The size of the funding increase awarded to King Charles III by the government is unjustifiable, and all the more so at a time when millions of people are struggling with the painful effects of high food, housing and other costs. Teachers have had to fight very hard for a below-inflation offer of 6.5%, along with many other public servants, and the economic outlook is widely accepted to be bleak. It seems extraordinary, in such circumstances, that the government has seen fit to offer the new king a rise estimated to be 45% from 2025. The precise figure will depend on profits from the government property portfolio known as the crown estate. The projected increase of £38.5m, taking the sovereign grant from £86m to £125m, undermines King Charles’s often-cited commitment to “slim down” the monarchy.
The decision, which was taken by a committee of three people – prime minister Rishi Sunak, the chancellor Jeremy Hunt, and the keeper of the privy purse, Sir Michael Stevens – is made far worse by the opaque way in which it was communicated. By emphasising that the percentage of crown estate profits that the royal family receives is being reduced, from 25% to 12%, the Treasury presented the deal as if it were a pay cut. The truth is that estimated profits of £1bn from offshore windfarm leases mean that the crown estate’s income is expected to balloon, placing the royals in line for a huge increase. Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary, used unusually blunt language in criticising what he called “a deliberate attempt to obfuscate”.
The prime minister and chancellor should have insisted on a larger reduction in the percentage. The explanation offered for the generous settlement, that it would help pay for renovations to Buckingham Palace, seems convenient. In addition to the sovereign grant, the king and his heir, Prince William, receive around £40m annually from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. But the problem with this arrangement is bigger than the latest sums. The system devised by David Cameron 12 years ago, under which the size of the grant is negotiated by three people, including the prime minister, should be scrapped.
For 250 years, since the reign of George III, parliament agreed the size of the sovereign grant. But Mr Cameron and George Osborne decided that MPs should no longer have a say over this form of public expenditure. In his memoir, Mr Cameron explained his reasoning, calling the annual debate “painful”, attacking the tabloids for their role in it, and sounding as though he thought the royals should be protected from uncouth speculation. Bearing in mind the huge cuts in public spending that were then on the way, this was a particularly glaring example of his government’s warped priorities. The arbitrary linkage of the sovereign grant with crown estate profits – which despite the name are public monies – was made all the more egregious by a “golden ratchet” clause stating that while the grant would rise in line with them, it would never fall. Thus democratic oversight was replaced by a pseudo-market mechanism that was free of risk.
This cosy system should never have been invented. In a constitutional monarchy like ours MPs should have a say over the funding provided to the head of state. Mr Sunak won’t give it back to them. But Sir Keir Starmer should commit to restoring parliamentary sovereignty, and the accountability that comes with it.
