The monarchy
The grant is measurable. The full public cost is not. The tourism claim has never been demonstrated.
Introduction
The monarchy’s finances get reduced to two incompatible slogans: “it costs £132 million” and “it makes the country hundreds of millions”. Neither is a balance sheet.
This page separates what is audited, what is known but partial, and what is genuinely not disclosed — and refuses to produce a total, because the published accounts do not support one in either direction.
The Sovereign Grant
£132.1m
Sovereign Grant
Not the same as: The total public cost of the monarchy. Security, ceremonial and departmental costs sit outside it.
£67.5m
Spent on occupied royal palaces
Not the same as: Money paid to the Royal Family. This is building preservation and protection — over half the Grant.
2,273
Official engagements by working royals
Not the same as: A measure of value. It counts activity, not what that activity achieved.
The Grant rises to £137.9m in 2026/27, the final scheduled tranche for the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. It pays for official duties, staff, travel and the occupied palaces.
Known, partial, and not disclosed
Anyone quoting a single annual cost for the monarchy — in either direction — is filling in gaps the accounts leave open.
Published and audited
- Sovereign Grant, 2025/26£132.1m
- Of which occupied royal palaces£67.5m
- Sovereign Grant, 2026/27£137.9m
- Crown Estate profit to Treasury, 2025/26£487m
Known but partial
- Royal Household Pension Scheme, 2024/25£5m
- Lord-lieutenants, Cabinet Office, 2023/24£1.5m
- 2023 Coronation, DCMS£50.3m
- Coronation policing, Home Office£21.7m
- Queen Elizabeth II state funeral, 2022£161.7m
Not disclosed
- Royal security and policing — withheld because a breakdown could compromise protection arrangements
- Departmental support for honours, ceremonial occasions and state visits
- Military support for ceremonial duties
- Local authority costs for royal visits
- The value of soft power, diplomacy and trade introductions
There is deliberately no total here. One-off event costs — coronations, funerals — must not be added to a recurring annual figure, and the largest recurring item outside the Grant, security, is not published at all. A single 'true cost of the monarchy' cannot be calculated from what is disclosed. Campaign-group estimates fill those gaps with assumptions; they belong in a debate, not in a ledger of audited figures.
The Crown Estate is not a cheque from the King
This is the most common error in the monarchy’s favour. The Crown Estate returned £487m of profit to the Treasury in 2025/26. It is often presented as the King handing over £487m and receiving £132m back.
The Crown Estate is a statutory public corporation. Its assets are attached to the Crown as an institution, not owned by the King personally, and he neither manages nor controls it. The Sovereign Grant is calculated as a percentage of its profit from two years earlier — a funding formula, not a dividend.
- 1The Crown Estate operates independently, under its own board.
- 2Its profit goes to the Treasury.
- 3The Sovereign Grant is set as a percentage of that profit, lagged by two years.
- 4The Grant funds official duties and the occupied palaces.
So do not:compare £132.1m with £487m as though they were the same financial year; call Crown Estate profit “money the King gives the government”; assume the Crown Estate would cease to exist under a republic; or describe the Grant as a dividend the monarch legally owns.
Tax: liability and voluntary payment are different things
The King and the Prince of Wales are not legally liable for income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax where the relevant statutes do not bind the Crown. A non-statutory memorandum provides for voluntary payments, and the King does pay income tax on private income. Transfers from one sovereign to the next are exempt from inheritance tax.
Two claims that are not equivalent.“They pay tax” is true. “They are taxed exactly like everyone else” is not. Other members of the Royal Family are generally liable under normal rules.
Does tourism pay for the monarchy?
What is known, plainly: 2.7 million people visited the Royal Collection Trust in 2025/26, generating £61.0m in access income; Windsor Castle drew 1.25 million visits and the Buckingham Palace Summer Opening 555,024. Royal branding is used throughout UK tourism marketing. That is real, measured activity — nobody disputes it.
“The Royal Family brings in more through tourism than the monarchy costs”
UnverifiableWhat is known: Royal Collection Trust welcomed 2.7 million visitors in 2025/26, with access income of £61.0m. Windsor Castle recorded over 1.25 million visits in 2025 and the Buckingham Palace Summer Opening 555,024. Royal associations are used in tourism marketing.
What is not known: How many visits to Britain would not happen without a working monarchy; how much of that spending would simply go to other attractions; whether demand would change if the palaces, ceremonies and collections remained open under a different constitutional arrangement. The full public cost is also undisclosed, so neither side of the comparison is complete.
What would change this verdict: A credible counterfactual estimate of tourism caused by retaining a working monarchy, plus a full public cost including security. Neither exists.
One number would settle this. It doesn’t exist.
The old £500 million figure attributed a quarter of culture-and-heritage visitor spending to the monarchy, because roughly a quarter of the relevant attractions had royal connections — an association, not a measurement of cause; VisitBritain itself said it showed nothing about a republic. The reverse claim — that the monarchy costs more than it brings in — fails for the identical reason, not a different one. Neither side has produced the one number that would actually settle it: what tourism demand would look like without a working monarchy.
That is the finding, not an evasion of one: the tourism argument is undemonstrated on both sides, and no published research closes that gap. Until one does, treat any total on either side as invented.
What power actually remains
The Crown retains substantial formal powers. Almost all are exercised by ministers, or by the King on advice he is constitutionally bound to accept — and responsibility then rests with ministers accountable to Parliament.
Appointing the Prime Minister
In law
The King formally appoints the Prime Minister.
In practice
Convention requires whoever can command the confidence of the Commons. Real discretion arises only in an unclear result.
Appointing and dismissing ministers
In law
Formally done by the King.
In practice
On the Prime Minister’s advice.
Royal Assent
In law
Required before a bill becomes an Act.
In practice
Parliament describes it as a formality. It was last refused in 1708.
Dissolving Parliament
In law
A prerogative revived by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
In practice
Exercised on the Prime Minister’s request. Parliament dissolves automatically after five years if not sooner.
Foreign affairs, treaties, armed forces
In law
Many powers remain Crown prerogatives.
In practice
Exercised by ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for them.
King’s or Prince’s Consent
In law
Required during passage of bills affecting Crown or Duchy interests.
In practice
Allows Parliament to debate the bill. Distinct from Royal Assent, and not refused in modern times.
Reserve powers
In law
Residual personal powers may exist in an exceptional constitutional crisis.
In practice
Narrow, convention-bound and rarely tested. Theoretical extremes are not ordinary governing power.
Claim checks
“The monarchy cost £132.1 million in 2025/26”
Missing contextWhat is known: That is the Sovereign Grant. It is an audited figure and it is correct as far as it goes.
What is not known: Security, departmental, devolved and local costs sit outside the Grant and are not all published. The total is higher, by an amount nobody outside government can state.
“The King gave the Treasury £487 million from his estate”
MisleadingWhat is known: The Crown Estate returned £487m to the Treasury in 2025/26. It is a statutory corporation whose assets are attached to the Crown as an institution.
What is not known: Nothing here is uncertain — the claim simply misdescribes ownership. The King neither owns the Crown Estate privately nor manages it, and the Grant is a lagged formula, not a refund.
“The King has no power”
MisleadingWhat is known: Real formal and residual powers remain, including appointing the Prime Minister and granting Royal Assent. In ordinary circumstances they are exercised on binding advice, by ministers accountable to Parliament.
What is not known: How reserve powers would operate in a genuine constitutional crisis. They are narrow and rarely tested, which is precisely why confident claims in either direction are unsafe.
Related: where public money goes for scale, and public finances.