Protests at government expense are sure way to garner Republican support, says NORMAN BAKER

There is a lot of report that King Charles would say he wants to see a slimmed down monarchy.

He is wise, for he will know that the vast wealth of the royal family, and even more so the amount it demands from the taxpayer, is the point of maximum vulnerability.

However, despite all the talk of a smaller, more compact coronation, I’m not so sure Charles got off to a good start.

Despite the much reduced guest list, latest estimates suggest it cost an extraordinary £250 million, all at government expense.

Even discounting the security costs, the remaining £100 million is still more than double the cost of his mother’s 1952 coronation, £47 million in 2023 prices.

These are extraordinary amounts. It is interesting to note that no other European monarchy cares about a coronation. For example, the last one in Spain was in 1555.

Even the figure of £250 million may turn out to be an underestimation. The cost of the Queen’s funeral last year was pre-touted at £8 million.

The final cost to the taxpayer was revealed last week at £161.7 million.

Then there was the Queen’s jubilee party last year. The bill for that came to £28 million.

So that’s a burden on the taxpayer in just over a year of almost £450 million for those three events alone. And that’s on top of the £86.3 million annual payment to the King (compared to £7.9 million in 2011).

One of the strange – and inconvenient – things, as our analysis here shows, is the steady rise in government spending on these events over time.

Charles and Diana’s wedding is estimated to cost £1.8 million in today’s prices – and that was in 1981, a time when the IRA was active and security costs were expected to be high.

In addition, a YouGov poll conducted just before the coronation found that 51 percent thought the coronation should not be funded by the government at all.

Prince Harry’s spectacular wedding to Meghan Markle in 2018 cost taxpayers an estimated £32 million (£39 million in today’s money).

And where Harry led, Princess Eugenie had to follow. Her carriage ride through Windsor that same year produced a bill of around £2 million.

But why should the public pay for such vain excursions?

Some argue that the cost to the treasury is more than offset by the boost to tourism and TV rights sales. The latter of course benefits the individual broadcasters, not the treasury.

There is no doubt a reputational gain of sorts as Britain presents itself to the world, however briefly, in a positive light.

As for tourism, there is undoubtedly an advantage, although this can be overestimated. A few days before the coronation, I was able to get a room for the night in a decent West End hotel for just £43, and there was still a ‘vacancy’ sign up when I left the next day. This does not indicate a massive influx.

In addition, official government estimates suggest that each bank holiday – and special holidays were introduced for the coronation and jubilee celebrations – cost the country £1.36bn in lost productivity, so the gains are by no means one-sided, although few are opposed to extra days off. .

Do we really want our constitutional arrangements to be based on what tourists like?

Let’s not forget the other unique tax arrangements the king enjoys, such as the exemption from inheritance tax on his mother’s private estate – no tax is paid on the series of racehorses, the valuable paintings, the Faberge eggs and the £100 million stamp collection.

The truth is that no one knows exactly how much Charles is personally worth because the royal finances remain shamefully opaque. Calculations by the Guardian suggest his private wealth is £1.8bn, although palace sources say this is not a figure they acknowledge.

Still, we can rest assured that the King is a man worth many hundreds of millions of pounds, which doesn’t look good when many people struggle to pay their utility bills and put food on the table – and if you ask the public. to pay a high bill for royal events. (And in the case of the coronation, the whole.)

Unfortunately, those who expect Charles to use his enormous income to repay the taxpayer can wait a very long time.

King Charles must be careful.

While a clear majority of the British population still favors a monarchy, those who opt for a republic now make up some 28 per cent, the highest figure since the 1992 royal collapse year, the Queen’s ‘annus horribilis’.

Among young people, support for a monarchy and a republic is now equally divided.

Keeping Andrew, Harry, and Meghan off the palace balcony isn’t a pared-down monarchy.

And in my opinion, more pomp and circumstance at the expense of the government, while Charles sits on a huge private fortune, is a surefire way to push that 28 percent even higher — and dangerous.