logo
Public funding for royals triples since 2012 because of Palace works

Public funding for royals triples since 2012 because of Palace works

Yahoo11-05-2025

Public funding for the Royal Household has tripled in real terms since 2012, official figures show, with the rise driven largely by repairs and building work at Buckingham Palace.
The Sovereign Grant, which provides taxpayer support for the monarchy, was introduced in 2012 at £31m per year. That has now risen to £132m, data from the House of Commons Library shows, and once inflation has been taken into account, that represents about a threefold increase.
The grant rose 53% in April, from £86.3m to £132.1m. Royal aides say this was because of a Buckingham Palace building project and the grant will come down again, adding that the monarchy represents good value.
Lord Turnbull, a crossbench peer and a former Cabinet Secretary, called the way the grant was calculated "complete and utter nonsense" but said that the budget isn't high compared with other presidential heads of state.
The Sovereign Grant provides funding for the official duties of the monarchy. In the most recent figures, for 2023-24, the biggest items were property maintenance and staff payroll, with smaller amounts for travel and hospitality and housekeeping.
The analysis by the House of Commons Library shows how much the Sovereign Grant has risen over time - using a measure that takes into account inflation, with comparisons using 2023-24 values as a benchmark.
Using that measure, the Sovereign Grant in 2012-13 was worth £41.5m – which rose to almost £100m in 2018-19, to cover renovations in Buckingham Palace, and then rose in 2025-26 to being worth £129.3m, again for work on Buckingham Palace.
A Bank of England inflation calculation also shows the grant's value having trebled since 2012, although Buckingham Palace uses a separate figure which is slightly below a threefold real-terms increase.
Buckingham Palace says the current figures are higher because of a 10-year, £369m project to modernise facilities in the Palace, including cabling, plumbing, wiring and lifts. It's a project that the National Audit Office says has been well-run and delivers "good value for money".
The Palace says it's misleading to compare this year's figures with earlier levels of grants. They say the big increase is due to the element of the grant that pays for Buckingham Palace building works, rather than the "core" grant for other running costs.
"The Sovereign Grant remained virtually flat for five years from 2020, during a period of high inflation. The majority of the increase in this year's Sovereign Grant is to fund the Buckingham Palace Reservicing Programme, which is ensuring that the Palace, a national asset, is accessible and protected from fire and flood," said a Palace spokesperson.
"A temporary increase in the grant across two years was approved to provide the remainder of the funding agreed in 2016 for this reservicing work. It has always been anticipated that the level of the Sovereign Grant will drop once the project is completed," said the spokesperson.
This could mean taxpayer funding reducing after 2027.
The sharp increase over the past decade has been during difficult years for public finances, including periods of austerity and tight controls over budgets.
For example, a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that public spending on education in England went down by 11% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2023-24, although the IFS says that it is difficult to compare such big multi-billion budgets with changes in relatively smaller amounts such as the Sovereign Grant.
Before the Sovereign Grant was introduced, state funding for the monarchy came through a mix of grants, government department spending and a "civil list" payment.
Figures from the House of Commons Library, going back to 1995, show the pre-Sovereign Grant totals as lower than than they are today - for instance, using 2023-24 values, it was worth £67m in 2000 and £56m in 2005.
What does King Charles do?
King sends heartfelt message to fellow cancer patients
The Sovereign Grant was introduced as a more "modern, transparent" way of bringing together royal funding, presented to MPs in 2011 as being likely to reduce the royal income.
The grant is based on a percentage of the profits of the independent property and landowning business, the Crown Estate. The grant is not from the Crown Estate, it comes from the Treasury, but the Crown Estate is used as a benchmark.
Sovereign Grant was initially set at 15% of Crown Estate profits, which rose to 25% to cover the cost of renovating Buckingham Palace.
It's now being reduced to 12%. But because of increased profits for the Crown Estate from selling leases for offshore wind farms, the actual cash amount has risen sharply, because it's a percentage based on a much bigger total.
The increase in the Sovereign Grant's value is blamed by former Lib Dem Home Office minister Norman Baker, a prominent critic of royal finances, on what he calls the "completely absurd" way it's calculated and "weak-kneed" governments that don't want to challenge it.
"The Royal Family has been very efficient in persuading the public purse to keep coughing up more money," he says.
"Buckingham Palace has been used again and again to justify the increases.
"We're told public finances are tight, we can't afford a winter fuel allowance, but we can pay for an increase for the Royal Family. It's completely wrong."
Lord Turnbull, a former Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretary at the Treasury in the 1990s and 2000s, is also critical of the way the grant is calculated. He says successive governments have used the Crown Estate calculation as a convenient way of avoiding debate and stopping a "lot of bolshy backbenchers moaning about the cost of the monarchy".
He says it would be much better to have a straightforward grant to pay for the monarchy, which could be debated on its own merits.
But he also says it's a "red herring" to focus on the headline increase in the Sovereign Grant, when that figure has been driven by work to preserve Buckingham Palace, rather than underlying running costs. He says that if you have a monarchy it has to be properly funded. "You either have one or you don't," says Lord Turnbull.
Pauline Maclaran, a royal commentator from Royal Holloway, University of London, says the monarchy "generates a great deal of money and goodwill."
This is often seen in terms of boosting tourism and promoting business links, but Prof Maclaran says increasingly it needs to recognise the impact of royal "soft power".
US President Trump is a self-professed fan of King Charles and if those warm feelings helped with UK and US trade and tariff negotiations the benefits would hugely outweigh any annual costs of the monarchy, says Prof Maclaran.
But the royals can't be immune to questions about finances, she says: "The public wants to know if they're of value."
Royal expert Richard Palmer says this year's increase has "raised eyebrows".
"Of course the head of state and those who support him need to be funded properly, but so do other parts of the state - the health service, schools, the military, for example," says Mr Palmer.
Royal sources say there is transparency and funding is subject to the approval of Parliament. The Royal Trustees overseeing the grant are the prime minister, chancellor and the keeper of the privy purse, who looks after the monarch's finances.
You can dig into the accounts and see from 2023-24 that the royals spent over £1m on helicopter flights, there was an electricity bill of £2.2m and that travel for the Duke of Kent over three days to attend regimental events in Scotland cost more than £23,000.
There are also details of what the monarchy provides in a year – including hosting 400 events, inviting 105,000 guests to receptions, garden parties and official lunches. There were also 2,300 public engagements, supporting charities and good causes.
There are national and international events, including state visits which help to promote UK trade. There's a constitutional role, such as the state opening of Parliament and regular meetings with the prime minister.
Republic, a group campaigning for an elected head of state, have argued that other costs need to be included, such as security, which is not covered by the Sovereign Grant.
They also want the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to count as public funding, rather than private incomes for the King and Prince of Wales. A report from the group claims that the total cost of the monarchy is about £510m per year.
Opinion polls suggest the monarchy remains popular, with a YouGov survey in February 2025 suggesting 55% viewed the monarchy positively compared with 36% who saw it negatively.
But there is less certainty about funding. Another YouGov survey in December 2024 suggested strong public opposition to government money being spent on Buckingham Palace – by 56% to 29%.
And there are divisions by age groups – with 74% of the over-65s thinking the royals are good value for money, compared with 44% of 25 to 49 year olds.
Harry and Meghan call for stronger social media protections for children
Princess Charlotte photo released to mark 10th birthday
King and Queen to host VE Day tea party for war veterans
Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Aldi fight on 2 fronts in bid to build store close to congested roundabout
Aldi fight on 2 fronts in bid to build store close to congested roundabout

