An extra £45m
Oh good, the struggling royals get to have more money. That’s a relief.
The monarchy is to get an extra £45m due to soaring profits from the Crown Estate. The income boost comes from a surge in profits from the estate, due to six new offshore wind farms.
Profits from the Crown Estate have increased to £1.1bn, which in turn will lead to a rise in the Sovereign Grant, which pays for the Royal Family’s running costs. The grant will rise from £86.3m in 2024/25 to to £132m in 2025/2026 – which will help pay for the last stages of renovating Buckingham Palace, officials said.
How lovely for them. Might be able to afford an occasional night out, as well.
The annual accounts – delayed for a month because of the general election – revealed the household would get two new helicopters over the coming year, to replace existing 15-year-old aircraft. The report said they were “a key component” in enabling the King and wider Royal Family to carry out engagements, allowing them to get to remote regions of the UK.
Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, said: “We do not owe the royals a living, we do not owe them palatial homes, private helicopter travel or lives of leisure and luxury.” Mr Smith added: “They abuse the taxpayer’s trust day in, day out, taking our money to spend on their own private lifestyles.”
Yes but it brings the tourists in.
The Crown Estate, mentioned in the article, brings in much more money to the state than is given out to the royals. The extra profits mentioned mean more money for the Treasury as well as for the royals. The Crown Estate was formed in 1760, and since then (or at least shortly afterwards) the royal family has been a net financial benefit to the nation’s coffers, and continues to be so.
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/our-history
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news/the-crown-estate-delivers-a-record-gbp1-1-billion-net-revenue-profit-for-the
The tourism argument has always been a red herring. I am a republican (UK definition) so I would prefer it if we didn’t have a royal family at all, but I have to concede that the tourism argument falls at the first hurdle because it is demonstrably untrue.
There are better arguments more based in fact. Why does this massive property portfolio not belong to the British people in its’ entirety, rather than being managed on behalf of the royals, for example? Why are the royal family parasitical landlords for a living? Questions like that are more factual and more likely to win people over IMO.
CB, I’m not sure if you’re criticizing Ophelia for using the tourism argument, but it sounds like it. I read it as irony…mockery.
I heard that stupid tourism article nearly daily when I roomed with a British friend in college. She was a republican in many ways, but a lot of times she seemed like a monarchist at heart.
CB, that massive property portfolio would bring tourism regardless of whether they were the private dwelling places of the pampered royals, so I don’t know why you act as if those sums would disappear without the royal family. Did Versailles lose its tourism value when the French did away with theirs?
The question to ask is, what is the difference in tourism revenue between [massive portfolio inhabited by royals] and [massive portfolio NOT inhabited by royals]? It seems likely to me that tourism would increase if the properties were no longer reserved to the royals – the public would have greater access, and venues would be open for bookings for all sorts of things.