The Royals with Roya and Kate - Royal finance revelations — and a £100m question for the monarchy

Episode Date: June 26, 2026

King Charles and Prince William have revealed their personal tax bills for the first time, in a historic moment for royal financial transparency. But the disclosures come as the Sovereign Grant rises to £132.1 million, with core royal household funding set to double in the next three years.This week on The Royals, Kate Mansey is joined by Katie Tarrant, Whitehall correspondent for The Sunday Times, to unpack the Sovereign Grant report. They discuss why the King and Queen will not move back into Buckingham Palace after its £369 million reservicing programme, how William is responding to scrutiny over Dartmoor Prison rental income, and what the accounts reveal about Duchy wealth, public funding and value for money. Is the Palace’s new transparency push enough to answer critics – or does it simply open the door to more questions about royal money?Is this a new era of royal transparency? Get in touch: [e-mail]: GettyProducer: Robert WallaceExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaRead more: King Charles and Prince William pay more than £50m in tax Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, a podcast where we discuss what happens behind the palace walls and why it matters. Is the palace entering a new era of royal transparency? Well, that's the multi-million pound question in the wake of the sovereign grant report, which was released yesterday. And this year, the headline is historic. King Charles and the Prince of Wales have revealed how much personal tax they pay, both of them for the first time. It's an unprecedented move for a reigning monarch and a major first for William as heir to the throne. But the timing is notable too. It follows months of intense scrutiny over royal properties, duchy income, and growing questions about the monarchy's value for money. So is this a genuine push for transparency and public openness,

or is it part of the monarchy's survival process? Well, warriors away sadly this week, but here to help me unpack this historic, Rick report, I'm pleased to introduce you to Katie Tarrant, Whitehall correspondent for the Sunday Times, who's been investigating the Royal Finances. I think it's fair to say, Katie, for several years now. Welcome back to the Royals. Morning, Kate. Thanks for having me. It's a big day for Royal Finances, and we're recording this the morning after the reports landed. Among the headlines, the King has revealed he's paid more than 30 million pounds in tax since he became King in 2022.

Similarly, William has paid more than 20 million pounds in tax, so 50 million in total over that same period. And the core funding for the royal household, this was an interesting one, wasn't it? It's set to double in the space of just three years going up from 51 million pound to fund the King's work and members of the royal family, going up in 27 to 28 to pretty much 100 million, 99.9 million pounds, we were told. There were other revelations as well that Charles and Camilla will not move back into Buckingham Palace when that resurfacing work is finished in spring next year. That's the project that's been going on for 10 years. It's cost 369 million pounds of public money. There's a lot to unpack in this, isn't there?

They were just sort of showering us with figures, weren't they? Yes, absolutely. And I mean, I think what really stood out to me there as you were reading out the headlines is, of course, that huge revelation that. the king is going to be the first monarch to declare his tax bill. And the figure that we got yesterday, you know, in fact puts him in the top 100 taxpayers in the country, probably above Anthony Joshua, who was our hundredth biggest taxpayer at the Sunday Times' recent tax list. But a lot of the other headlines weren't really the key figures that we were given. It's the analysis that you've done afterwards that shows that in fact the core grant for the royal family is going to

increase over the next few years. I mean, that wasn't the sort of key headline figure we were giving it. It was about the sovereign grant reducing, of course, because the servicing works on Buckingham Palace are coming to an end. But I think, you know, the sort of briefing from AIDS very much was we've heard the calls for greater transparency and accountability. That word came up quite a lot as well. And I mean, obviously that's off the back of years of reporting, including the Sunday Times and Channel 4 dispatches, revelations about the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and how much the Duke and the monarch were making from charities, public bodies, things that, you know, weren't in the public domain that members of Parliament have been calling for for years. I sort of read it as

aides trying to get on the front foot and saying that this is the era of transparency, but in reality I'd say they've kind of been dragged to this point. Well, I'm curious to come back to you on that point because I think that's really interesting, particularly your take on it as not being kind of in the royal bubble, if you like, like I suppose, you know, Royer and I are often. So let's just look at that tax figure because it is a historic first. We've never had a monarch tell us how much tax they voluntarily pay before. Of course, this all began in 1993 when the late Queen said that she was going to start paying tax and that this was in response, really, to criticism over how the funding of Windsor Castle would be financed. That was after the big fire in

1992 and in 1993, the Queen started paying tax. But we didn't really know how much. Now, the King has said in 2024, 2025, he paid £12.9 million. Ditto for William. So we've heard, you know, he paid $7.7 million the last 2024, 2025, which is the latest figures that we have. But we don't know, do we, how that has been calculated. We know that that's the tax from the 20 million pound plus payday he gets every year from the Duchy of Cornwall estate. and then he can take some money off the top of that to run his public office but we don't know how the sausage is made.