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Aldi fight on 2 fronts in bid to build store close to congested roundabout

Supermarket chain Aldi has launched a bid to overturn a council's rejection of its £10m plan for a new store. In November 2024, proposals for a 1,800 sq/ft store at Paragon business park in Chorley New Road, Horwich, were rejected by the council amid concerns about traffic, road safety, flooding and biodiversity. Now Aldi has appealed that decision, and suggested that the process be settled via a four-day public hearing. Representatives at the discount supermarket chain said the council's reasons for refusal should be "tested through formal questioning by an advocate". In April this year, Aldi also submitted a fresh planning application for the scheme, which is currently awaiting a decision by the council. Aldi said the resubmission of the plans would "seek to address the previous reasons for refusal through expanded and updated technical evidence". The appeal means the German based discount retailer is pursuing its wish to build the store on two fronts. The proposed site is next to the Beehive roundabout, which members of the planning committee said when refusing permission, is often the location of traffic congestion. It is also close to Bolton Wanderers' Toughsheet Stadium. Aldi said access to the new store would be via a new slip road entrance in Chorley New Road, near the roundabout. Vehicles would exit from a different junction onto De Havilland Way. The supermarket giant said approval of the plans would mean the creation of 40 to 50 full and part-time local jobs on the site and various other indirect jobs in construction, supply chain and support. Aldi added that they would target construction within 18-months of obtaining planning permission. Documents supporting Aldi's appeal said "there are no highways issues as a result of the proposed development". The statement added: 'A transport assessment was prepared and submitted in support of the planning application. 'Significantly, the traffic impact section concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the existing local highway network both now and in the future. 'This was based on operational capacity assessments of various surrounding junctions.' The appeal justification also refuted the council's stated refusal reasons of "a significant loss of biodiversity from the site" and that the "development would result in an increase in flood risk in the local area". Documents in support of the revised planning application said: 'Aldi's very presence is also anticipated to raise the profile of the site, investor confidence, and market interest in the business park during a challenging economic period.' Aldi already operate a store in Horwich, less than a mile away from the proposed new location at Mason Street but have said the proposed store had no implications for the retailer's ongoing operation in Horwich town centre, which they consider serves a different catchment area. The scheme would provide 131 car parking spaces at the site. Council planners will decide on the resubmitted proposals in the coming weeks and will also deliberate on whether to contest the planning appeal.

