Are King Charles and Prince William profiting from public expenses? A joint investigation-style documentary by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s “Dispatches” entitled “The King, The Prince and Their Secret Millions” unveiled how centuries-old estates had reportedly earned King Charles GBP 27.4 million and Prince William GBP 23.6 million in private income last year. The program revealed that much of the wealth amassed from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall — centuries-old estates established to generate income for the reigning monarch and heir — came at the expense of British taxpayers. This included public institutions such as the NHS (National Healthcare Service), the British Armed Forces, and various charities that were allegedly being charged millions for the use of properties and land owned by the Duchies, raising uncomfortable questions about the true cost of the monarchy in a time of economic strain.
Established in 1399 and 1337 respectively, the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall claim to operate as private entities, providing personal income to the monarch and heir. However, the “Dispatches” investigation alleges that public funds indirectly bolster these estates. For example, Dartmoor Prison — run by the Ministry of Justice — reportedly has a GDP 37.5 million contract with the Ministry of Justice for leasing the prison, while the Duchy of Lancaster is said to have a GDP 11.4 million agreement with Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust for a 15-year lease on a London warehouse used for ambulance storage. The King’s Duchy of Lancaster estate makes GBP 829,000 a year renting a warehouse to an NHS trust to keep ambulances.
“The King, The Prince and Their Secret Millions” asserts that these are just a few instances of taxpayers unknowingly contributing to the royal income. This revelation has sparked outrage, with many questioning why public bodies are funnelling money into estates designed to enrich the royal family. In one example, the narrator notes, “Charles and William’s private estates claim they are not funded by taxpayers, but the evidence suggests otherwise.”
The Monarchy’s Growing Financial Scrutiny
Since Queen Elizabeth II’s passing in 2022, public opinion on the monarchy’s financial relevance has soured. King Charles’ coronation reportedly cost taxpayers tens of millions at a time when the UK faced economic turmoil, with GDP growth stagnating and public services under strain. Critics argue that the opulence of royal lifestyles feels increasingly out of step with modern Britain, particularly as the institution’s cultural role continues to be debated.
The revelations from “The King, The Prince and Their Secret Millions” come at a pivotal moment for the British monarchy. While the royal family remains a symbol of heritage and continuity for some, others see it as an increasingly outdated institution with echoes of a dark colonial past and entrenched class systems. According to the BBC, the 2023 coronation of King Charles reportedly costs the British taxpayer approximately GBP 72 million. According to the report, government figures revealed that just over GBP 50 million was spent by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which coordinated the event while policing costs came to almost GBP 22 million, which were paid for by the Home Office.
In recent years, the royal family has been entangled in a slew of scandals including Prince Andrew’s allegations of sexual assault and his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender. The controversy escalated when Virginia Giuffre — one of Epstein’s accusers — filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in the United States in 2021. Prince Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre — reportedly for around GDP 12 million — although the exact figure remains undisclosed. The settlement included no admission of guilt or liability and allowed Andrew to avoid a civil trial.
The late Queen was said to have supported Prince Andrew’s payout using her private income, possibly from the portfolio of land, property, and investments under the Duchy of Lancaster. This revelation further fuelled public criticism, as these funds — while technically “private” — stem from assets tied to the monarchy and indirectly benefit from privileges afforded by taxpayers.
Now the financial workings of the Duchies are once again pushed under the spotlight with many asking if the monarchy can justify its privileges in an era of economic hardship and social change. As the debate rages on, calls for greater financial transparency from the royal family are growing louder. Critics argue that if public funds are indirectly bolstering royal estates, the monarchy owes it to taxpayers to provide full disclosure of its financial dealings. Whether this scrutiny will lead to meaningful reform or merely further polarise public opinion remains to be seen.
Royal Relevance & Public Opinion
What does it mean to be a member of the British Royal family in 2024 and are they relevant as an institution? Historically, the monarchy in the UK was founded on the concept of the divine right of kings, which suggested that monarchs were appointed by God and ruled as His representatives on Earth. This belief gave the monarch absolute authority — both politically and spiritually — with the crown symbolising divine approval. Today, the sovereignty of the royal family is run as a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the monarch’s powers are largely ceremonial and symbolic. However, while the monarchy’s powers may be symbolic, they seem to have maintained some level of medieval privileges including impunity against legal prosecution and financial scrutiny, which allows them to avoid the same legal consequences as ordinary citizens.
This comes as the monarchy faces increasing calls to refund the struggling NHS, according to reports. Some argue that political leadership should capitalise on public frustration and push for reforms ensuring the monarchy contributes its share of taxes, including corporation and capital gains taxes. Proponents suggest that such changes could also benefit the institution itself, positioning it as a champion of national unity and public services while redefining its role in a modern Britain.
Comparisons with other constitutional monarchies — such as those in Scandinavia — reveal stark differences in financial transparency and accountability. Scandinavian royal families are often lauded for their modesty and clear separation of public and private income. In 2024, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark abdicated the throne in favour of her son — Crown Prince Frederik — marking a historic moment as the first Danish monarch to step down voluntarily in nearly 900 years. This unprecedented decision reflects a modernising approach to monarchy, aligning with changing times and public expectations.
The growing wave of financial and ethical scrutiny against the monarchy reflects changing public expectations. In a democracy, the royal family’s continued existence and privileges increasingly depend on maintaining public support. A failure to address these concerns risks eroding the monarchy’s legitimacy and relevance in the 21st century.
For more on the latest in business and culture reads, click here.