Former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker has accused the Royal Family of claiming that, despite King Charles’s slimmed-down monarchy, royal costs keep going up at the expense of the taxpayer. Mr Baker, author of Royal Mint, National Debt: The shocking truth about the royals’ finances, said that despite a reduction in the number of working royals, overall public expenses have quadrupled since 2011.
‘No excuse’ for rising costs
Speaking to GB News ahead of the release of a new edition of his book, Mr Baker said: “Every time there's a calculation, it benefits the Royal Family, and there's no excuse for that. Charles said he wants a slimmed-down monarchy, but what does that actually mean?”
Mr Baker argued that fewer people are undertaking royal duties due to “natural waste,” which he described as an “unkind” phrase. He noted that the late King and Queen have passed away, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit their royal duties, and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has become unpopular with the public.
Mr Baker said: “So five people have gone, and they haven't been replaced. You would expect the cost to come down, but it has actually gone up. There are fewer people on the balcony, but the cost has gone up.”
Counterargument from UCL professor
In a counterargument, Robert Hazell, Emeritus Professor of Government and the Constitution at University College London, compared the British Royal Family to those of smaller European nations and highlighted the distinct operational demands. He said: “In countries like Norway, they have kept it to four people: the King and Queen, the Crown Prince and the Princess. But Norway has a population of only five million people.”
“The UK, with a population of almost 70 million, needs a bigger royal team to serve that much larger population, with royal visits etc., and to look after the 14 Commonwealth realms.”
Accusations of Palace ‘spin’
Elsewhere, the former MP accused the Royal Household of misleading the public regarding cost-saving measures. He said: “The Palace has developed a very, very good line in spin. Alastair Campbell would be proud of them in terms of the capability they demonstrate.”
“For example, on the sovereign grant announcement, a big thing was made of the fact that the Royal Train was going to be cancelled, and this was presented as a massive saving, and the Palace being careful with public money.”
“The Royal Train was cancelled, but what wasn't highlighted was that it was replaced by two helicopters, which cost far more than the Royal Train would have cost, so it was actually an increase in transport costs as a result of that settlement, rather than what was presented to the public at large, which was a cut.”
“It wasn't a cut at all; it increased. We have this time and time again. Every time there's a recalculation of royal finances, the Palace tells us there's good value for money. It never is. It's always good value for the Royal Family.”
Inheritance tax exemption
Another central argument in Mr Baker’s critique focuses on inheritance tax. He told the outlet: “Part of my book is about revealing the nasty consequences of the tax exemption from which the Royal Family uniquely benefits.”
“Just to be clear, of course, what we're talking about are private possessions. Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels and so on. Of course, they should be exempt from inheritance tax.”
“What we're talking about are the personal possessions handed down to the Queen: the Fabergé eggs, the Bonny paintings, the 100 million pounds stamp collection, the string of racehorses, and the half a billion pounds of jewellery.”
Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.
