The British monarchy, an institution steeped in tradition and privilege, is facing a reckoning. With King Charles III ascending the throne as the nation’s first billionaire monarch, questions about inheritance tax, royal wealth, and the use of public funds are more pressing than ever. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the monarchy enjoys untaxed riches and medieval privileges, the public is left in the dark about the true extent of their financial empire. And this is the part most people miss: the intricate web of legal protections and institutional secrecy that shields the royals from scrutiny.
In the shadow of scandals like Prince Andrew’s legal battles and the Epstein connection, a new BBC documentary series, What’s the Monarchy For?, attempts to tackle these issues. Presented by David Dimbleby, a broadcasting stalwart whose family’s ties to royalty mirror the monarchy’s own dynastic legacy, the series promises a critical look at the crown’s role in modern Britain. Yet, despite its ambitious scope, it falls short of delivering the hard-hitting exposé many had hoped for.
The monarchy’s finances are a labyrinth of secrets, and the BBC’s editorial choices only add to the confusion. By splitting the discussion of royal power and wealth into separate episodes, the series fails to connect the dots between the two. For instance, while Dimbleby highlights the monarchy’s exemption from inheritance tax and the voluntary nature of their income tax payments, he doesn’t fully explore how these privileges perpetuate their vast wealth. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, medieval estates generating millions annually for the King and the Prince of Wales, are a prime example. These portfolios, which include vast lands, industrial estates, and even the Oval cricket ground, operate outside the tax system, yet the BBC barely scratches the surface of their financial anomalies.
But here’s the real kicker: despite exposés by The Guardian and Channel 4 revealing that these Duchies charge commercial rates to public institutions like the NHS, the BBC series doesn’t press for accountability. It also sidesteps the issue of royal wills, which, unlike those of ordinary citizens, are shielded from public scrutiny for decades. Why? Presumably to protect sensitive financial arrangements. This lack of transparency raises a crucial question: Is the monarchy an institution above the law, or should it be held to the same standards as the rest of us?
The documentary’s reluctance to confront these issues head-on is emblematic of a broader problem: the BBC’s own institutional caution. While Dimbleby chats amiably with political figures, he fails to challenge them on why the monarchy remains financially unaccountable. For instance, why did David Cameron’s government tighten royal secrecy by restricting Freedom of Information (FOI) requests? And why doesn’t the series delve into the growing republican movement, which, though small, is gaining momentum among younger generations?
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: the BBC’s own history of journalistic failings, particularly the Martin Bashir scandal involving Princess Diana, casts a long shadow over its ability to critique the monarchy. A new book, Dianarama, suggests the corporation is still grappling with its past mistakes, which may explain its reluctance to push boundaries in this series.
Meanwhile, smaller media outlets like The Guardian and Channel 4 are unafraid to ask the tough questions. Their anti-monarchy stance may not reflect mainstream opinion, but their ideological zeal allows them to uncover truths the BBC dare not touch. For example, why doesn’t Prince William, the Duke of Cornwall, publish his tax returns, as his father did? And why does the BBC end the series with a soft interview excerpt from Apple TV+, rather than confronting the prince directly?
The monarchy’s survival depends on public consent, yet its financial disconnect with the nation is growing. While 81% of over-65s support the monarchy, only 41% of 18-24-year-olds do, and this gap is widening. The royals’ untaxed wealth places them in a league of their own, rubbing shoulders with plutocrats like Donald Trump. As historian Rutger Bregman argues in the BBC’s Reith Lectures, we need a “moral revolution” to address the inequalities perpetuated by the super-rich. But can we rely on the establishment to reform itself?
The answer, it seems, lies with the outsiders—the tenacious, young, and angry voices demanding change. For monarchists, the hope is that any revolution will spare the crown, even if it strips away its untaxed baubles. But for how much longer can the monarchy remain a relic of a bygone era, untouched by the financial struggles of the nation it claims to serve?
What’s the Monarchy For? airs Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 PM on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Tessa Dunlop, author of Elizabeth & Philip: A Story of Young Love, Marriage, and Monarchy, invites us to ponder these questions. But the real debate is just beginning—and it’s one the monarchy can no longer afford to ignore. What do you think? Is the monarchy a cherished tradition or an outdated institution ripe for reform? Share your thoughts in the comments.
