Headline evidence · Monarchy · United Kingdom · 2025–26
The Sovereign Grant was £132m in 2025–26. The full public cost is not published.
The audited Sovereign Grant was £132.1m in 2025–26 and is set at £137.9m for 2026–27, the final year of Buckingham Palace reservicing funding. Royal security costs are not published, and several other public costs are disclosed only in part, so the grant cannot establish the total.
Informational purpose: Show which public costs of the monarchy are audited, which are disclosed only in part and which are not published, without taking a side on the constitutional question.
- Geography
- United Kingdom
- Evidence period
- 2025–26
- Evidence status
- Published accounts; some costs are not published
- Editorial review
- Reviewed 11 October 2026
The short version
Three reported figures
£132.1m
Sovereign Grant (audited)
UK2025/26Outturn
Not the same as: The total public cost of the monarchy. Security, ceremonial and departmental costs sit outside it.
£67.5m
Spent on occupied royal palaces
UK2025/26Outturn
Not the same as: A grant allocation or personal payment. This is property maintenance expenditure reported in the accounts.
2,273
Engagements by royals supporting the Sovereign
UK and overseas2025/26Administrative count
Not the same as: The King and Queen’s own engagement total, or a measure of value. The report counts the Prince and Princess of Wales and other working royals supporting the Sovereign.
What it means
Anyone quoting a single annual cost for the monarchy — in either direction — is filling in gaps the accounts leave open.
The evidence
What is audited: the Sovereign Grant
The Grant rises to £137.9m in 2026/27, the final scheduled tranche for the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. This is funding set for the year, not spending outturn. It supports official duties, staff, travel and the occupied palaces.
Funding, spending and public views answer different questions
£14.9m of grant funding went into the reserve in 2025–26
£ million, 2025–26
- Sovereign Grant funding£132.1m
- Net expenditure£117.2m
- Transfer to reserve£14.9m
£132.1m funding minus £117.2m net expenditure leaves £14.9m transferred to the reserve. Net expenditure is after supplementary income; these three rows must not be added together. Other reserve movements mean the closing reserve was £21.2m. None of these measures includes all public costs of the monarchy.
Accounts and audit scope
The Comptroller and Auditor General gave a true-and-fair opinion on these financial statements and an unqualified regularity opinion. That covers the Grant and Reserve accounts, not a consolidated cost of the monarchy or proof of its net economic benefit. Figures are rounded to £0.1m.
2025–26 accounts, printed pages 13–14 and 94Annual data: Sovereign Grant funding
Financial-year ENDS: 2026 means 2025–26. The Grant began in April 2012; 14 observations cover 2012–13 to 2025–26. Earlier Civil List and grants-in-aid are not spliced into this fixed 1996–2026 window. Extra Buckingham Palace reservicing funding began in 2017–18: changes include that programme and funding-rule changes, not just the cost of routine duties. Cash values are not adjusted for inflation. The £137.9m set for 2026–27 is outside this completed-year series. A dash means no comparable observation is supplied; it is not zero. UK grant funding received, not net spending or the total public cost.
1996–2026; £ million, nominal. No change is calculated across definition or assessment breaks.
| Year | Grant received |
|---|---|
| 1996–2012 | No comparable observations supplied |
| 2013 | 31 |
| 2014 | 36.1 |
| 2015 | 37.9 |
| 2016 | 40.1 |
| 2017 | 42.8 |
| 2018 | 76.1 |
| 2019 | 82.2 |
| 2020 | 82.4 |
| 2021 | 85.9 |
| 2022 | 86.3 |
| 2023 | 86.3 |
| 2024 | 86.3 |
| 2025 | 86.3 |
| 2026 | 132.1 |
HM Treasury original accounts: 2016–17 page 80, 2021–22 page 118 and 2025–26 page 13
64% preferred retaining the monarchy in July 2026
YouGov, Great Britain adults, 21–22 July 2026. Constitutional preference is different from liking a particular royal or judging value for money.
Constitutional preference, %
- Continue with a monarchy64%
- Elected head of state23%
- Don’t know13%
In a separate question, 54% said the Royal Family was good value for money, 31% bad value and 15% did not know.
Questions, sample and limitations
Constitutional question: “Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state?”
Value question: “Thinking about the role they play for the country, and money they receive from the Sovereign Grant, do you think the Royal Family are good or bad value for money?” This is an opinion prompted by the Grant, not an audit of all costs and benefits.
