The Royal Family are a longstanding part of the British culture. The media and the public have always watched and assessed their behaviour. For good or for worse, they represent the United Kingdom in many different capacities. They live courtesy of the taxpayer and live well they do. Is this justified? Do we really need a monarchy? In these times of austerity, is it right that the royal family is, in essence, the biggest benefits recipient, while others go hungry and poverty-stricken?
How is it possible to assess the finances of the Royal Family?
The royals receive a grant from the Treasury – that is, money from taxpayers – every year, called the Sovereign Grant. Introduced in 2012, this grant is a consolidation of several other grants for travel and such, as well as the Civil List. This year, the amount stated in the report of the Royal Trusteed of the grant is £82.2 million. A percentage (normally 25%) of the value comes from income of the Crown Estate. The last set of accounts (2016/17) show that the Crown Estate made a profit of £328.8 million, leading to an increase in the Sovereign Grant.
The family also receive money from the Privy Purse, a wealth of money which is the net profit generated by Queen Elizabeth II’s land and property portfolio, known as the Duchy of Lancaster. Amounting to about 18.5 hectares of land and containing properties such as Lancaster Castle, Bolingbroke Castle and the Savoy Estate in London, the purse generated £19.1 million in 2016/17.
While these sums of money are not available for the Royals to use as and how they want, they do pay for their official duties, like hosting and travelling. The Queen voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax on her private income, as does Prince Charles on the private income he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall, another property portfolio. However – as with many financial matters – the royal budget is not that straight forward. The Duchy of Cornwall pays for the official duties of Prince Charles, his wife Camilla and his children and their spouses. This then offsets Prince Charles’ tax liability. Both of the duchies have been involved in the Panama and Paradise Papers scandals, casting a shadow over the morality of royal investment, although there has never been any suggestion that the Queen or Prince Charles have been personally involved in the decision-making.
The Sovereign Grant and the Privy Purse only really account some of the costs of the Royal Family. Royal visits often end up costing the local councils who play host. Security bills are picked up by the Metropolitan Police. The Guardian reported that Buckingham Palace was paying summer staff using zero hour contracts. The Royal Household allegedly tapped up the Poverty Grant for money to pay for repairs. Critics have pointed out the vast expenditure on travel by the family. Prince Charles spent £246,160 on a private jet to Nelson Mandela’s funeral, while Prince Andrew spent £14,692 to watch a golf event.
So what does the public get in return for all of this expenditure?
The Keeper of the Privy Purse estimates that the Royal Family costs each person 67p a year, or the cost of a first class stamp, as he put it. Nevertheless, does this make it acceptable? The money received by the Royal Family amounts to a lot of first class stamps. In an age of free email, does this represent value for money, no matter how small the amount?
The Royal Family represents the United Kingdom. Whether it is hosting Presidents, drumming up business abroad or making conversation with people on the street, the family are invariably doing something. Tourism statistics and valuations show that the royals bring in about £1.18 billion to the economy. Would people really be that interested in palaces if there were not or had never been royals living in them? Despite the drag on the economy, the Princes weddings were big spectacles, drawing a lot of international attention. People travel from abroad to witness royal ceremonies and events, often more so that the royal families of other countries.
Nevertheless, in a time when austerity and Brexit have brought up animosity against those who are perceived as stealing or defrauding the state, when tabloids and broadsheets alike rage about the unjustified handouts given to refugees and layabouts, can these same people remain silent about the handouts given to and often requested by the Royal household? The Royal Family do not own all the castles or even the Royal Jewels; these belong to the Crown Estate. This estate remains in trust and is administered by a board of trustees. Nevertheless, these trustees believe that the family should have such trappings of luxury and ease. It presents an image of wealth and prosperity to the rest of the world, deemed important in cultivating business and tourism. The money given to the Royal family could instead be used to help those who have fallen into poverty. The numerous properties dotted around the country to host them at different times to be used for alternative means.
The Royal family cost the taxpayer a lot of money. They also bring a lot of money into the economy. The inherited wealth comes from centuries of feudal law, from a time when the Church presented royalty as divine and chosen by God. These falsehoods persist to today. Far removed from the realities of this country’s society, royals, major and minor, continue to benefit from the hard toil of those they represent. Like all wealthy institutions, its members have slowly insulated themselves from the downturns that affect the rest of the people, living beyond their own means and so taking from others in what they believe is their God-given right to do so.
Propositions to reduce the number of royals on the taxpayer payroll should be welcomed and seriously considered, following the path taken by other European monarchies. Living within our means shouldn’t just apply to the public; those who claim to represent us should lead by example. While the family are in many ways themselves victims of tradition, they are well compensated. But with or without them, this country would likely carry on much the same. Keeping something for traditions sake is rarely necessary.
