The financial cost of the British monarchy is facing renewed scrutiny as Republic, an anti-monarchist group, releases a detailed estimate showing that the Royal Family costs taxpayers £510 million each year—far exceeding the £86 million Sovereign Grant, the official state funding for the monarchy. This revelation has reignited debates over the transparency and fairness of royal finances, particularly during a time of economic uncertainty and public service cuts across the UK.
The Sovereign Grant, which covers essential expenses such as the salaries of royal staff, travel, and the maintenance of royal estates, is widely viewed as the primary funding for the monarchy. However, Republic asserts that this grant only scratches the surface. According to the group, major costs such as royal security—estimated at £150 million annually—are often excluded from official reports, leaving taxpayers unaware of the true scale of the monarchy’s financial footprint.
Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse and the official charged with managing the King’s finances, has previously defended the monarchy’s spending, insisting on the Royal Household’s “determination to deliver value for money.” However, Republic’s chief executive, Graham Smith, has expressed strong opposition to the current funding arrangements. “It’s hard to justify cutting vital public services like the winter fuel allowance when we’re spending half a billion pounds on the Royal Family,” Smith said, calling for the government to provide clearer financial details.
Republic’s estimate not only includes security costs but also factors in “lost potential revenue” from royal properties. The group claims that Buckingham Palace and other royal residences could bring in £96 million annually through commercial ventures, money that could be directed toward public services. Moreover, Republic has called for the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be repurposed, with their substantial earnings—currently allocated to the King and the Prince of Wales—redirected to the public treasury. This, the group argues, could save the taxpayer an additional £99 million every year. cost. Notably, the group estimates that an additional £150 million is spent annually on security for the Royal Family—a figure drawn from media reports that have highlighted the extensive protection provided to members of the royal household. Despite this, the government has yet to confirm or release an official number regarding the cost of royal security, fueling further criticism from transparency advocates.
Sir Michael Stevens, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who is responsible for managing King Charles III’s financial affairs, has reiterated the monarchy’s commitment to value for money. However, Republic CEO Graham Smith has expressed strong opposition to the current spending levels. “It’s unacceptable that we are pouring hundreds of millions into the Royal Family while essential public services face cuts,” Smith remarked. “The monarchy is not just an outdated institution; it’s an outrageously expensive one.”
Republic’s breakdown of the £510 million figure includes what it refers to as “lost potential income” from royal estates. The campaign group argues that royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle could generate significant commercial revenue if they were opened more widely for public use. Republic estimates that these properties could bring in as much as £96 million annually, money that could be used to ease the taxpayer burden. Additionally, the group calls attention to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, both of which operate vast property and financial holdings. These duchies currently fund the personal incomes of the King and the Prince of Wales, respectively. Republic argues that these revenues should instead flow into the public treasury, suggesting that taxpayers are effectively missing out on £99 million per year.
Republic also accuses the monarchy of maintaining an overly secretive financial system. The group claims that much of the monarchy’s expenditure is hidden from public scrutiny, making it difficult to determine the full extent of royal spending. They propose a drastic overhaul, arguing that the running costs of a head of state should be in the region of £5 million to £10 million annually, with the King receiving an annual salary comparable to that of the prime minister—around £189,000.
Although Buckingham Palace has yet to respond to Republic’s claims, recent financial statements for the Sovereign Grant, released in July, show that state funding for the Royal Household will remain at £86.3 million for the 2024-25 financial year. However, this sum is set to rise significantly to £132 million in 2025-26, driven by increased income from offshore wind farms—a sector that contributes to the profits of the Crown Estate, from which the Sovereign Grant is drawn.
Despite these increases, Sir Michael Stevens has emphasized that the Sovereign Grant has not risen in three consecutive years, even as inflation and the costs of the royal transition following Queen Elizabeth II’s death have mounted. He described the royal finances as being under pressure from “double-digit inflationary pressures,” adding that the Royal Family remains committed to serving the country in a cost-effective manner.
While the financial cost of the monarchy continues to fuel debate, it is important to note the broader economic impact the Royal Family has on Britain. Supporters argue that the monarchy significantly boosts tourism, attracts foreign investment, and plays a vital role in diplomatic and trade relations. According to a YouGov survey conducted in August, 55% of the public still believes that the monarchy represents good value for money, while 30% view it as too costly.
However, the generational divide in public opinion is becoming more pronounced. Younger citizens are increasingly skeptical of the monarchy’s financial impact and relevance, while older generations maintain strong support for the institution, illustrating a widening gap over the future role of the monarchy in modern Britain.