The original tables report 2,063 GB adults, weighted and unweighted base. YouGov’s general method uses selected members of its registered online panel and demographic weighting to the adult population aged 18 and over. This is not a random sample of every GB adult; Northern Ireland is outside the geography. The wave tables do not disclose a response rate, full weighting specification or design-adjusted confidence intervals. Weighting cannot guarantee removal of selection or non-response bias.
Results include “don’t know”; good value combines very and fairly good. The July column is used, not the April comparison column. No thirty-year trend, provider-to-provider change or referendum forecast is inferred from this single wave.
Known, partial, and not disclosed
Published and audited
- Sovereign Grant, 2025/26£132.1m
- Property maintenance spending, 2025/26£67.5m
- Grant funding set for 2026/27 (not outturn)£137.9m
- Crown Estate profit to Treasury, 2025/26£487m
Known but partial
- Royal Household Pension Scheme, 2024/25£5m
- Lord-lieutenants, Cabinet Office, 2023/24£1.5m
- 2023 Coronation, DCMS£50.3m
- Coronation policing, Home Office£21.7m
- Queen Elizabeth II state funeral, 2022£161.7m
Not disclosed
- Royal security and policing — withheld because a breakdown could compromise protection arrangements
- Departmental support for honours, ceremonial occasions and state visits
- Military support for ceremonial duties
- Local authority costs for royal visits
- The value of soft power, diplomacy and trade introductions
There is deliberately no total here. These rows mix funding, expenditure and Crown Estate receipts and are not an additive total. One-off event costs — coronations, funerals — must not be added to a recurring annual figure, and security, a recurring cost of unknown size, is not published at all. A single 'true cost of the monarchy' cannot be calculated from what is disclosed. Campaign-group estimates fill those gaps with assumptions; they belong in a debate, not in a ledger of audited figures.
What remains unknown
These costs are real but not published as figures, so they appear here as named gaps rather than as zero or as an estimate:
- Royal security and policing, withheld because a breakdown could compromise protection.
- Departmental support for honours, ceremonial occasions and state visits.
- Military support for ceremonial duties, and local authority costs of royal visits.
- Any measured value of soft power, diplomacy or trade introductions.
The Crown Estate is not a cheque from the King
This is the most common error in the monarchy’s favour. The Crown Estate returned £487m of profit to the Treasury in 2025/26. It is often presented as the King handing over £487m and receiving £132m back.
The Crown Estate is a statutory public corporation. Its assets are attached to the Crown as an institution, not owned by the King personally, and he neither manages nor controls it. The Sovereign Grant is calculated as a percentage of its profit from two years earlier — a funding formula, not a dividend.
- 1The Crown Estate operates independently, under its own board.
- 2Its profit goes to the Treasury.
- 3The Sovereign Grant is set as a percentage of that profit, lagged by two years.
- 4The Grant funds official duties and the occupied palaces.
So do not: net £132.1m against £487m as a cost-benefit calculation: both are 2025/26 figures, but the Grant formula uses profit from two years earlier. Do not call Crown Estate profit “money the King gives the government”; assume the Crown Estate would cease to exist under a republic; or describe the Grant as a dividend the monarch legally owns.
Tax: liability and voluntary payment are different things
The King is exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not bind the Crown, but makes voluntary payments under the Treasury memorandum. The Prince of Wales is exempt from income tax on Duchy of Cornwall income and pays voluntarily on the portion not used for official expenditure; he is otherwise taxed normally. Under the memorandum, inheritance tax is not paid on transfers from one sovereign to the next.
Two claims that are not equivalent. “They pay tax” is true. “They are taxed exactly like everyone else” is not. Other members of the Royal Family are generally liable under normal rules.
Does tourism pay for the monarchy?
What is known, plainly: 2.7 million people visited the Royal Collection Trust in 2025/26, generating £61.0m in consolidated access income. The annual accounts report 1.267 million visits to Windsor Castle and 590,000 to Buckingham Palace in 2025/26; these are annual totals, not just the summer opening. Royal branding is used throughout UK tourism marketing. That is real, measured activity — nobody disputes it.
“The Royal Family brings in more through tourism than the monarchy costs”
UnverifiableWhat is known: Royal Collection Trust welcomed 2.7 million visitors in 2025/26, with access income of £61.0m. The 2025/26 annual totals were 1.267 million visits to Windsor Castle and 590,000 to Buckingham Palace. Royal associations are used in tourism marketing.
