That's correct. But if you have a king who goes everywhere by bicycle and retires at 60, that makes the monarchy even more pointless. The whole point of royalty is to be a quasi-religious symbol of the nation, so the mystique is essential. And it's actually not as expensive as it looks. Most of the income from royal property goes to the government, who remit a part of it back to the family as a grant for working royals to live on.

+1 A picture of dedication if nothing else

The last time I looked, the Queen was paying 85% of her income to the government and the Prince of Wales was paying 30%. I wonder how much tax Grumpyskeptic pays? Or should that be Ignorantskeptic?

Hey, I'm interested in reading this.
Gov links/urls please or it never happens... and not behind paywalls either.

Next time, do your own search!

Yep, just looked up this "The Sovereign Grant" thing you posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
"The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (c. 15) is the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which introduced the Sovereign Grant, the payment which is paid annually to the monarch by the government in order to fund the monarch's official duties."

And the more you read... the worse it gets for the tax paying hard working people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...h_royal_family
"The Crown Estate is one of the largest property portfolios in the United Kingdom, producing £211 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–08[14] and with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...amily#Taxation
"The Queen voluntarily paid a sum equivalent to income tax on her private income and income from the Privy Purse (which includes the Duchy of Lancaster) that is not used for official purposes. The Sovereign Grant is exempted"

'Nough said.

duplicate...

For reference, someone on the median wage in the UK pays about 13% as income tax and another 12% as national insurance (which is also a compulsory tax). Usually quite a bit in other taxes too, but that's another story. The income tax rate goes up with income, so the Queen's voluntary payments would have been significantly more than 13%.

The royal finances have been deliberately obfuscated for centuries.

Here are links to two recent online articles -

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...les-net-worth/ "Time to Go Inside King Charles III's Newly Inherited Massive Net Worth"

and

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...palaces-homes/ "Your Guide to King Charles III’s 8 Fancy Homes and What’s Happening to Them Now".

Some of the obfuscation is that on paper the property and palaces that the royals have exclusive use of is not technically owned by them. But if I had exclusive use of a beautiful country cottage somewhere, and a city townhouse, and I could use them whenever I wanted, and nobody else could without my permission, and they were maintained and serviced free of charge for me, and my oldest child would inherit the same rights to them, surely that is even better than owning them?

I think KC would be the "beneficial owner" of these assets and much other property from the point of view of the tax authorities if he was a private citizen.

I wish a journalist would get together with a forensic accountant and figure out how much tax the royals would pay if they had the same assets and use and benefit of these assets as a private citizen. Then we can find out how much they are costing us.

Good thing that Australia is not going to have KC on its banknotes.

By the way if I was given a lordship or even a sir-ship then I would of course change my mind completely.