
xxx
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
12 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reform and indy will be at the heart of our debate for years
Of course, by now you already know the result, so you'll know which of the following scenarios and their consequences are the most accurate. But let me start with what the national polls tell us ought to have happened, by-election peculiarities – which I'll come to – notwithstanding. The SNP should have won with around 33% of the vote, down significantly on the 46.2% it won in 2021, with Labour in a narrow second on around 28% of the vote. Reform should have come third with just under 20% of the vote, while the Conservatives should have collapsed to under 10% of the vote. The rest of the vote, around 10%, will have been split among the Greens, Liberal Democrats, and myriad minor parties and independents. But by-elections rarely work out this way, even when the national polls are accurate. Firstly, voters are more likely to have voted in protest than they are at national elections, which may well help Reform in this case. As Jamie, a service engineer from Hamilton, told a focus group run by More in Common, it's 'time to give someone else a chance,' even if he thinks Nigel Farage is an 'a***hole'. Read more by Mark McGeoghegan Secondly, turnout will likely have collapsed. In the Hamilton and Rutherglen West by-election in October 2023, turnout fell by 43% compared to the 2019 General Election. A similar decline here would see around 15,600 voters who would otherwise turn out in a national election stay at home instead. Given that voters turning out to vote Reform as a protest against both the SNP and Labour governments are likely to be more motivated than SNP and Labour voters, this may also advantage Reform. In fact, assuming predictions based on national polling would otherwise have been accurate, Reform's vote will only have to have been marginally more resilient for it to finish ahead of Labour and narrowly behind the SNP. Factor in that first peculiarity of by-election campaigns, and such a scenario is hardly far-fetched. On the eve of the by-election, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar accused the First Minister, John Swinney, and journalists of manufacturing Reform's competitiveness in the seat. Nothing could be further from the truth, and a Reform underperformance yesterday will have been more surprising than it coming second. It has demonstrated its strength in a succession of local by-elections, the latest of which saw it beat Labour to come second behind the SNP. Whether or not Reform came second yesterday, its performance will shape the narrative in Scottish politics going into next year's elections in conjunction with its UK-wide polling lead (it has led in 25 consecutive polls going back to the beginning of May) and strong results in recent local elections and Parliamentary by-elections in England. Ultimately, regardless of yesterday's result, the spectre of Nigel Farage looms over Scottish politics. There are three broad scenarios. Firstly, that Reform performed to its Scotland-wide polling, confirming that it is on course to win between 15 and 20 seats in next year's Scottish Parliament election. Secondly, that it did overperform, perhaps coming second, leading to the next 11 months to being dominated by the SNP seeking to present next year's elections as a choice between the SNP and Nigel Farage, and a bitter fight between Reform and Labour for status as the main challengers to the SNP. Thirdly, that it underperformed, in which case the SNP will be quick to emphasise divergence between Scottish and English politics. In any case, the SNP will use the prospect of a Reform government at Westminster to try to increase the salience of the constitutional question, attempting to return independence to the heart of the Scottish political agenda ahead of next year's elections and the following UK general election. It knows that that is its best bet for winning back pro-independence voters who have swung to Labour in recent years. Replacing Humza Yousaf with John Swinney may have stabilised the SNP's support, but the party not really recovered in any meaningful way. The longer Reform leads in UK-wide polls, the more likely that narrative will be to gain purchase among the independence-supporting electorate. Strong Reform showings in Scotland will reinforce the sense that they could win power in 2029; weak performances will emphasise the ways in which Scottish and English politics may be diverging. Both provide hooks for the SNP. The spectre of Nigel Farage looms large over Scottish politics (Image: PA) The bigger question is whether this leads to a change in the constitutional deadlock. Some recent polling suggests that support for independence may have edged up. Norstat recently recorded its first Yes leads in three years, finding Yes ahead by seven points in the wake of Reform's strong showing in the English local elections. Survation still has No ahead by two or three points, down from leads of seven or eight points a year ago. The data is not conclusive, and we should be cautious of hypotheticals around whether developments will change voters' minds – we had enough such polls around Brexit and Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister that never bore out. But the prominence of Reform UK and Nigel Farage in UK politics is a gift to the SNP and the independence movement, regardless of how they performed yesterday or how they perform north of the Border in the coming year. If Anas Sarwar is frustrated with his opponents' and the media's "obsession" with Reform UK, he should get used to that feeling – they'll be at the heart of Scottish political debate for years to come. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @


The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
Sainsbury's is testing a huge change to shelf labels – and shoppers will be divided
