In an era where billionaires dominate headlines, one figure stands out: the world’s first billionaire king. But here’s where it gets controversial: how did he amass such wealth, and why are we, the public, left in the dark about it? As the monarchy faces growing scrutiny, a new BBC documentary series, What’s the Monarchy For?, attempts to shed light on this very question. Yet, it leaves many wondering if it goes far enough.
Timed eerily well after the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal, the series, hosted by veteran broadcaster David Dimbleby, arrives at a moment when nearly half of Britain is questioning the monarchy’s relevance. Dimbleby, part of a broadcasting dynasty that has chronicled royal events for decades, seems poised to deliver answers. But does he?
The Dimbleby family’s connection to royalty is legendary. From Richard Dimbleby’s iconic coverage of the late Queen’s coronation to Jonathan Dimbleby’s image-polishing documentary on Charles in the 1990s, the BBC has been the monarchy’s storyteller-in-chief. Yet, this latest series feels different. Former BBC director general Greg Dyke suggests the corporation should reflect public opinion, which hovers around 50% approval for the royals. But is the BBC truly willing to challenge the institution it has long glorified?
The series splits its focus into episodes on power and money, a decision that feels like a missed opportunity. The power episode revisits recent political controversies, like Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament in 2019, but fails to connect these to the monarchy’s role. Jacob Rees-Mogg, part of the delegation that sought royal approval, praises the efficiency of the royal household, leaving viewers to wonder: Is the monarchy a model of governance, or a relic of privilege?
The money episode, however, is where the series hints at deeper issues. Investigative journalist David Pegg reveals King Charles as Britain’s richest monarch, ascending the throne as a billionaire. But here’s the part most people miss: the monarchy pays no inheritance tax, their income tax is voluntary, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall—vast medieval estates—evade corporation and capital gains tax. These Duchies, worth billions, generate profits of £20-25 million annually from land, industrial estates, and even the Oval cricket ground. Yet, a 2005 Parliamentary inquiry into their finances achieved nothing.
Should the public accept that the royal family’s wealth is beyond scrutiny? The BBC skirts this question, failing to press political figures on why the monarchy remains financially unaccountable. Worse, it doesn’t challenge David Cameron’s decision to restrict Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about royal matters. Nor does it address the secrecy surrounding royal wills, which, unlike ours, remain sealed for decades.
The Guardian’s research reveals the King’s wealth at nearly £2 billion, boosted by soaring property values. Yet, our democratic system, which now prohibits royal-related FOI requests, cannot effectively monitor the Windsors’ expanding interests. The documentary ignores this, as well as the late Queen’s use of Duchy profits to pay Andrew’s legal bills and the royals’ grace-and-favour residences.
The series also avoids the BBC’s own controversies, like Martin Bashir’s infamous interview with Princess Diana, which exposed journalistic failings. Whistleblower Andy Webb’s book, Dianarama, suggests the BBC still hasn’t fully addressed its past mistakes. This reluctance to confront its own shortcomings undermines the series’ credibility.
While the documentary gives short shrift to the growing republican movement, smaller organizations like Graham Smith’s Republic and media outlets like Channel 4 and The Guardian are asking the tough questions. Is the BBC too cozy with the monarchy to truly challenge it? Dimbleby notes that Prince William, unlike his father, doesn’t publish his tax returns, but he doesn’t press the issue. Instead, the series ends with a lighthearted clip of William on The Reluctant Traveller, declaring “change is on my agenda.”
As public support for the monarchy wanes, especially among younger generations, the question remains: Can an institution so financially detached from its people survive? Historian Rutger Bregman calls for a “moral revolution” in his Reith Lectures, but the BBC’s series feels like a missed opportunity to spark that conversation. The momentum for change, if it comes, will likely be driven by outsiders, not the establishment.
For monarchists, the hope is that any revolution spares the crown, if not its untaxed treasures. But as the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the monarchy’s future depends on its willingness to answer the questions it has long avoided.
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, reminds us that the monarchy’s story is far from over. But will it be one of reform, or resistance?
