King Charles and the wider Royal Family are facing renewed scrutiny over their finances after former MP Norman Baker questioned why public spending on the monarchy has continued to rise despite the King’s promise of a more streamlined institution.
Baker, author of Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth about the Royals’ Finances, argued that the reduction in the number of working royals should have resulted in lower costs for taxpayers.
Speaking to GB News, Baker criticized the way royal finances are calculated and claimed that the system repeatedly produces figures favourable to the Royal Family.
“Every time there’s a calculation, it benefits the Royal Family, and there’s no excuse for that,” Baker said.
He also questioned what Charles’s vision of a “slimmed-down monarchy” actually means, arguing that the number of people carrying out royal duties has fallen without producing the reduction in spending he expected.
Baker pointed to several changes within the institution, including the departure of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from working royal life and Prince Andrew’s removal from official duties.
He also referred to members of the Royal Family who have died in recent years, arguing that the number of people carrying out official duties has declined without an equivalent reduction in expenditure.
“So five people have gone, and they haven’t been replaced,” Baker said, adding that he believed the situation should have resulted in lower costs.
His criticism comes amid continuing public debate over the Sovereign Grant and the wider costs associated with maintaining the monarchy, including official travel, property and staffing.
However, Baker’s assessment is not shared by all experts who study the British constitutional system and the finances of the monarchy.
Robert Hazell, emeritus professor of government and the constitution at University College London, offered a different perspective when discussing the size of the Royal Family in comparison with other European monarchies.
Hazell pointed out that the United Kingdom has a considerably larger population than some European constitutional monarchies and argued that the scale of the country’s royal duties needs to be considered when comparing costs.
He cited Norway as an example, noting that its working royal group is considerably smaller and serves a population of around five million people.
“The UK, with a population of almost 70 million, needs a bigger royal team to serve that much larger population,” Hazell said, referring to royal visits and other responsibilities.
He also highlighted the monarchy’s role across the Commonwealth, noting that the British monarch is head of state in 14 other Commonwealth realms in addition to the United Kingdom.
The contrasting views illustrate why debates about the cost of the monarchy can be difficult to reduce to a simple comparison between the number of working royals and annual expenditure.
A smaller group of working royals does not necessarily mean every cost associated with the monarchy automatically falls, particularly when official responsibilities, security, travel and property requirements remain.
At the same time, Baker’s criticism reflects continuing questions about whether taxpayers are receiving sufficient value from the public money associated with the monarchy.
The debate is likely to continue as Charles seeks to maintain a smaller working Royal Family while ensuring enough senior members are available to carry out hundreds of engagements across the UK and Commonwealth.
For now, the contrasting assessments from Baker and Hazell demonstrate the wider disagreement over how the monarchy’s size and cost should be measured, with supporters and critics placing different weight on the Royal Family’s constitutional, diplomatic and public duties.
