They have no need for money from us, circa 28bill in assets, yet not self sufficient? It's nonsense.
The Queen/King can not sell anything in the Crown Estate. They do not make decisions in the management of it. Forbes value the Crown Estate as $19.5bn, plus $0.6bn as the Crown Estate Scotland. Buck Palace and Kensington Palace are then valued at $5.5bn, but again are not owned by the Royal Family. So a lot of the perceived wealth is not theirs at all in reality.
All the surplus from managing the Crown Estate goes to the Treasury, other than the Scottish surplus which goes directly to the Scottish Govt.
John Major originally struck the arrangement that the RF did not pay income tax, or inheritance tax, but their funding (Sovereign Grant) would come as a % of the surplus on the Crown Estate. This has evolved to 25% for a decade to help fund the £370m refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.
The Sovereign Grant was £86.3m in 2021. This funds the Royal Family, but does not cover the cost of their Security.
The Monarch does actually own the Duchy of Lancaster, worth £653m. She drew income of £24m from this, on which she voluntarily paid top rate income tax, as she did on income from all her private assets.
The Monarch also had an estate worth £200m covering Balmoral and Sandringham, plus £100m Stamp collection and various other property/race horses.
The Heir to the Throne also owns the Duchy of Cornwall, an estate valued at over £1bn. He derives his income from the surplus on this estate, which he has grown to be £21m per annum, on which he has voluntarily paid 45% income tax.
So in truth, the vast majority (over 90%) of the perceived wealth of the Royal Family is Crown Estate, not theirs to do with as they please, the profits from which go to the Treasury, about a quarter of which is paid as a Grant.
In addition the monarch owns a large estate c£1bn that pays her £24m pa on which she pays top rate tax.
The Prince of Wales then owns an estate worth c£1bn that paid him £21m pa on which he pays top rate tax.
So, if we did away with them and somehow stripped them of all their private assets there would be c£2bn to fritter away and we would save a grant of c£86m per year.
In the grand scheme of things it is trivial, as the country already owns the massive Crown Estate.
Tourism is estimated at generating £106bn per annum for the UK. £86m grant is just 0.08% of the tourist revenue. I can scarcely imagine how the ongoing Monarchy can not influence the Tourist revenue by less than 0.08%.
That is if you see absolutely no other reason to retain the Monarchy.
The Security costs for a Republic would be at least the same.
If we seized their entire private assets as a country we wouldn't even feel it. They are collectively worth about a quarter of the Coates family who have made their money from internet gambling.
If we proactively sold off the Crown Estate, who to and under what controls?
We would also be c£300m a year worse off from the current Treasury income from it, net of Royal Grant.
I actually fully understand the ethical arguments against a monarchy. In line with the Irish directions quip, "Well you wouldn't start from here".
But here is where we are and I can not see another country in the world I'd swap with.
Conceptual debates are fine, but when looking at the facts:
1. The Monarchy does not cost this country a great deal at all and is almost certainly self funding.
2. The assets are already over 90% state owned and generate a big income for the Treasury.
3. There is absolutely no clear vision of what a better solution is, or how we would move to it.
4. 62% of the population are in favour of the current Monarchy and only 21% favour a Republic, whatever that looks like.
Noisy people who post lots on social media will toss this around forever but will die in our Monarchy.
There can be political reform without going Republican.