahumbug · 27/06/2026 00:41

There is no evidence that the royals generate anything in tourist revenue. All the figures given seem to have been plucked out of thin air. Other countries such as France have more visitors than the UK with a royal family. The income from the crown estates doesn't in any way belong to the royal family. It is part of the crown, which is the UK state. The cost of providing a totally privileged life for these parasites is obscene.

Apileofballyhoo · 27/06/2026 00:49

What does the sovereign grant pay for?

Sweetbeansandmochi · 27/06/2026 01:15

No tourist is coming to hang out with Charles and Camilla. They are coming to visit the tourist attractions. People would still come and visit the tourist attractions, like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, even if the slimed down monarchy was slimmed down to none.

MarmaladeorJam · 27/06/2026 02:55

Valpolichella · 26/06/2026 23:17

Yes. They are cost effective. The Crown Estates paid almost £500m to HMRC last year and over the last 10 yrs have paid more than £5bn. What more would you like to be paid by them op?

They are very big numbers.

Could we have some sort of link or something - where id you get them from?

MarmaladeorJam · 27/06/2026 02:58

XenoBitch · 26/06/2026 23:19

A quick Google says that the royal family generate between £500-£550million annually in direct and indirect tourism spending.
Sounds worth it to me.

How?

Darragon · 27/06/2026 02:58

What do YOU think OP?

Meadowfinch · 27/06/2026 03:07

Without having the figures for the benefits side, it is impossible to reach a conclusion.

When we add up all the revenues brought in from tourism, hotel rooms, hospitality, travel etc. and the diplomatic benefits, and the benefits to the British fashion industry. Plus the stabilising factor that the crown provides, only then we would be able to judge.

For example, Trump's enthusiasm for the royal family was instrumental is reducing the tariffs placed on the UK over the last three years. How much did that, on its own, save UK industry ?

Meadowfinch · 27/06/2026 03:12

Sweetbeansandmochi · 27/06/2026 01:15

No tourist is coming to hang out with Charles and Camilla. They are coming to visit the tourist attractions. People would still come and visit the tourist attractions, like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, even if the slimed down monarchy was slimmed down to none.

Edited

On the contrary, there are thousands of tourists who come specifically to see Royal weddings, trooping of the colour etc. I was working in Central London while the late Queen was lying in state and the city was packed with Americans who came to pay their respects.

Sunshineandgrapefruit · 27/06/2026 03:45

I think they're good value for money aren't they? They generate a lot of revenue.

Tutorpuzzle · 27/06/2026 06:25

HScully · 26/06/2026 22:38

Yes I think it is widely proven that the economy actually makes more from them than we spend.

The sovereign grant is taken as a percentage from the crown estate

It’s not ‘proven’ anywhere. In addition, these figures don’t include security (I’m not saying they shouldn’t have it, but the cost should be made public) or the reduced tax paid on Duchy income (where some tenants were living in slum conditions until it was made public.)

And before anyone starts about ‘soft power’ I think the rather wonderful Scottish football fans have done more to build relations with the U.S. than any banquet starring workshy William and his poor, underfed wife.

A constitutional monarchy can be successful but this particular family are very much not a good example of it.

NuNameNuMe · 27/06/2026 06:33

Valpolichella · 26/06/2026 23:32

I might start a new AIBU thread, to state that anyone who asks that about the Royal Family first has to prove that they are net contributors themselves. Can’t wait for the outrage around that!

I'll step forward as a net contributor to complain about this cost. In a "slimmed down" monarchy, where's the saving? How does £100million grant, plus income from their estates result in tax bills of c £7m for prince William and c£12m for the king? Will we plebs ever get to see a full set of accounts? What was the objective or reason for refurbishing Buckingham Palace as it's not a home, nor an office space that can be used by other public services. The royal family play's us for fools.

landmarkyear · 27/06/2026 06:37

I’m always very sceptical about how much the royals ‘benefit’ the country in monetary terms. I think that benefit would mostly still be there if they weren’t- all the castles and palaces could be opened up in their entirety to tourism. In fact, I think that would generate more income than currently.
And some of them have been doing a lot more harm than good (Andrew MB) but still seem to live a very easy life of privilege compared to the rest of us

NoArmaniNoPunani · 27/06/2026 06:41

I think the queen dying should have been the end of it. She was pretty popular and well liked. Charles isn't and William seems just like charles.

Judging · 27/06/2026 06:52

Tourists will come regardless. They’d come for heritage and history, just the same. Look at France, Italy, Greece, Egypt, the USA - all attract enormous tourism.

The RF simply can’t or won’t justify their cost. Nearly £400 million of tax payers’ money for the Buckingham Palace refurb. And will revenue from ticket sales when part of it is open to the public go to the treasury to pay for it? No, of course not.

And releasing the tax figures without any wider context is just meaningless. Designed to keep the unquestioning happy ‘ooh, look, they paid all that tax! Aren’t they great?’ 🙄

Bagwyllydiart · 27/06/2026 07:14

Considering the money is paid from the Crown Estates income (which was £1.4 billion 2024/25) with the surplus going to the government, then yes, very good value for money.

Chlorpool · 27/06/2026 07:15

Judging · 27/06/2026 06:52

Tourists will come regardless. They’d come for heritage and history, just the same. Look at France, Italy, Greece, Egypt, the USA - all attract enormous tourism.

The RF simply can’t or won’t justify their cost. Nearly £400 million of tax payers’ money for the Buckingham Palace refurb. And will revenue from ticket sales when part of it is open to the public go to the treasury to pay for it? No, of course not.

And releasing the tax figures without any wider context is just meaningless. Designed to keep the unquestioning happy ‘ooh, look, they paid all that tax! Aren’t they great?’ 🙄

Buckingham Palace would have to be refurbished regardless, unless you want it pulled down.

In 2023 the state grant for maintaining the French presidency was €110 million and insufficient to cover the €124 million expenses.
Former presidents were costing France €10 million a year in 2016. They each have 7 staff members, 2 agents, car and driver, office all paid for by french taxes.

Be careful what you wish for.