What is not known: How many visits to Britain would not happen without a working monarchy; how much of that spending would simply go to other attractions; whether demand would change if the palaces, ceremonies and collections remained open under a different constitutional arrangement. The full public cost is also undisclosed, so neither side of the comparison is complete.
What would change this verdict: A credible counterfactual estimate of tourism caused by retaining a working monarchy, plus a full public cost including security. Neither exists.
One number would settle this. It doesn’t exist.
Royal attractions draw visitors, but nobody has established how much tourism depends on keeping a working monarchy. Its full public cost is also undisclosed. That prevents a reliable comparison of what it costs and brings in.
Constitutional role: what power actually remains
The Crown retains substantial formal powers. Almost all are exercised by ministers, or by the King on advice he is constitutionally bound to accept — and responsibility then rests with ministers accountable to Parliament.
Appointing the Prime Minister
In law
The King formally appoints the Prime Minister.
In practice
Convention requires whoever can command the confidence of the Commons. Real discretion arises only in an unclear result.
Appointing and dismissing ministers
In law
Formally done by the King.
In practice
On the Prime Minister’s advice.
Royal Assent
In law
Required before a bill becomes an Act.
In practice
Parliament describes it as a formality. It was last refused in 1708.
Dissolving Parliament
In law
A prerogative revived by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
In practice
Exercised on the Prime Minister’s request. Parliament dissolves automatically after five years if not sooner.
Foreign affairs, treaties, armed forces
In law
Many powers remain Crown prerogatives.
In practice
Exercised by ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for them.
King’s or Prince’s Consent
In law
Required during passage of bills affecting Crown or Duchy interests.
In practice
Allows Parliament to debate the bill. Distinct from Royal Assent, and not refused in modern times.
Reserve powers
In law
Residual personal powers may exist in an exceptional constitutional crisis.
In practice
Narrow, convention-bound and rarely tested. Theoretical extremes are not ordinary governing power.
Claim checks
“The monarchy cost £132.1 million in 2025/26”
Missing contextWhat is known: That is grant funding received. Net expenditure in the Grant accounts was £117.2m, with £14.9m transferred to the reserve.
What is not known: Security, departmental, devolved and local costs sit outside the Grant and are not all published. No reconciled total can be calculated from the published figures.
“The King gave the Treasury £487 million from his estate”
MisleadingWhat is known: The Crown Estate returned £487m to the Treasury in 2025/26. It is a statutory corporation whose assets are attached to the Crown as an institution.
What is not known: Nothing here is uncertain — the claim simply misdescribes ownership. The King neither owns the Crown Estate privately nor manages it, and the Grant is a lagged formula, not a refund.
“The King has no power”
MisleadingWhat is known: Real formal and residual powers remain, including appointing the Prime Minister and granting Royal Assent. In ordinary circumstances they are exercised on binding advice, by ministers accountable to Parliament.
What is not known: How reserve powers would operate in a genuine constitutional crisis. They are narrow and rarely tested, which is precisely why confident claims in either direction are unsafe.
Why it is happening
Our analysis
The published grant is not the full public cost. Other spending sits in separate accounts and security costs are withheld. Views on the constitutional role also involve values, not just money.
Who is affected most
The published accounts describe institutional costs and activities. They do not establish the distribution of costs or benefits between households, so this page cannot rank who gains most. Read what the cost record leaves unknown.
What could change
Proposals to consider. The bodies named below would need to agree to deliver them; responsibility is not a recorded commitment. Follow the links for costs and evidence.
Publish a fuller, auditable monarchy cost statement
Publish one annual account of public spending on the monarchy, distinguishing known, overlapping and undisclosed costs. Protect sensitive security details.
Who could deliver it: HM Treasury, with the Home Office and police (security), the Royal Household and Parliament
What it would take and the evidence →Main trade-off and funding
The Grant is already audited and small relative to public spending; further reporting adds cost with little decision value.
Not yet costed / funding not identified
Test the royal grant against an explicit public purpose
Compare the current royal grant with funding based on a clear public purpose and assessed needs, for Parliament to decide.
Who could deliver it: The Royal Trustees (Prime Minister, Chancellor, Keeper of the Privy Purse) and Parliament
What it would take and the evidence →Main trade-off and funding
Linking the Grant to need invites annual political bargaining over the head of state’s funding.
Not yet costed / funding not identified
See all options and what is still unknown →
Some problems have no assessed solution yet: see coverage and gaps.
