In a world where billionaires reign supreme, even the monarchy isn’t immune to the scrutiny of the masses. But what happens when the crown sits atop a mountain of untaxed wealth, shielded by secrecy and privilege? This is the burning question at the heart of What’s the Monarchy For?, a BBC documentary series that dares to ask—but perhaps doesn’t dig deep enough. As the dust settles on the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal, the timing couldn’t be more apt. Half of Britain is now scratching their heads, wondering if the royal family still holds relevance in the 21st century. Enter David Dimbleby, the octogenarian broadcaster whose family’s ties to royalty are as hereditary as the crown itself. From his father’s magical coverage of the late Queen’s coronation to his own iconic delivery of royal events, the Dimbleby dynasty has been to the monarchy what Netflix is to the Beckhams—a constant, if not always critical, presence.
But here’s where it gets controversial: the BBC, often dubbed the monarchy’s ‘ringmaster,’ seems to be tiptoeing around the elephant in the room—royal wealth. Former director general Greg Dyke once naively suggested the BBC should reflect public opinion on the royals. With their popularity hovering around 50%, this series takes a lukewarm stance, particularly when it comes to the monarchy’s financial privileges. And this is the part most people miss: the royals pay no inheritance tax, their income tax is voluntary, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall—massive medieval wealth portfolios—evade corporation and capital gains tax. These aren’t just minor perks; they’re the foundation of a billionaire king’s fortune.
The series does shine a light on King Charles’s staggering wealth, estimated at nearly £2 billion, thanks to investigative journalist David Pegg. But it stops short of asking the hard-hitting questions. Why hasn’t the government ever held the monarchy financially accountable? Why did David Cameron’s administration tighten royal secrecy, blocking Freedom of Information (FOI) requests? And why are royal wills sealed for decades, shielding their financial arrangements from public scrutiny? These are the questions the BBC skirts around, leaving viewers with more questions than answers.
Here’s the kicker: While the documentary highlights the monarchy’s financial anomalies, it fails to connect the dots. Where did the late Queen get the money to pay Andrew’s legal bills? Why does Prince Edward pay a ‘peppercorn rent’ for his lavish residence? And why is the BBC still playing catch-up on issues like the Andrew-Epstein scandal? The series avoids these key points, exposing its own limitations. Even the growing republican movement is dismissed as a fringe group, despite gaining momentum among younger generations.
But let’s not forget the real controversy: the monarchy’s privileged position relies on public consent, yet only 41% of 18-24-year-olds support it. As historian Rutger Bregman calls for a ‘moral revolution,’ the question remains: can the establishment reform itself, or will change come from tenacious outsiders? What do you think? Is the monarchy a relic of the past, or does it still have a place in modern Britain? Let’s spark a debate—because if there’s one thing this documentary proves, it’s that the conversation is far from over.
