ANTI-MONARCHY campaigners have accused the Government of “misleading the public” over the cost of maintaining the royal family after announcing a change to its funding.
The Treasury on Thursday announced it had reduced the cut of Crown Estate profits received by the royal family.
But Republic said the change would result in funding stasis rather than a real reduction in the royal family’s income from its massive estate, from which it raises rents.
Announcing the changes, the Treasury said changing the royal household’s share of Crown Estate net profits from 25% to 12% would allow the Government to better fund “vital public services”.
READ MORE: King Charles accused of holding 'insensitive publicity stunt' in Edinburgh
But a “significant increase” in the Crown Estate’s income because of offshore windfarms means the money going to the royal household will remain the same for two years at £86.3 million.
The Treasury said the change meant a theoretical reduction in the royal budget of £24m next year and £130m in both 2025 and 2026 – versus the profit share rate remaining the same.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic said: “The claim that the Sovereign Grant will be £24m lower is grossly misleading. The grant will remain the same while royal spending will go up as it does most years.
"The government and palace are misleading the public. The Sovereign Grant will not be cut by a single penny, but will remain at £86.3m.
“That’s because of the ‘golden ratchet’ clause that doesn’t allow the grant to fall below the previous year.
"The true cost of the monarchy is over £345m a year. The grant is a dishonest and nonsensical way to fund a public institution. It must be scrapped and the royal budget slashed."
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said: “Our monarchy is a source of immense national pride and constitutional strength, widely admired around the world.
“For almost 300 years, Kings and Queens have surrendered the profits from the Crown Estate to the British people, and in return the Government has provided a fraction of that to properly support the King in undertaking his official duties.
“The new Sovereign Grant rate reflects the unexpected significant increase in the Crown Estate’s net profits from offshore wind developments, while providing enough funding for official business as well as essential property maintenance, including completing the ten year reservicing of Buckingham Palace.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel