In recent months, the British public has been fed with a steady diet of stories concerning the past circumstances of Prince Andrew (second and “favourite” son of the Queen) and the present circumstances of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, respectively, to you and me). These revelations have prompted many anti-monarchists to yet again question the relevance of a well-established institution, whose existence is repeatedly acknowledged in the name of the United Kingdom, in the national anthem, as well as in the constellation of revered and respected national institutions that proudly hold the prefix “Royal”. While the many stories continue to develop in the public arena, it is useful at this juncture to reassess the role of the Monarchy in twenty-first-century Britain.
The Queen, as Sovereign, is Head of State of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other Commonwealth countries, Head of the British Commonwealth, commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Her constitutional role as Head of State is what makes the UK a constitutional monarchy. The Queen’s many constitutional, although largely symbolic, roles include opening (State Opening, on the first day of a new session or shortly after a general election) and dissolving (under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, ahead of a general election) Parliament, appointing and thereafter regularly meeting the Prime Minister, informing Parliament of the government’s policies through the Queen’s Speech, approving Bills before they are enshrined in law by Acts of Parliament (through Royal Assent), and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council. This constitutional role means that she has to remain politically neutral at all times, cannot vote herself, nor stand in any elections, appear as a witness in court, or even rent property from her subjects.
As Head of State, the Queen has a wider role, most important in upholding the nation’s interests and international profile. She invites foreign Heads of State to the UK, goes on official State visits abroad and leads the nation in Remembrance and celebratory events. In addition, as Head of the Nation, she is a symbol of national identity, pride and unity, officially recognises success and excellence (through the Honours System) at Investiture Ceremonies and actively supports voluntary public service. She is the Patron or President of over six hundreds charities , professional bodies and public service organisation, thereby highlighting their efforts and activities. These many roles, obviously, cannot all be fulfilled by one person. This is where she depends on other members of the Royal family-a dependence which is one of the reasons for disquiet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wishing to withdraw from the bulk of their Royal duties.
So, who pays for all of this? It is, incidentally, worth recalling at this point that the Queen is not the richest person in the UK by far. More than three hundred British subjects have a net personal wealth higher than her own, often much higher. The Queen herself has three main sources of income: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse, and the income from her personal possessions and investments.
The Sovereign Grant is an annual, tax-exempt, lump sum issued by the Treasury, which receives all the revenues from the Crown Estates, the property arm of the Monarchy, which includes Royal estates, urban residential property, commercial offices, retail properties, farmland and forests, and more than half of the UK’s foreshore. The Treasury currently pays 25 per cent of the Crown Estate’s profits back to the Queen. In 2019, this grant amounted to £82.2 million, which included £32.9 million towards the cost of restoring Buckingham Palace. The Privy Purse refers to the revenues generated by the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns the Savoy Estate in central London and has landholdings in several English counties- all part of a large portfolio of agricultural, commercial and residential properties. The Queen’s private income is derived from her personal investments and inherited properties, which include Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire. The Queen does not personally own the many national treasures of the Royal Collection, such as the Crown Jewels, the Tower of London and many priceless works of art.
So, where does all this money go? The Sovereign Grant can be likened to an expenses account- paying the salaries of members of the large and extensive Royal Household, covering the cost of the Queen’s official duties, including hospitality and entertainment, security and travel, and financing property maintenance (the upkeep of Royal palaces and other properties). This grant cannot reduce in value in successive years, but is nevertheless subject to five-yearly review and is audited regularly by the National Audit Office. Any unspent money goes into the Sovereign Grant Reserve each year, to fund future phases of renovation work at Buckingham Palace.
Where does the taxpayer come into all of this? The Monarchy cost the British taxpayer £67 million in 2018/2019, which equates to £1.24 per person. Yet, the Queen is not legally liable for income tax, capital gains or inheritance tax-a situation which many in the past felt to be unjust. In the aftermath of the Windsor Castle fire of 1992, with taxpayer funding being requested for the subsequent reconstruction, a public outcry led to the Queen to agree to voluntarily pay income tax for the first time, on her Privy Purse and private incomes. She also makes voluntary payments to HRMC in lieu of capital gains and inheritance taxes. Prince Charles himself started paying income tax voluntarily on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall estate, from 1993 onwards.
The large bill to the taxpayer calls into question the potential benefits to the nation from the tax revenues earmarked for the Monarchy, warranting a form of cost-benefit analysis. The justification for this funding, apart from supporting the indispensable figurehead role of the Sovereign, supposedly comes from the financial benefits that result from increased tourism to the UK (which are difficult to quantify), sales of Royal memorabilia and other merchandise, and visits to Royal establishments (entrance ticket fees) and to various celebratory events. On the other hand, the expensive modes of personal travel, the excessive expenses of overseas visits. and other manifestations of the profligate lifestyles of obscurer members of “minor” Royalty are among the criticisms of the system. Financial wastage in order to fuel lavish personal spending is something that does not go down well in a nation that has lived through a period of economic austerity. Most recently, the £2.4-million restoration of Frogmore “Cottage” in Windsor as private accommodation for the Sussexes has attracted much criticism, funded as it was through the Sovereign Grant.
All said and done, the Monarchy is a unique and venerable institution, one which most British people continue to cherish as part of their heritage- a sentiment which is particularly noticeable at national events of pomp and ceremony . It stands apart from other Western European monarchies, which apart from that of Spain, are largely symbolic and low-key institutions. The UK and Royalty are inextricably interlinked at present. No one can deny the essential role the Queen has played in the nation’s history over the preceding six decades as a highly respected and stabilising Head of State. But no institution can remain unchanged for ever, rooted in the glories of the past. It is likely, as we progress jauntily through the 21st century, that the need to fund an extended Royal family will continue to be questioned, and that a slimmer version of Royalty will eventually emerge and continue to serve the nation for the foreseeable future.
Ashis Banerjee