AIBU to think the royal budget increase is too much?

[FluentOP]

MPs are going to vote on whether to increase royal budgets by £50 million. I have contacted my MP to protest as I think it’s unreasonable to keep giving a very rich family even more money when the country is struggling. The Sovereign Grant makes no sense. It has gone up four-fold since 2011 while public services face cuts and local communities struggle with the cost of living.

I am in the camp of having a smaller monarchy. Part of this would be that some of the properties would become former Royal Palaces and perhaps be transferred to the National Trust or English Heritage. Hampton Court is a former such palace, others would be added.

Smaller monarchy, smaller royal budget. Not a penny for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for example.

They’re not giving them more money, the sovereign grant doesn’t come from tax payer money. It is a % of the profits from the Crown Estate.

It’s also not their private money to use for personal spends. The increase is temporary because of increased profits and to be used to repair Buckingham Palace. After this year, it is going to go down

The Sovereign Grant is paid annually by HM Treasury at a value indexed as a percentage of the revenues from the Crown Estate and other revenues in the financial year two years earlier.[7] It is based on an index percentage that was initially set at 15%[8] and this is reviewed every five years by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse).

Since its inception, the Sovereign Grant has often risen each year at a rate higher than the rate of inflation. About a third of the grant is used to tackle the backlog in property maintenance at the royal palaces. Following the 2016 review of the percentage of the Crown Estate income used to calculate the grant, it was announced that a temporary increase in the Sovereign Grant would be used to fund a £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, subject to parliamentary approval.[10] The trustees recommended that the percentage should rise to 25% for the 10 years during which the work would take place, and that the grant should then be returned to 15% when building work is finished in 2027.

n January 2023 the Keeper of the Privy Purse, on behalf of the King, asked the government to reduce the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant so that the total does not include the income from new offshore wind power leases, calculated to be worth around £1 billion annually to the Crown Estate. This request was said by the King to be due to his desire that the money could instead be used for the "wider public good".[15] In July 2023, due to the Crown Estate's sale of wind farm leases dramatically increasing the money going to the Treasury, the government announced that the grant would be 12% of the Crown Estate's net profits in the following year, down from 25%, while maintaining the same level of payment in pounds

In July 2024 it was announced that the annual profits from the Crown Estate had risen again due to the proceeds from offshore wind projects, resulting in an annual increase of £45 million to the Sovereign Grant for 2025–26.

The Keeper of the Privy Purse said the increase will be used to complete the renovation of Buckingham Palace, and that once this was accomplished: "a reduction in the absolute amount of the sovereign grant will be sought as part of the royal trustees review in 2026–27, through primary legislation".[17]

The National Trust and English Heritage can’t afford to take them on. These places cost millions every year just to keep them upright.

Can j suggest you actually do some googling and see how much is actually paid over to the Government via the crown estate and then how much is given back? Currently I believe 12% and in 2025/26 that was about £130m of which £65m was spent maintaining and repairing royal palaces. That includes a heck of a lot of work going on at Buckingham palace

its not for them to spend on themselves, it covers staff, maintenance of buildings and to fund the royal households offfical work, so all the stuff the king and queen do plus Princess Anne, William and Catherine etc.

I don’t have an issue with it, to be perfectly honest. Others have explained more clearly above that it’s far more nuanced than them just being given £50m. I also think that if we’re having a monarchy - and there are plenty of reasons not to - we should ensure it’s funded properly. I see the point of removing some of the wider hangers on, but I don’t see the point of a dumbed down, bicycling monarchy where everyone has a job, and they aren’t “royal”. We might as well just get shut.

The RF are well known masters of financial obfuscation (have a look at Norman Baker’s articles/books as a starting point).

I simply remain bewildered that our head of state in 2026 is an inherited position. And from a family with more than its fair share of utter loons/suspected paedophiles/probable nazi sympathizers. Baffling.

And why do we need a head of state in addition to the PM? We can’t afford it!

Unless we demolished these historic castles and palaces (which provide thousands of jobs), or sell them to billionaires, we’d have to spend this money to keep them repaired and open for public tours even if there were no monarchy.

Oh yes, having someone like Trump as head of state is so much better and affordable.

My head agrees with you about the monarchy and head of state. But oddly, when the Queen died, it was quite discombobulating (for me). I don’t know what it was but I came to the conclusion there was social value in having a figurehead who sits outside of politics. It makes no sense why I feel like that or why I’ve reached that conclusion, I accept.

Really, @LoremIpsumCici , I could probably name you, off the top of my head, 20 castles/palaces that don’t have the RF anywhere near them and are not facing demolition.

Also, before someone says it, there is no evidence whatsoever that the RF, despite how often it is repeated, bring in millions in tourist money.

Edited to add Trump will be gone soon enough, whilst we’re stuck with this lot forever!

So the buildings will be maintained from taxes? Or .....

I suppose you could fire all the staff that are paid though. Maybe rehire them in the tourist industry or whatever, on cheaper contracts.

WTF are they spending 50 million on?

Aren’t they embarrassed?

I’m not saying they should all shop at Primark and shop at Poundland but they should surely be able to budget better.

Even if there were fifty royals that’s a million quid a year each. What are they doing with it??

FFS that didn’t take long 🙄. It’s not the same - totally different form of republic and it’s not a binary choice between Trump and Charles. If that’s your best argument then you’ve lost.

Correct.
Utter insanity, the whole concept of “royalty”. 🤮
Get rid of them all.

The Crown Estate IS NOT OWNED PERSONALLY by the Monarch but is held in trust by them as long as they are the reigning monarch. If they cease being the reigning monarch, the Crown Estate reverts back to the Nation. Constitutional experts and republicans generally agree that because the monarch only holds the estate ex officio (by virtue of the office) rather than as a private individual, the assets would stay with or formally revert to the state (likely owned outright by the Treasury).

Well, Versailles seems to manage ok, doesn’t it?

The thing is that they don’t sit outside of politics. Personal exemptions for the Queen in her private capacity have been written into more than 160 laws since 1967, granting her sweeping immunity from swathes of British law – ranging from animal welfare to workers’ rights. Dozens extend further immunity to her private property portfolio, granting her unique protections as the owner of large landed estates.
More than 30 different laws stipulate that police are barred from entering the private Balmoral and Sandringham estates without the Queen’s permission to investigate suspected crimes, including wildlife offences and environmental pollution – a legal immunity accorded to no other private landowner in the country. She really did meddle in politics for her own family’s advantage.

The gardening at Highgrove alone must cost a packet.

But how much would they bring in from tourists? Not even just as day visitors; imagine how lucrative it could be for American, Japanese and other tourists to be able to stay overnight - or even for a week - in what used to be a historical royal palace? Supposing tourists in Paris were able to rent an apartment built into the Eiffel Tower for a week at a very premium price... they'd have people biting their hands off for it; so how much easier for massive actual buildings that were actually built for people to live in?

The National Trust has income in the region of half a billion a year, so they must know a thing or two about maximising the value of their immense assets; they're hardly on their uppers.

Yes, I never understand that polarised thinking that so many people seem to have: that because some leaders who are elected (and can be voted out again after a few years) turn out to be dreadful, that somehow means that people who are promised it from birth and then get to keep it for their whole lives, before then immediately handing it down to their own son or daughter - without ever being put up for election - will magically be much better.

If Charles had tragically died in an accident or through illness in 1981, we would now have King Andrew on the throne... and all because we've decided that democratically asking the people for their choice is lunacy.

And you might get Trump or Putin!

For those remarking on the idea of a President, could you please realise the difference between a Trump and a Connolly (Irish President). The first is executive and runs amok around the place, the second is a figurehead and represents the country at home and abroad together with signing off legislation, box ticking mostly.

If Trump was in King Charles' place how would you feel? No way to get rid of him. Huh.

Totally agree: it’s madness.

More than 30 different laws stipulate that police are barred from entering the private Balmoral and Sandringham estates without the Queen’s permission to investigate suspected crimes, including wildlife offences and environmental pollution – a legal immunity accorded to no other private landowner in the country. Just imagine for a moment that if a body were to be found on, say, Sandringham Estate, none of the royals would be questioned. Not that this would ever happen………….. oh wait: 17 year old Latvian girl in 2012.