The debate over the cost of the British monarchy has taken center stage again as anti-monarchist group Republic claims that the real financial burden on UK taxpayers amounts to £510 million a year—nearly six times the official Sovereign Grant of £86 million. The Sovereign Grant, which covers essential royal expenses like staffing, travel, and the upkeep of royal estates, is just the tip of the iceberg, according to Republic, which asserts that additional costs, such as security, push the total much higher.
Republic, which advocates for the abolition of the monarchy, points to the lack of transparency surrounding the true costs of the Royal Family. One of their main contentions is the cost of security, which they estimate at £150 million based on various press reports. They have called on the government to release an official figure, arguing that the public has a right to know how much is being spent on protecting the monarchy.
Sir Michael Stevens, the Keeper of the Privy Purse and the official responsible for managing the King’s finances, has previously defended royal spending, stating that there is a firm commitment to delivering value for money. However, Republic’s Graham Smith dismissed these assurances, calling the current funding arrangements a “scandalous abuse of public money.”
Smith highlighted the wider context of public sector cuts and austerity, questioning the morality of spending half a billion pounds on the monarchy while ordinary citizens struggle to make ends meet. “It’s outrageous that we’re cutting essential services like the winter fuel allowance while pouring money into the royal coffers,” he said.
Republic’s £510 million estimate also factors in what the group describes as “lost income” from royal properties. They argue that royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle could generate up to £96 million a year in commercial revenue if they were opened up for more extensive public use. Additionally, the group calls for the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to contribute their substantial revenues to the public treasury, rather than funding the personal incomes of the King and the Prince of Wales. According to Republic, this would save taxpayers £99 million annually.
The debate has highlighted growing dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in royal finances. Republic argues that the monarchy’s opaque funding system is in desperate need of reform and that the public deserves a clearer understanding of how their money is being spent. The group proposes a far leaner model for the monarchy, with running costs between £5 million and £10 million a year and a capped salary of £189,000 for the King—aligned with the prime minister’s salary.
Buckingham Palace has not responded to Republic’s allegations. However, the latest Sovereign Grant accounts, published in July, reveal that state funding will remain at £86.3 million for 2024-25 before increasing to £132 million in 2025-26. This rise is attributed to the growing profits of the Crown Estate, particularly from offshore wind farm projects.
Sir Michael Stevens has pointed out that the Sovereign Grant has not increased for three consecutive years, despite rising inflation and the additional costs associated with the transition following Queen Elizabeth II’s passing. In a statement earlier this year, he reiterated the Royal Family’s commitment to delivering value for money while ensuring they continue to serve the nation effectively, even in the face of personal and financial challenges.
Public opinion remains divided on the monarchy’s value to the nation. A YouGov poll conducted in August found that 55% of respondents believe the monarchy represents good value for money, while 30% disagree. Support for the institution remains strong, with 59% of those surveyed holding a positive view of the monarchy, compared to 32% who hold a negative opinion.
Nevertheless, age appears to be a critical factor in shaping these opinions. While older generations continue to express strong support for the monarchy, younger people are increasingly questioning its relevance and financial cost in the modern era, contributing to a growing generational divide over the future of the institution.