Well that's exactly it. I mean, it's certainly a step in the right direction to actually give us that figure. I mean, again, I'd highlight a story that I wrote only last month, which revealed that Prince William's tax bill was we reported 7 million. Of course, the figure that's come out is 7.7.6 million,

so we were in the right ballpark. As, you know, I heard from your royal colleagues yesterday in the press pack, that's a question you guys have been asking for years and you've always been told it is a private matter and therefore that won't be being disclosed. But I think you make a really salient point that full transparency would be telling us how the tax bill is calculated because, you know, while it is because of the way the law is written, totally voluntary that Prince William and the King pay income tax and capital gains tax, but we don't know exactly what expenses were done.

deducted for public service roles that the King and the Royal Household do. And because there is this element of public service, you would expect there to be, I think it's just fair to ask the question of what expenses are being deducted. I did deny in the briefing. I think they were very clear to stand that down. Having said that, we asked what the tax figure was the year before and the year before that. And they said, no, no, no, no, they've changed their tune on that. Who knows this is a first step towards kind of greater transparency, isn't it?

But that was a great scoop of yours because it actually shows that Prince William has nothing to hide. You know, you revealed that he was in the 0.0.02% of taxpayers. So he's right at the top. So I'm always surprised, really, about the reticence sometimes of the palace. Because here we have, for the first time, William revealing his tax, for the first time the king as monarch revealing his tax bill. Why is it taking them so long, do you think? Well, I'm absolutely with you. When we managed to sort of nail that story, I did think this is such a good story for the monarchy. It's not like the scoop was they weren't paying their taxes. That would be a scandal.

And so I do, I absolutely agree with you that it's a good thing to be being transparent about this. There was a telling quote, wasn't there, from the keeper of the privy purse in the Buckingham Palace briefing. And he acknowledged that while the money is coming in and that, you know, the public money is coming in to help fund the official work that the royal family does. There's a little bit of a contingency. If they don't spend it, they get to keep it safely, and that's all fully audited and whatnot. But he said, this is not a blank check. It does seem that they were more aware of the optics than perhaps previous years. Maybe they're listening to some of the criticism, because let's remember in 2024, it was your paper Sunday Times, together with dispatchers, who revealed what was going on at the Dutchie, the Dutchies. Now,

But for anyone listening, I've written in the Times today, that Royal Finances are a quagmire, even if you go on the Royal website, it says, you know, we understand that people don't find these very easy to get. That's why I think it gets so confusing. Because one of the headlines, and another figure that's been branded around was the Buckingham Palace resurfacing, which we know is 369 million. So for the kind of decade that that's been underway, we have had kind of an uplift to that sovereign grant.

So on top of the regular money, there's been a kind of a top-up. That's going to finish, we're told, next spring. But after all that, we're told that the king and queen won't be moving into the palace. What did you make of that? Because this is something that I've assumed for a long time and been told for a long time. I remember someone telling me a long time ago that it'll be a kind of flat above the shop, is how it was described to me, the accommodation where the king can stop over if he's working late, but he won't actually live that.

I mean, does it matter, Kate? I mean, I think, you know, obviously some of the immediate reaction from the royal press, call yesterday was, but this is meant to be the royal residence. And, you know, it is this sort of huge symbol of soft power, really, in the UK, isn't it? And it does attract, you know, hundreds of thousands of tourists every year and they come because it is the royal residence. But I suppose, you know, what it sounds like the royal household is weighing up is they want the public to feel like they're getting value for money for the amount that the royals take from the sovereign grant, that's something that they're very aware of. And so I think, you know, the argument they were

putting forward yesterday was that, well, if we can open up more of the palace to the public, then they can feel like they're getting that value for money. And I suppose, you know, as you said, you've heard this potentially rumoured for a while. It's not really surprising that the king, in his old age, you know, having gone through the cancer treatment that he has, is looking to stay somewhere where he's comfortable. But I do certainly think, you know, given it was so Winston Churchill, was convincing Queen Elizabeth in the first place to keep Buckingham Palace as the royal residence when she was considering residing elsewhere. It is quite a significant moment. That's right, isn't it? I mean, it ends kind of 200 plus years of royal history because we

had Queen Victoria living there, like you say, Winston Churchill persuaded a young Queen Elizabeth the second to move in there after she came to the throne in 1952 with her family. But she never really took to it as a kind of beloved family home. You know, she was always. looking forward to going up to Balmoral in Scotland or spending time in Sandringham in Norfolk. Every weekend she'd be up at Windsor. And the last time that we know that a monarch stayed there was just before the coronavirus lockdown when she moved up to Windsor and didn't go back. So it's never been a place where the royals feel particularly at home.