Stock Movers: Inditex, UK Home Builders, Demant (podcast)
Stock Movers: Inditex, UK Home Builders, Demant (podcast)

Bloomberg

time44 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Stock Movers: Inditex, UK Home Builders, Demant (podcast)

Inditex Tumbles, UK Home Builders Higher, Demant Gains On this episode of Stock Movers: - Zara-owner Inditex SA reported a muted start to the second quarter and warned that foreign-exchange headwinds could have a greater impact on results this year than anticipated. Shares tumbled. - Homebuilders more broadly are being bathed in a more positive sentiment thanks to UK government plans to spend more on affordable homes. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is today expected to detail plans to direct £39 billion of public money over 10 years to an affordable homes plan. - Demant shares rise as much as 4%, to the highest since Jan. 31, after the Danish company agreed to acquire hearing-aid retailer KIND Group for €700m, or around DKK5.2b, on a cash and debt-free basis. Analysts say the deal is a good fit.

Is this the most confusing car brand of all time?
Is this the most confusing car brand of all time?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Is this the most confusing car brand of all time?

Percy Lambert became the first person to do 100mph in this 1913 Talbot What is the most confusing car brand of all time? It's an intriguing question – and we reckon the answer might well be Talbot. The story started all the way back in 1888, when Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, the 20th Earl of Shrewsbury, founded a London taxi firm with the competitive advantage of using newfangled pneumatic tyres. Eight years later, the Earl entered business with one Adolphe Clément, who had made a fortune from said invention, to sell the Frenchman's tyres, bicycles and cars in London. In 1902, the pair strengthened their partnership, rebranding the cars Clément-Talbot. But after just a year they bisected their business: the Earl would sell cars badged Talbot in Britain, his partner cars badged Clément-Bayard in France. Amusingly in hindsight, adverts in Autocar stated that this change was being made 'in order to prevent confusion in the mind of the public'. In 1906, the Earl's London factory began making cars of its own design, separating the two firms yet further. Talbot soon started succeeding in races and reliability trials, earning it the nickname 'Invincible Talbot'. Its biggest coup came in 1913, when Percy Lambert became the first person to do 100 miles in an hour, lapping Brooklands in a 25hp special – even though 'he could hardly see for several laps' due to thick fog. Enjoy full access to the complete Autocar archive at the The Great War badly disrupted the London firm and literally gutted the Paris firm, and both struggled to recover afterwards. So in late 1919 the Earl sold up to Darracq, a British-owned French car maker; and in 1921 Clément sold his factory to local upstart André Citroën. The new owners of the Earl's old firm kept the Talbot brand for London-made cars and started using Talbot-Darracq for Paris-made cars. In short order, they bought Wolverhampton's Sunbeam and put the lot under the unfortunately named umbrella of STD Motors. Real excitement came in 1930 as Talbot ventured to Le Mans for the famous 24-hour race and upset the big players. Bentley scored a one-two with its 6.6-litre monsters, but Bugatti, Alfa Romeo, Mercedes and MG were all outclassed by Talbot's 2.3-litre 90s – 'really remarkable', said Autocar. It then twice repeated this impressive feat in the following years with its enhanced 105s. However, all was not well, as the Western world had plunged into a terrible economic depression and Sunbeam had long been unable to replicate Talbot's prosperity, eventually dragging STD under. Rootes, owner of Britain's Hillman and Humber car brands, came to the rescue of Sunbeam and Talbot, leading Autocar to proclaim: 'Under this energetic new management, there is no doubt that the Talbot name will continue to rank high in automobile circles.' It looked as though the Talbot-Darracq business would vanish – until an unexpected buyout by its managing director, the 'large and determined' Italian Antonio Lago. Henceforth two separate firms would use the Talbot brand, but to avoid confusion Lago's cars were usually referred to in Britain as Darracqs or Talbot-Lagos. The two firms trod diverging paths: Talbot built restyled humble Hillmans while Talbot-Lago went upmarket with its cars, provided chassis for coachbuilt stunners and competed in grands prix. In 1938, Rootes decided to merge Talbot and Sunbeam, introducing yet another hyphenated name to this already muddled lineage. Both Talbots enjoyed the 1950s: Talbot-Lago won grands prix and Le Mans with its T26 and crafted some beautiful luxury and sporting cars for the road, while Sunbeam-Talbot attracted envy for its saloons and convertibles – one of which also won the Coupes des Alpes in the hands of Stirling Moss. However, confusion persisted, leading Rootes to shorten Sunbeam-Talbot to just Sunbeam in 1954 – 'a short life but a merry one', we said. And five years later, Talbot-Lago's prolonged suffocation by postwar austerity and heavy taxation on luxury cars finally killed it, its assets being bought by Simca. But that was not the end of the story. Simca and Rootes both later became part of Chrysler Europe, and when that rotten business was dumped at PSA's door in 1979, guess which of its defunct brands – Alvis, Bugatti, Delage, Delahaye, Panhard, Simca, Sunbeam and Talbot – was deemed ripest for revival? 'It has the best image of strength with the European public,' president François Perrin-Pelletier explained to Autocar. 'Most of all, however, it is perceived by 80% of the British public as an English make and 80% of the French as a French make.' It didn't last long. Talbots either overlapped with other PSA models or were duds, so the next-generation models were redirected to Peugeot and the brand was consigned to die again with the Express van in 1994. Honestly, what a mess. ]]>

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store