In a world where billionaires reign supreme, one question looms larger than ever: Is our monarchy still fit for purpose? With King Charles ascending the throne as Britain’s first billionaire monarch, the spotlight has never been brighter on the royal family’s wealth, privileges, and the secrets they guard so fiercely. But here’s where it gets controversial: as the nation grapples with economic inequality, the monarchy’s untaxed fortunes and hidden financial dealings are sparking a debate that’s dividing the country. And this is the part most people miss: while the royal family enjoys medieval tax exemptions and vast estates, the public is left in the dark about how their wealth is amassed and protected.
The recent three-part BBC documentary series, What’s the Monarchy For?, hosted by veteran broadcaster David Dimbleby, attempts to tackle these questions. Yet, despite its ambitious scope, the series often feels like a missed opportunity. It delves into the monarchy’s role in modern Britain, but shies away from delivering the knockout punch many were hoping for. For instance, while it highlights the monarchy’s exemption from inheritance tax and the voluntary nature of their income tax payments, it fails to press politicians on why the royal family remains financially unaccountable. Worse, it barely scratches the surface of how the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall—massive wealth portfolios dating back to the Middle Ages—generate millions annually for the monarch and the Prince of Wales, all while avoiding corporation and capital gains tax.
But here’s the real kicker: These Duchies have been exposed for charging commercial rates to public institutions like the NHS, yet the BBC series doesn’t fully explore this exploitation of public funds. Instead, it revisits well-trodden ground, leaving viewers with more questions than answers. Why, for example, are royal wills sealed for decades, shielding their financial arrangements from public scrutiny? And why did David Cameron’s government tighten royal secrecy, making it nearly impossible to file Freedom of Information requests about royal matters?
The documentary also sidesteps the Andrew-Epstein scandal, which has reshaped public perception of the monarchy, and fails to connect the dots on how the late Queen funded Prince Andrew’s legal battles. It’s as if the BBC is tiptoeing around the very issues that demand bold, unflinching scrutiny. Even the growing republican movement is dismissed as a fringe group, despite its increasing relevance in a nation where support for the monarchy is waning, especially among younger generations.
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: While media outlets like Channel 4 and The Guardian boldly challenge the monarchy’s financial opacity, the BBC seems content to play it safe. Dimbleby, for all his charm, doesn’t push Prince William on his refusal to publish tax returns or confront the monarchy’s deepening secrecy. Instead, the series ends with a lighthearted clip of William on The Reluctant Traveller, leaving viewers to wonder: Is this the best our national broadcaster can do?
The truth is, the monarchy’s survival depends on public consent, yet its financial disconnect with the nation has never been starker. While 81% of over-65s support the monarchy, only 41% of 18-24-year-olds do—a gap that’s widening every year. As historian Rutger Bregman calls for a ‘moral revolution’ in his Reith Lectures, the question remains: Can the establishment reform itself, or will change come from outsiders—young, angry, and unrelenting?
So, what do you think? Is the monarchy still relevant in the 21st century, or is it a relic of a bygone era? Should the royal family be held to the same financial standards as the rest of us? Let’s spark a conversation—agree or disagree, your voice matters. After all, in a time of monsters and super-rich elites, the crown’s untaxed baubles might just be the first to go.