And I'm told that William, too, doesn't have any ambition or intention of moving his family there whenever the time comes for him to take the throne. But you're right, it's symbolic, isn't it? I mean, the reaction from the palace is, well, this will allow us to open up the panace to the public more, which begs the question, what are you going to do? We already know there are tours there. We already know you can go around the grounds, the gardens, there are exhibitions. And one of the places where we were yesterday for the briefing in the King's Gallery

always has exhibitions and things that you can go underground, very interesting. Sometimes of these things, do you think it just asks more questions and it answers? I definitely left the briefings yesterday with more questions. than answers, I feel. And I mean, I think also the sort of place of Buckingham Palace within the greater soft power debate as well. Again, you know, Royal AIDS were keen to stress that investitures will still be there. State dinners and sort of state events. And, you know, they kept coming back to the very successful King's visit to the United States in April, where off the back of that, President Trump said he was going to be removing all tariffs on whistle. in honour of the king and queen. I think it just comes back to that value for money question, which the National Audit Office has been assessing, the Public Accounts Committee has been assessing.

But actually the kind of funding system for the royal family is quite recent because it was changed, wasn't it? When George Osborne as Chancellor changed it in 2011, and critics at the time described this as a very generous deal that he had struck with the palace and handed them this incredible kind of what was then called a golden ratchet by some people. Can you talk us through how that worked? Because this shows you, doesn't it, the interaction between Whitehall and the Pallet? Well, I think, you know, the key thing about

the sovereign grant, as in George Osborne's era, the act was written, was that it was tied to the Crown Estate's profits. And if you speak to former Liberal Democrat MP and Royal Author Norman Baker, he would say it's a complete misnomer to call it the Crown Estate in the first place because actually like the Duchies back in the 13th and 14th century, it is public land that has been sort of, well, then the Duchies have been bestowed on the monarchas of property empire. The Crown Estate is still public land. But obviously, you know, they've had because of the land they own offshore and the offshore wind farms that have been built, they've had these bumper profits in recent years, which is why the percentage that goes towards a sovereign grant was initially at 12%. But as you raised earlier in the podcast, that's now been brought up. up to 20% to account for the fact that the profits are expected to go down. So it's kind of like whatever way you cut it, it's a very generous deal for the royal family. The Buckingham Palace works were also interesting on it because they were sort of absorbed into the sovereign grant.

So the overall funding will come down from the public. Like you said at the beginning, I think it's really interesting that that wasn't, you know, the kind of key figure they were putting out. The key figure they were putting out was overall the public money will be reduced Yes, that's right. But when you take away the uplift for the Buckingham Palace works, you actually have a huge increase. They said yesterday didn't there in the briefing, that they needed that increased money. They needed the money because they were looking again at tech and cyber, that they had other heritage properties like Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace,

and many other buildings that they need to work on, that they hadn't been able to do in COVID when the lockdown happened. And now they've got a backlog. What did you? make of that because it's a slightly kind of awkward contrast, isn't it, to have, on the one hand, telling us that the money's going down, but in a more real sense, the kind of annual core grant is really, it's soaring. I do sympathise with the argument that, you know, some of the sovereign grant or different sources of funding should go towards maintaining those heritage buildings, because as we're kind of been talking about with Buckingham Palace, there is this kind of like soft power argument to it and also it's something that people care about and where else potentially

might the money come from. But as, you know, we were talking about with what the king and Prince William are able to deduct as expenses, official expenses from the duchies, again, because there is that opacity around what's deducted, you just feel like, I don't know, I sort of go away with this feeling that there are just so many multiple pots from which money can be drawn and it would be helpful to actually have it laid out in black and white that, you know, this pot of money is for restoration of buildings or this is going towards Clarence House or Balmoral. I think that kind of transparency would help, you know, because there is this public benefit and some public ownership to these buildings, it would help to get that clarity. Coming up, the public deserves

these answers because there is public money being spent. The tax bill does hark towards that raise transparency, but we all know that there are more questions to be asked. One thing that really struck me is this business of the Royal Trustees. So we were told, weren't we, that the Royal Trustees decide what percentage of the Crown estate profits are used to calculate what money the Royal Household gets from the public purse, essentially. Now, that's gone up as we were told from 12% to 20.5%. We were given all those reasons. Okay. But the Royal Trustees are the keeper of the Purs, James Chalmers, who led the Buckingham Palace briefing yesterday, the Prime Minister,