SAINSBURY'S is the latest supermarket to test a major change to shelf labels in stores - but it will leave shoppers divided. One of the UK's biggest supermarkets is trialling electronic shelf labels in a small number of branches. 1 The retailer installed the tech at three of its larger shops late last year and has been trying it out across different sections including alcohol, health and general merchandise. Sainsbury's has partnered with Harrison Retail to build the shelf fixings featuring the labels. A branch in Witney, Oxfordshire, is understood to be one of the three locations where the tech is being trialled. A spokesperson for Sainsbury's said: "We are trialling electronic shelf-edge labels in a small number of our stores." Sainsbury's shoppers are bound to be left divided over the new electronic tags though. Fears have been raised digital labels could lead to "surge pricing", which sees prices hiked when products are more in demand. The labels can make it harder for shoppers to spot cut-price items too, as they're not as visible as the paper yellow, orange or red stickers. Sainsbury's joins a host of other supermarkets trialling electronic shelf labels in stores. Co-op is replacing paper product tags with electronic labels throughout its whole estate over the coming months. The retailer said last month it had already made the change in 340 branches but would roll out the tags more widely. SAVE AT SAINSBURY'S It said 1,500 stores will have the labels by the end of this year and rolled out across all its nearly 2,400 shops by the end of 2026. Lidl also said it would roll out the digital labels across all its stores before the end of 2024. This came after a successful trial at 35 branches. Asda is testing the digital labels at a Manchester shop. WHAT ARE ELECTRONIC PRICE LABELS Electronic pricing labels are not easy to spot and look almost identical to the traditional paper labels which have existed in stores for centuries. They feature everything a shopper would expect to see on a label such as cost, weight and unit price. The only difference is that the information is displayed on screens instead of a paper label. Usually, they are connected to a wireless network that allows for prices to be updated in real-time - instead of it being done manually by a store clerk. Supermarkets say the technology will help cut down on waste and help with efficiency in stores. OTHER SAINSBURY'S NEWS Sainsbury's exclusively revealed to The Sun last month it had closed all remaining patisserie, hot food and pizza counters. It is not clear when the pizza counters shut while is understood the patisserie and hot food counters closed in April. The closures come as part of a wide-ranging update of Sainsbury's' store estate which also saw 61 in-store cafes shut on April 11. The cafe spaces are being replaced with restaurants run by franchises such as Starbucks and Gourmet Burger Kitchen. The supermarket said its hybrid cafe and food halls were becoming popular among shoppers. Sainsbury's first announced the store overhaul in January, as it revealed 3,000 head office staff would also lose their jobs in a senior team shake-up. At the time, chief executive Simon Roberts said the changes would "ensure we continue to drive forward our momentum". .


Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Perfect' mini brownie box slashed to under £5 for Father's Day
This might just be the perfect affordable gift for the foodie dad with a sweet tooth There are 10 days left until Father's Day, and those still on the hunt for the perfect gift have enough time to find something Dad will love. If he has a sweet tooth, something delicious to tuck into on the special occasion might be a winner, and Cutter & Squidge is well worth checking out to put a smile on his face. The Mixed Mini Brownie Box is a popular pick; it comes with a Father's Day packaging sleeve and contains an assortment of rich, gooey mini brownies in a selection of flavours for £21.99. The London-based bakery is known for its letterbox-friendly boxes of handmade brownies, cakes, and biscuits, each wrapped in occasion-specific packaging. Thanks to a limited deal with TopCashback, shoppers will be able to save big for this special occasion. New customers to TopCashback and Cutter & Squidge will receive a £15 new member bonus plus additional cashback, meaning the Mixed Mini Brownie Box will cost £4.79 after cashback. For an existing Cutter & Squidge customer but new to TopCashback, the brownie box will be £5.52 after cashback. Delivery of the sweet treat is letterbox-friendly, but next-day service comes at an extra charge. For the foodie dad who enjoys the finer things, the Luxury Wine, Cheese, and Rillette Hamper (£70) from is a standout choice. It's packed with artisan cheeses, crackers, a bottle of wine and more to enjoy. Alternatively, Bloom & Wild also offer a number of sweet treats available to send to a special someone by post. The Mixed Mini Brownie Box has become a go-to gift for all sorts of occasions, from 'get well soon' pick-me-ups to congratulatory treats for exam results or even a quirky way to ask someone to be a bridesmaid; the contents stay the same, with only the sleeve swapping out to suit the occasion. The Birthday Box (£19.99) is the most widely reviewed on Cutter & Squidge's site, earning an impressive 4.8 out of 5 stars from 164 reviews. In reviews for the Mixed Mini Brownie Box, one shopper shared: "The Mixed Brownie Box is a perfect selection of deliciousness and comes in lovely packaging that matches each occasion." Another happy customer wrote: "I received these brownies as a birthday gift and they were so delicious that I ordered a box of 12 to be sent to a relative for her birthday. They are highly recommended - a great gift to send and receive." However, while most reviews are glowing, a handful of customers have noted that the portions are on the smaller side, though that's not unusual for a mixed selection designed to fit through the letterbox. Another customer noted: "Fantastic selection of the most delicious brownies!" How to get Father's Day Brownie Box for less than £6 To claim the new member bonus, new members of TopCashback need to sign up via this link Search for Cutter & Squidge and click 'Get Cashback Now' Shop and check out as usual Cashback will track and appear in your TopCashback account