logo
xxx

xxx

BBC News11-05-2025
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.
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.
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

Lloyds Bank set to leave Wolverhampton city centre site after 146 years
Lloyds Bank set to leave Wolverhampton city centre site after 146 years

BBC News

time17 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Lloyds Bank set to leave Wolverhampton city centre site after 146 years

Lloyds Bank is set to move from its building in the centre of Wolverhampton to a new site at the end of November. The bank is leaving their 146-year-old building in Queen Square to relocate to the Mander Centre, also in the city.A spokesperson for the bank said they were "excited" to be moving services to the new have been told the move would not affect the services available in the city. The spokesperson added: "The branch will offer customers a welcoming and modern place for their in-person banking and our colleagues will be on hand to help with a range of services." Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.

Sultana: Corbyn 'capitulated' on antisemitism definition
Sultana: Corbyn 'capitulated' on antisemitism definition

BBC News

time17 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Sultana: Corbyn 'capitulated' on antisemitism definition

Jeremy Corbyn "capitulated" over the definition of antisemitism while leader of the Labour party, fellow MP Zarah Sultana has Labour MPs Corbyn and Sultana launched a new political party less than a month ago, which they said would change politics, and oppose government policy on to the New Left Review, Sultana praised Corbynism's mass appeal, but said he "capitulated" to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, saying it equated it with criticism from Jewish groups, with the Board of Deputies of British Jews calling her words "a grave insult", Sultana posted on social media that she was a proud anti-Zionist. Asked how the new party would adapt the model of radical politics Corbynism set out a decade ago, Sultana said he had made "a serious mistake" in being too said: "We have to build on the strengths of Corbynism – its energy, mass appeal and bold policy platform – and we also have to recognise its limitations. "It capitulated to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which famously equates it with anti-Zionism, and which even its lead author Kenneth Stern has now publicly criticised."Sultana added the movement was "frightened and far too conciliatory" when it was attacked and should have recognised that the state and the media "are our class enemies" because, she said, "you cannot give these people an inch".In 2018, Labour's ruling body, the National Executive Committee, agreed to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism into its code of conduct, after months of the time, Jewish groups attacked an accompanying statement saying "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians".The IHRA's working definition of antisemitism is the internationally accepted standard definition, adopted by the government and most British the guidance on its application, it includes holding Jews responsible for Israel's actions, and comparing its policies to those of the Nazis, as antisemitic Stern, who was one of the people involved in drafting the definition, has since criticised how it has been used, including in the UK, to chill free speech, arguing that "anti-Zionists have a right to free expression".However, Labour Against Antisemitism co-director Alex Hearn said Sultana's objection to the definition of antisemitism was "unsurprising given her history", dismissing her as an "extremist"."Without a proper definition, the unlawful harassment suffered by Jews could continue unabated, as it did during Corbyn's tenure of the Labour Party," Mr Hearn said."The three authors of the IHRA definition have stated that Kenneth Stern was not even an author, let alone 'lead author'. "Exaggerating his role is a tactic to give undue weight to his controversial views." Mr Hearn added he hoped Sultana would "remain on the fringes of politics for the remainder of her career, which is where her extremist views belong".The vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Andrew Gilber, said the definition was also "supported by the overwhelming majority of British Jews as it is clear and measured in defining antisemitism"."Calling the recognition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism a 'capitulation' is a grave insult," he said. "Labour's real betrayal under Corbyn was unlawfully harassing and discriminating against Jews. "Those who seek to delegitimise and mis-define the IHRA definition in this way prove themselves to be no friend to the Jewish community and also call into question their wider commitment to anti-racism, the wellbeing of the Jewish community and social cohesion." Responding to the criticism, Sultana posted on X rejecting "smears" and challenging journalists to print that she is "loudly and proudly... an anti-Zionist".In a second post she added: "Legacy media are not our allies. They are the mouthpiece of the ruling class."And how many of them have spoken out against Israel's genocide in Gaza and the direct targeting of Palestinian journalists?"You cannot give these people an inch. Their smears won't work this time."Corbyn's rejection of the IHRA definition was a defining factor in his political downfall from the Labour Party, despite his popularity with many on the left of the stepping down as party leader following his second general election defeat in 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigated the party's handling of complaints under his Corbyn rejected the human rights watchdog's critical findings that there had been three breaches of the Equality Act during his tenure, claiming complaints had been "dramatically overstated" by political successor Sir Keir Starmer suspended him from the party and Labour's ruling NEC later banned him from standing for the party in the 2024 general election, leading to him standing as an independent MP.A Labour source said: "The electorate has twice made their view clear about a Jeremy Corbyn-led party."Keir Starmer's Labour Party rightly tore antisemitism out at its roots. Corbyn almost led the party to extinction. We're not going back." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

Oxford congestion charge consultation views revealed
Oxford congestion charge consultation views revealed

BBC News

time17 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Oxford congestion charge consultation views revealed

Nearly three quarters of people who responded to a six-week consultation about a congestion charge in Oxford said it would negatively impact them, a council has said.A total of 7,165 people gave their views on proposals to introduce the temporary the survey, 66% of people said there should not be a charge, while 74% said it would negatively affect council said the feedback would be reviewed by the council's Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 August, and a decision on whether to implement the scheme would be made on 10 September. The council said the plans had already been amended to address some of the concerns also said there was "significant support" for the proposal's aims - to improve bus services, make it easier for those with permits - including carers, traders and blue badge holders - to travel by car, and improve air member for transport management Andrew Gant said the committee would "fully debate the subject and make its own thoughts and recommendations clear to the council's cabinet".The council said the proposals now included more detail, with recommendations to provide free park and ride journeys alongside the introduction of the temporary would last for an initial period of two months, covering the busy Christmas council is also considering additional permits for certain circumstances, including for ice hockey clubs and business cars. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store