outgoing Prime Minister, Sekeir Stama, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Rees. Now, they decided together with the Treasury that they were going to increase this funding, and they laid it before Parliament. So there's not a debate about that increase ever, is there? And this now won't be reviewed again for another five years. It struck me that it was really very much a kind of closed shop when it comes to discussing royal finances. I mean, what was your reaction to that? I mean, what do you think Whitehall's kind of general feeling around that is, Katie? Well, I mean, I think that really struck me too, as you said,

the fact that you've got the royal trustees who essentially kind of rubber stamp, whatever the sovereign grant is decided to be. You know, you do have different branches of Parliament and Whitehall, assessing the royal finances at the minute. You've got the public accounts committee who have been looking into, you know, off the back of some incredible reporting that you and George Green would have done

on the royal leases and the fact that the former Prince Andrew was charging members of staff for rent on a property that he doesn't in fact own. And he only pays a peppercorn rent on. And he only pays... All the stuff about peppercorn rent, there have been all these questions.

But you don't have that debate in Parliament about what the allowance should be. There have been certain members of Parliament and actually, for example, Dame Margaret Hodge in the House of Lords and is the UK's anti-corruption champion has been banging the drum on this for a long time saying we need greater transparency. The public deserves these answers because there is public money being spent. So, you know, I know that she is pleased to see, for example, the tax bill coming through because it does hark towards that greater transparency. But we all know that there are more questions to be asked. And actually, you know, it's not. Whitehall, but I was having a look at some of the Times commentates this morning off the back of your article. And again, that question was coming up of what else could this money be spent on? Whitehall is arguing at the moment about how much the government can spend on the defence investment plan and quibbling over a couple of billion, which is obviously a very significant amount. They're going to be looking for different sources of income and the idea that this is sort of signed off without Parliament. being able to debate it, I think is quite a significant one.

It was interesting, wasn't it? James Chalmers, the keeper of the preview person, was at pains to point out that, you know, it's all structured and it's all by the book. He said, while royal finances can sometimes appear complex, I think that's understating the issue, but he said the underlying system is clear in principle, structured in law and refined overtime to ensure the monarch can serve with independence, accountability, and in the long-term interests of the nation. But like you say, you know, it comes off the back of a lot of discussion over pepper corn rents. And, you know, the palace is very, very keen to say that this was part of a transparency push to be, you know, a significant step forward to making those palace books more open.

One of the things I think we came away with, didn't we, was a real sense of Prince William having listened to that criticism because there was a lot about the Duchy of Cornwall, you know, for weeks and months. and a lot of your reporting as well. One of the big things that will stick in the public's mind is the fact that part of the income that William gets from the Duchy of Cornwall comes from HMP Dartmoor. Now, this is a disused prison. Nobody's there anymore.

The Ministry of Justice, however, is still paying William 1.5 million a year in rent, despite the fact that the ground is said to be toxic and nobody can stay there. And he's getting 1.5 million. million pounds a year for that. Now, at the briefing yesterday, after we went from Buckingham Palace, then we sort of legged it, didn't we, to Kensington Palace, where sadly there was no aircon, maybe because that's, you know, Prince William putting on his green-fingered approach to the climate,

but we're all there sweating. And at Kensington Palace, we were told that by an act of parliament, by that legislation around the Duchy of Court, well, William can't just say, I don't want that 1.5 million, thanks very much, Ministry of Justice. You keep hold of that until you've decided what to do with the prison. But what he can do and what he is going to do from next year going forwards is give that money back to the local community. Now, it strikes me that that's a very, very direct response to the criticism that he's received. And I would say quite a welcome one. But what was your feel on that? I mean, I thought it was extraordinary, because we first ran the revelation that the Duchy of Cornwall got 1.5 million a year from the

Ministry of Justice for this lease in 2024. We did a follow-up story specifically around the prison, because let's just put this into perspective here. It was built using taxpayer money, but because it's on duchy land, the duchy is able to lease it to the MOJ. But within the lease, the public is on the hook for 68 million pounds as part of a dilapidations clause, which means that once that lease ends, and it is in place until 2033. If the Ministry of Justice wants to hand the building back to the Duchy of Cornwall, we, the taxpayer, have to cover that amount. So not only that, but the prison closed in July 2024

because of a raid on gas leak. And we did lots of reporting as well on the fact that the Ministry of Justice had been taking readings on raid on gas levels for years and years and years and had done nothing about this. So that was a scandal in its own right. And I spoke to people in Prinzown, which is, you know, they're aptly named. area around Dartmoor Prison, whose people there were really quite angry at the fact that this