Domain SWOT
Recorded
Show the findings
Strengths · 2 findings
One part of the cost is set by a published formula and audited: the Sovereign Grant was £132.1m in 2025–26, 12% of Crown Estate income from two years earlier.
United Kingdom · 2025–26
The formula is reviewed every five years by the Royal Trustees; the 2026 review, published on 26 June 2026, recommended resetting the Grant to £99.9m from 2027–28 and the reference percentage to 20.5%.
United Kingdom · Review reported 26 June 2026
Weaknesses · 2 findings
Royal security costs are not published: Treasury guidance says no breakdown is available because disclosure could compromise protection.
United Kingdom · Reviewed 11 October 2026
Other costs sit in separate accounts: £5m for Royal Household pensions from the Consolidated Fund and £1.5m for Lord-Lieutenants from the Cabinet Office, plus event policing and council costs that are not reported together.
United Kingdom · Pensions 2024–25; Lord-Lieutenants 2023–24
Opportunities · 1 finding
The Sovereign Grant Bill, introduced on 1 September 2026 and passed by the Commons on 14 September, proposes resetting the Grant lower after the Buckingham Palace reservicing; its passage and the next review period are a natural point to set an explicit remit and publish a reconciled cost statement.
Depends on: The Bill completes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent; only Lords second reading is scheduled for 14 October 2026, and the government agrees what security information can be reported safely as an aggregate.
our synthesis
Threats · 3 findings
Buckingham Palace reservicing encountered more asbestos than expected and additional essential remediation. Management still expects March 2027 completion, but says extra requirements would draw on the reserve if needed; a completion expectation is not a delivered outcome.
United Kingdom · 2025–26 accounts · risk
Unverifiable totals distort the debate in both directions: outside estimates of security costs range from several million to a hundred million pounds a year, and the Commons Library calls tourism and trade benefits highly uncertain.
risk
A profit-linked formula can raise the Grant for reasons unrelated to need: it rose to £137.9m for 2026–27, ahead of the planned reset.
risk
Domain action plan
Proposed
Possible steps for government and the bodies responsible. These describe the order of work, not promised dates: starting an action and seeing results take different amounts of time.
Short term · prepare
Clarify public costs, income flows and what remains unknown.
Medium term · deliver
Assess the linked transparency and accountability proposals.
Long term · judge results
Check whether public reporting answers the outstanding questions.
Delivery steps and owners (4)
- Prerequisite: Five-yearly review of the Grant percentage · Royal Trustees · Commenced 2026
- Decision: Sovereign Grant Bill: reset after the reservicing and a mechanism for future reductions · HM Treasury; Parliament · Before the Lords; second reading scheduled 14 October 2026; not enacted
- Delivery: Publish a reconciled statement of known, overlapping and undisclosed costs · HM Treasury, with the Home Office and Royal Household · proposed
- Result: Fewer undisclosed categories; audited cost against the stated remit · Parliament; NAO · proposed
Sources, method and changes
Shareable visual summary
Visual summary
The Sovereign Grant was £132m in 2025–26. The full public cost is not published.
The audited Sovereign Grant was £132.1m in 2025–26 and is set at £137.9m for 2026–27, the final year of Buckingham Palace reservicing funding. Royal security costs are not published, and several other public costs are disclosed only in part, so the grant cannot establish the total. The accounts report £67.5m of property maintenance expenditure. Grant funding is not the same measure as net expenditure.
- £132.1mSovereign Grant, 2025–26
- £67.5mProperty maintenance expenditure
Text and data version
The Sovereign Grant was £132m in 2025–26. The full public cost is not published. The audited Sovereign Grant was £132.1m in 2025–26 and is set at £137.9m for 2026–27, the final year of Buckingham Palace reservicing funding. Royal security costs are not published, and several other public costs are disclosed only in part, so the grant cannot establish the total. The accounts report £67.5m of property maintenance expenditure. Grant funding is not the same measure as net expenditure.
| Measure | Value | Period | Geography | Type | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign Grant | £132.1m | 2025–26 | United Kingdom | administrative count | Royal Household, Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve Annual Report and Accounts 2025–26 |
| Property maintenance expenditure (including Buckingham Palace Reservicing) | £67.5m | 2025–26 | United Kingdom | administrative count | Royal Household, Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve Annual Report and Accounts 2025–26 |
Available images and their source records are listed on Shareable visuals.