REFNATION
ConstitutionEnded 9 Sept

Should the monarch and royal family be legally required to pay income, capital gains, and inheritance tax?

Yes 71%No 29%677 votes cast

The British monarch and immediate royal family are not legally liable for income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax due to Crown immunity. Since 1993 they have paid these taxes voluntarily under a non-statutory Memorandum of Understanding, with King Charles disclosing a £12.9 million bill for 2024-25 and over £30 million since accession. Much royal wealth, including Duchy of Lancaster income and assets held in right of the Crown, remains untaxed or only partially taxed, with no full public tax returns submitted.

Jump to opinions· 16

The room’s decision was a clear victory for equality before the law, with Yes winning by 42 points. The argument the floor rated highest put the principle plainly: “They are citizens too”, while the debate’s real tension was whether royal tax immunity is privilege or constitutional protection.

The strongest Yes voices treated compulsory taxation as a matter of ordinary fairness, not financial revolution. One argued that “Paying tax shouldn't be an optional act of charity”, while another warned that the practical gain might be negligible because “the state would need to contribute more money” to the household.

No voters made a narrower, more institutional case. The floor’s most-respected No argument said “Monarchy pays £££ through Crown Estate & generates tourist Billions”, while another insisted the royals face “different constraints” from ordinary citizens; their concern was that taxation could weaken an institution that cannot simply earn, sell or organise itself like a private family.

That left the two sides talking past each other over what, exactly, is being taxed. Some Yes voters separated personal income and capital gains from Crown assets “not as personal wealth”, while others called for minor royals to earn their keep; No voices countered that the monarchy preserves history and performs functions of state, with one summing up its defence as “They're a charity...”.

The wider argument is one familiar to constitutional politics: transparency and equal citizenship set against independence from the government of the day. Here, the chamber treated voluntary compliance as an incomplete answer — a gesture of fairness, not a substitute for the law.

In modern democracy all citizens should be equal before the law. They are citizens too.

YES case · Slawomir · 6 respects

Chattering classes obsessed with taxation. If object is to confiscate Royal wealth (hint it is) it doesn’t reflect well on UK as > effort is put into depriving people of their assets than actually governing well or formulating working policies. Monarchy pays £££ through Crown Estate & generates tourist Billions. If taxed, Institution must be able to function. UK Gov is incredibly mean but profliga

NO case · JohnnyBoy · 3 respects

LeftCentreRight
71%
Yes · 482 votes
29%
No · 195 votes
Spread the wordShare
Debate

16 Opinions

Sign in and vote to share your opinion.
CCWales· 96
The Unifier
Voted noRight

We already have sufficient laws to prevent Royals from becoming tyrants. The majority enjoy having a monarchy, plus the monarchy is necessary to preserve large parts of our history and functions of state.

Glasses· 484
The Public-Order Traditionalist
Voted yesRight

Would also like minor Royals to start earning instead of being supported by public.

The Atlantic Gatekeeper
Voted noRight

They're a charity...

JohnnyBoy· 264
The Motorist Statist
Voted noH. Right

Chattering classes obsessed with taxation. If object is to confiscate Royal wealth (hint it is) it doesn’t reflect well on UK as > effort is put into depriving people of their assets than actually governing well or formulating working policies. Monarchy pays £££ through Crown Estate & generates tourist Billions. If taxed, Institution must be able to function. UK Gov is incredibly mean but profligate wasting £Billions yet won’t be held to account. This is ideological taxation.

The Market-State Traditionalist
Voted noC. Right

I say no to this knowing that they already are paying a certain part of taxes with conditions, inheritance for example only has the exception of passing from one sovereign to the next and a lot of the tax arrangements they have simply reflect the Monarch is not free to earn and sell as the rest of us and has different constraints

The Peacemaker
Voted yesLeft

YES Why should anyone in today's modern society be entitled to not pay their fair share of tax just because they happened to pop out of the right womb? When you think about how basically wrong the above privalage is, no one can justify the Monarchy anymore!

The Lean-State Disciplinarian
Voted yesRight

I agree that personal income should be subject to income tax and CGT. I don't approve of inheritance tax for anyone. Separate arrangements would have to be made for the Crown Estate etc. I would not want the monarch to be financially beholden to the government of the day, but to be independent of it.

The Early-Days Right-Leaning Moderate
Voted yesC. Left

I voted yes for transparencies sake. But we should be aware that the gain will be zero as it is likely that the state would need to contribute more money to the operation of the Royal household so effectively will be repaid.

Astobie1· 412
The Institutional Taskmaster
Voted yesRight

They already pay so its not as divisive an issue as it is made out to be. However, it's time for the Monarchy to become more aligned with its country.

The Democratic Egalitarian
Voted yesH. Left

The royals cost £500 million of taxpayer money every year. Their "work", which amounts to strikingly few hours per week and includes free visits to foreign countries and sporting events, is paid at an eye-watering hourly rate. They have huge reserves of unearned private wealth. The very least they can do is be obliged to pay the same taxes as the rest of us on their personal income and wealth.