In a world where billionaires reign supreme, one question looms larger than ever: Is our first billionaire king accountable to the people he serves? With the recent controversies surrounding Prince Andrew and the royal family’s finances, the timing couldn’t be more apt for a critical examination of the monarchy’s role in modern Britain. Enter What’s the Monarchy For?, a three-part BBC documentary series hosted by David Dimbleby, a broadcasting veteran whose family’s legacy with royalty mirrors the royal family’s own dynastic traditions. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the series promises to shed light on the monarchy’s purpose, it often tiptoes around the very issues that demand scrutiny.
The Dimbleby family’s connection to the royals is as storied as the monarchy itself. From David’s father, Richard, who famously narrated the late Queen’s coronation, to his brother Jonathan’s image-polishing efforts for Prince Charles in the 1990s, the Dimblebys have been the monarchy’s storytellers. Yet, this latest series feels like a departure—or does it? Former BBC director general Greg Dyke suggests the corporation should reflect public opinion, but with royal popularity hovering around 50%, the documentary’s lukewarm tone raises questions about its willingness to challenge the status quo.
But here’s the part most people miss: The series splits its focus between royal power and royal wealth, a decision that ultimately dilutes its impact. The episode on power revisits recent political controversies, like Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament in 2019, but fails to connect these events to the monarchy’s role. Meanwhile, the episode on wealth, though more revealing, still falls short of delivering a knockout blow. Investigative journalist David Pegg exposes King Charles as Britain’s richest monarch, a billionaire with untaxed wealth and medieval privileges, yet the BBC resists pressing political figures on why the monarchy remains financially unaccountable.
The royal family’s financial secrets are deeply entrenched. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, vast portfolios held by the monarch and the Prince of Wales, generate millions annually from land, estates, and even public institutions like the NHS. Yet, these entities evade corporation and capital gains taxes, and a 2005 Parliamentary inquiry into their finances achieved nothing. Is this fair? The series hints at the monarchy’s plutocratic status but stops short of asking the hard questions about tax exemptions, royal wills, and the secrecy surrounding their finances.
Take royal wills, for instance. Unlike ordinary citizens, the monarch’s will is protected by Parliament, and since 1910, this privilege has extended to other royals. Prince Philip’s will remains sealed for 90 years, shielding sensitive financial details from public scrutiny. Meanwhile, the King’s wealth has surged to nearly £2 billion, fueled by skyrocketing property values, while the public remains in the dark about the extent of royal assets.
The documentary also sidesteps critical issues like Prince Andrew’s legal bills, paid from Duchy profits, and the peppercorn rents enjoyed by royals like Prince Edward and Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice. The Andrew-Epstein scandal has shifted public sentiment, yet the BBC seems reluctant to confront these uncomfortable truths. Why?
The series’ avoidance of key topics highlights the BBC’s own limitations. Notably, the episode on royal image ignores Martin Bashir’s explosive 1990s interview with Princess Diana, a scandal that exposed the BBC’s journalistic failings. Whistleblower Andy Webb’s book, Dianarama, suggests the corporation is still grappling with its past mistakes, which may explain its reluctance to push boundaries today.
While small organizations like Graham Smith’s Republic and media outlets like Channel 4 and The Guardian boldly challenge the monarchy’s finances, the BBC remains cautious. Dimbleby notes that Prince William, unlike his father, does not publish his tax returns, but the series fails to press the issue further. Instead, it ends with a lighthearted clip of William on The Reluctant Traveller, leaving viewers wondering: Is the monarchy truly committed to change?
As the monarchy’s popularity wanes among younger generations, its financial disconnect with the nation grows. While 81% of over-65s support the monarchy, only 41% of 18-24-year-olds do, and this gap is widening. The royal family’s untaxed wealth places them among the super-rich, a stark contrast to the financial struggles of many Britons. Historian Rutger Bregman calls for a ‘moral revolution,’ but can we expect the establishment to reform itself?
The momentum for change will likely come from outsiders—young, tenacious voices demanding accountability. For monarchists, the hope is that any revolution spares the crown, if not its untaxed treasures. But the question remains: What is the monarchy truly for in the 21st century?
What’s the Monarchy For? airs Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 PM on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Tessa Dunlop, author of Elizabeth & Philip: A Story of Young Love, Marriage, and Monarchy, invites you to join the conversation. What do you think? Is the monarchy still relevant, or is it time for a reckoning?