prison had closed and completely, you know, destroyed their businesses in the area. And what did people there think about William and the Duchy profiting from it? Yeah, they hadn't heard that before, but they were quite annoyed at that. But they did say, you know, he is a very good custodian of the area. And obviously, you know, at the briefing yesterday, the Duchy of Cornwall, you know, were at pains to point out that there is a lot of investment in the area. I don't think they see him as a sort of. avoidant Duke of Cornwall. But I guess, you know, I had put to the Duchy of Cornwall, I understand that a lease is,

you know, a legal contract, but is there not anything you can do potentially to let the taxpayer off this money? Because as you reported last year, the, the Duchy had reviewed some of the contracts it had with public bodies, with charities. You know, for example, they were charging rent to the scouts. They, you know, charge the MOJ for other land that they used. used to more Navy vessels. And they did. They either made them peppercorn rents or they stopped charging them entirely. So they'd already taken this step.

But when it came to the prison, it was always there's nothing we can do. So to be honest with you, I was, you know, subtly surprised and quite delighted to see that our reporting had clearly made its way up to the Prince of Wales, who, you know, the Duchy were keen to stress, had taken this decision himself because of his belief that the money should be a force for positive impact in the community that the Duchy serves. Yeah, I mean, I think William is very alive to this, to the reporting around this. And I think he's definitely driving it, is what I hear, that he wants to kind of change the way they do business. And he'll be watching this, I think, very carefully. He's taken him two years to release his tax bill.

But as we've seen, he had nothing to hide. It's all about him doing things cautiously, treading slowly. And this does feel like the first step in a kind of a more transparent monarchy. But, you know, as Norman Baker, the MP and Republicans said, it's like a baby step, isn't it? Is this, you know, have we wedged the door open slightly? Would it swing out wider now? I mean, I think what the Royal Household will be thinking is that if you give an inch, then the public will want to take a mile, right? And so even today, after they've had this historic tax announcement,

we are all sitting here going, okay, but what's next? and they'll be very, very conscious of that. I don't think because there are these, you know, public inquiries going on into how the royals handle their finances, which, you know, happen at least once a decade for parliamentarians going back years and years and years, there is that drive, no matter who is in power, to make sure that the public know that they are getting value for money.

And so I definitely don't think this question of transparency and actually lifting the lid, in a meaningful way, for example, to have some of those questions on how the tax bill is calculated, what expenses are deducted, what money is spent on running the public office answered. And so I definitely think there is still that feeling in Whitehall that this could go a step further. In conclusion, do you think, does this feel like a historic shift in tone? Are we at a kind of precipice moment, you know, for the royal family? Or is it just a kind of carefully controlled disclosure?

Have they been pushed into a corner here? Or do you think they're going to embrace it and run with it? I mean, I certainly think there is still, as the tone of the briefings yesterday, suggested, this reticence to completely, you know, reveal all. And there is this constant narrative about how the King and Prince William also operate as private citizens. And I don't see that totally changing. But, I mean, I'd be interested to hear from you, Kate, because that was my first time in one of these briefings.

how did it feel in comparison to how much information we were getting compared to in previous years? I think it does feel like a change. I have to say, I mean, I've sat through these briefings for over a decade. And I did feel, you know, it's through gritted teeth that they give us this information. Obviously, they have to give us the information. They do so willingly. But they don't want to give us all the details. They don't want to really kind of take us on the inside and open up the books in that way. But as we've seen, you know, often there's nothing to hide. There's a great quote by an author that says that royal finances are shrouded and fog.

And I think just clearing some of the air would be hugely beneficial. And also saying, okay, you know, we are putting the money up. But this is what we're going to spend it on. And people might say, fair enough. You know, they talked about Middle East conflict, putting prices up, inflation, all the problems that regular people have on a much lower budget. But I think it does feel like a moment. I think it feels like they've read the room

and it's a first step towards saying, okay, we get it. And I think they could. It would be a lot of fun. And for me as a journalist, and I think it would be really interesting and important for the public to hear a bit more of what they've got to say. But let's see. Maybe you'll join us at another briefing.

I would love to. Definitely aircon again if it's going to be as hot as it was this week. Well, that's all for us on this episode of the Royals. A huge thank you to Katie Tarant, which whole correspondent for the Sunday Times for joining us. And if you've enjoyed the episode, please do you like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube, so you don't miss any of it.

And we'd love to hear your questions on Royal Finances, so please do email us at the Royals at the Times.com. code. UK and we may future them on a future episode. But until then, thanks for joining us on the Royals and we'll see you again next week.