Ads
Welcome back, dear viewers! We’re thrilled to have you join us once more as we turn our attention to an issue that continues to spark passionate debate throughout the United Kingdom: the relevance, purpose, and cost of the British monarchy. King Charles III has recently found himself at the heart of renewed public criticism following a highly visible demonstration that took place in central London. In today’s segment, we’re going to unpack the key complaints that have emerged, the financial details behind them, and the broader public dialogue that’s gaining momentum once again.
Before we dive into the story, if you enjoy thoughtful discussions on royal affairs and current events, we kindly ask you to like this video and subscribe to the channel. Your support makes it possible for us to keep delivering well-informed updates.
Now let’s set the scene. Trafalgar Square—an iconic site of many historical protests and declarations—recently became the center of an anti-monarchy demonstration. The protest was organized by Republic, a group long known for campaigning to replace the monarchy with a democratically elected head of state. At the heart of the protest, former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker voiced particularly sharp criticisms, lending political gravitas to the movement.
Ads
Mr. Baker, a familiar face in British political circles, didn’t hold back when speaking to GB News during the demonstration. He argued that the British monarchy is, in his words, “hopelessly out of date.” He pointed out that while other European royal families have modernized, the British institution has lagged behind. This idea—that hereditary power clashes with modern democratic ideals—is a core tenet of the republican argument.
But Baker’s strongest rebuke centered on the financial burden of maintaining the monarchy. He insisted that the cost is staggering and unjustifiable regardless of one’s views on the monarchy. In his words, “Whether you’re a Republican or a monarchist, there’s no excuse for the amount of public money being spent.” His remarks struck a chord with the demonstrators, who carried signs demanding the abolition of the royal family, underscoring the intensity of public frustration.
Baker also shared some striking figures, claiming that royal funding saw a 53% increase this year—a number that raised many eyebrows, particularly amid the nation’s cost-of-living crisis. He attributed this jump to a mechanism introduced by former Chancellor George Osborne, referring specifically to the Sovereign Grant.
Ads
To give you some context, the Sovereign Grant is the system used to fund the monarchy. Established by the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011 during Osborne’s time in office, it ties royal funding to the revenue generated by the Crown Estate. As Crown Estate profits have grown in recent years, so too has the money allocated to the royal family. Critics argue that this formula is too generous and doesn’t adequately account for shifting economic realities or public sentiment.
Baker didn’t stop there. He turned his attention to the coronation of King Charles III, suggesting it cost taxpayers upwards of £250 million. According to him, this figure goes beyond the visible expenses of the ceremony itself—like the regalia, service, and security—and includes indirect costs such as infrastructure, public holiday disruptions, and logistics. While supporters often argue that such events generate massive tourism and media revenue, Baker's focus was firmly on taxpayer expenditure.
Ads
This debate continued on GB News, where hosts Steven Dixon and Sophie Reaper moderated a particularly heated exchange between Republic’s CEO Graham Smith and royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams. Smith took a hard stance, claiming that Prince William “does nothing”—a blunt accusation challenging the Prince of Wales’s contributions to public life.
Unsurprisingly, Fitzwilliams strongly disagreed. He argued that the royal family plays a pivotal role in charity work, holding unique influence and visibility that greatly benefit countless causes. He emphasized the significance of royal patronage in boosting awareness, raising funds, and bringing influential people together for good causes. This “unique profile,” he stated, is a vital reason many still support the monarchy today.
But Smith was not persuaded. He dismissed this idea, saying the royal family’s involvement makes “no difference” to charities—an assertion that directly contradicts the belief that royal support elevates charitable impact. From Smith’s perspective, charities would thrive regardless, and the money spent on royal patronage might be better used elsewhere.
Ads
This back-and-forth reveals the deep divide in public opinion. For some, the monarchy remains a valuable institution steeped in tradition, diplomacy, and public service. For others, it's an outdated relic—costly, undemocratic, and irrelevant in today’s world. These differing perspectives came into sharp focus during the protest and subsequent media debate.
King Charles III finds himself in a challenging position early in his reign. The criticisms—especially the financial ones—aren’t entirely new, but the figures cited (like the 53% funding increase and £250 million coronation cost) give them renewed urgency. Questions surrounding the Sovereign Grant system’s fairness and flexibility are particularly timely, especially during an economic downturn.
Furthermore, the debate about Prince William’s role cuts to the heart of the monarchy’s modern justification. If ceremonial duties and state functions are less prominent in daily life, then royal engagement with communities and charities becomes the monarchy’s most tangible contribution. Dismissing that work is a direct challenge to the institution’s reason for being.
Ultimately, the events in Trafalgar Square and the conversations they sparked shine a light on the monarchy’s precarious position in the 21st century. The institution must navigate between upholding tradition and adapting to a modern society that increasingly questions privilege, cost, and purpose. How King Charles addresses these challenges will shape not only his reign but the monarchy’s future.
Post a Comment