As it’s revealed that almost half of UK homes pay more tax than Buckingham Palace, can we continue to justify funding the royal family?
With 1 in 5 people in the UK living in relative poverty, 184,000 young children living in food insecure households and 6.2 million people receiving Universal Credit, it is no surprise that the British Royal Family have come under fire for their rate of council tax on Buckingham Palace.
The 775-room, 830,000-square-foot property does not pay council tax in the traditional sense. Despite being in the highest council tax band, band H, Buckingham Palace pays a measly total of £1828 per year. King Charles III is officially exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax, but does pay some of these taxes ‘voluntarily’ based on a 1992 agreement.
Upon reviewing the 2022-23 financial reports, it is laughable that Sir Michael Stevens – Keeper of the Privy Purse – states that “the Royal Household has not been immune to the joint challenges of the pandemic and inflationary pressures.” The estimated £100 million cost of King Charles III’s coronation is absurd when compared with the poverty in which much of the British population lives.
Buckingham Palace is 7 years into its 10-year reservicing programme, costing £369 million. Whilst the King’s home is building further guest toilets, adding new lifts, and hosting garden parties – children across the country are going to school hungry. This begs the question, can the British public afford to continue to fund the Royal Family?
It seems close to impossible for the monarchy to continue in its current capacity without backlash or an imminent fall from grace. The royal family must consider downsizing their various estates or reducing their lavish lifestyles to cut costs and contribute to reducing inequalities instead.
It is often argued that the Royal Family generate immense income for the British economy through tourism and historical value. Visit Britain states that heritage is a key factor in attracting tourism to the country, yet it should be considered that it is not the modern-day presence of the monarchy that is driving this. Historic buildings and tours are much more accessible to tourists that than the nil-chance they will catch a glimpse of the Prince and Princess of Wales on their visit. The handful of ‘work’ which royals appear to do – usually just cutting ribbons or shaking hands – is a far cry from the work undertaken by the British public who often have to do more than one job to make ends meet.
Disgraced royal Prince Andrew, accused of sexual assault and fraternising with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, stopped receiving public funding in 2019 after these allegations emerged. His security detail, believed to have been previously paid for by the taxpayer, cost the country £3 million per year.
Is the value of the ‘Firm’ truly worth the cost of refurnishing a multi-million-pound palace and protecting an alleged sex offender?
With young people becoming less and less supportive of the Royal Family year after year, it’s hard to see that the costly funding of the royals will continue to be accepted in the modern world, especially with the Sovereign Grant consistently increasing to £86.3 million a year to support the King’s duties. Much of these millions could be spent supporting the overwhelmed food banks, which have never faced such high demand, or rebuilding the country’s finances, as opposed to maintaining a glorified mansion which has no effect on British citizen’s day-to-day lives. The Royal Family have shown to have a complete disconnect with their population, who are actually facing the realities of the ever-growing cost of living crisis.
The Royal Family are not exempt from criticism, and it is (in my opinion, at least) important to spread awareness of the double standards between our monarchy and the rest of the country.
