King Charles III is now the first billionaire monarch in modern British history, inheriting a vast fortune while the average citizen grapples with rising costs. The question on everyone's mind: Is the royal family's wealth justified in today's world? A new three-part documentary series, "What’s the Monarchy For?", hosted by veteran broadcaster David Dimbleby, dives headfirst into this very debate, but does it truly deliver the hard truths we need to hear?
The Dimbleby family has been intrinsically linked to the British monarchy for generations. From Richard Dimbleby's commentary during Queen Elizabeth's coronation to Jonathan Dimbleby's efforts to rehabilitate Prince Charles' image in the 1990s, and David's own decades of covering royal events, the BBC's Dimbleby dynasty has shaped public perception of the royals. They were to the 20th-century monarchy what Netflix is to the Beckhams today – masters of crafting and controlling the narrative. But here’s where it gets controversial... Is the BBC, as Dimbleby calls it, the monarchy's "ringmaster," finally ready to pull back the curtain and expose the realities of royal wealth and power?
Former BBC Director General Greg Dyke suggests the corporation should reflect public opinion, which currently shows about half of Britons questioning the monarchy's relevance. This might explain why the series takes a somewhat critical stance, especially when it comes to the family's finances. However, the documentary’s impact is weakened by dividing its focus: one episode on power, another on money. The power episode revisits familiar political ground, like Boris Johnson's controversial prorogation of Parliament in 2019. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was part of the delegation that sought the Queen's permission at Balmoral, recalls the seamless efficiency of the royal household. The implication is clear: royal operations are far better funded and managed than those of the government. Dimbleby then laments the monarchy's constitutional inability to act independently of the government, even when crucial decisions are at stake. And this is the part most people miss... the real power of the monarchy may not lie in its constitutional role, but in its vast wealth and influence.
The episode on money enlists investigative journalist David Pegg, who helped reveal King Charles' billionaire status. It rehashes familiar criticisms: the monarchy pays no inheritance tax, their income tax is voluntary (a practice reintroduced in the 1990s), and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall avoid corporation and capital gains tax. These Duchies, ancient wealth portfolios held by the monarch and Prince of Wales respectively, generate staggering profits – between £20 million and £25 million annually. Their assets include vast landholdings, industrial estates, grouse moors, villages, farms, and even the Oval cricket ground. A Channel 4 and The Times investigation previously exposed these Duchies for charging commercial rates to public sector institutions like the NHS. The BBC series reminds us that a 2005 Parliamentary Committee failed to make any headway in addressing these financial anomalies, leading Dimbleby to conclude that the royal family's wealth rivals that of the world's wealthiest plutocrats.
But the BBC stops short of delivering a knockout blow. Despite interviewing numerous political figures, the program fails to uncover why successive governments have never truly held the monarchy accountable. Worse, it doesn't press David Cameron on why his administration increased royal secrecy by removing the right to file Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about royal matters. While Dimbleby discusses Prince Charles' lobbying efforts through his letters to government ministers, he fails to mention that such access to royal correspondence is now unavailable.
The documentary also avoids the issue of royal wills. Unlike ordinary citizens, whose wills become public upon probate, the monarch's will is protected by an act of Parliament. Since 1910, this privacy has extended to other royal family members, ostensibly to shield sensitive financial arrangements from public scrutiny. In 2021, the High Court ruled that Prince Philip's will should remain sealed for at least 90 years. In short, we have less access to information about royal finances than we did 15 years ago, a situation exacerbated by complex legal and institutional structures that make it difficult to accurately assess the monarch's estate. Nevertheless, The Guardian estimates that King Charles' wealth has surged to nearly £2 billion following his mother's death, fueled by rising land and property values.
Our democratic system, which now prohibits royal-related FOI requests, appears unable to effectively scrutinize how the Windsors use their political access to protect their growing wealth. The documentary also fails to connect the dots between the late Queen's payment of Prince Andrew's legal bills (likely from Duchy of Lancaster profits) and the favorable rents paid by other royals for their residences. The Andrew-Epstein scandal has shifted public sentiment, yet the BBC seems to be playing catch-up.
The series avoids key issues, exposing the corporation's own limitations. Tellingly, the episode on image makes no mention of Martin Bashir's infamous interview with Princess Diana, despite its far-reaching consequences and the BBC's subsequent journalistic failings. A new book suggests the BBC still hasn't fully addressed the Bashir scandal. This weakness partially explains why the series, focused on the monarchy's purpose in the 21st century, offers little new information. Predictably, Dimbleby dismisses the growing republican movement.
However, momentum is building with organizations like Graham Smith's Republic and media outlets that ask tough questions about royal finances. While Channel 4 and The Guardian openly oppose the monarchy, which doesn't reflect mainstream public opinion, their anti-royal stance allows them to explore issues that the BBC avoids. Dimbleby notes that Prince William, unlike his father, doesn't publish his tax returns. But the program doesn't push further, failing to confront the prince or his staff about this increased secrecy.
The documentary concludes with an excerpt from Prince William's appearance on an Apple TV+ show, where he states that "change is on my agenda." Dimbleby can only speculate about what this means, highlighting Apple's access to William, not the BBC's. This underscores that while Dimbleby's brother once interviewed Prince Charles, softer options are now preferred.
In many ways, the series reflects our times. The Windsor's privileged position depends on public approval, but the monarchy's wealth is increasingly out of sync with the nation's financial struggles. While 81% of those over 65 support the monarchy, only 41% of 18-24-year-olds do, and this number is declining. The family's untaxed wealth makes it one of the few institutions in Britain not facing financial hardship. No wonder Donald Trump feels at home with the King – plutocrats unite!
Drawing inspiration from the BBC's Reith Lecture series, we're living in a "Time of Monsters" – or at least a time of the super-rich. Rutger Bregman calls for a "moral revolution," reminding us that true change won't come from within the establishment. The momentum for royal reform will likely come from tenacious, young outsiders. For those who support the monarchy, the hope is that any revolution spares the crown, if not all its untaxed treasures. Considering all of this, do you believe the monarchy is adapting quickly enough to remain relevant in the 21st century? Should the royal family be subject to greater financial scrutiny? Where do you stand on the future of the monarchy? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
