Does the British Royal Family cost the taxpayer?

I’m not a Royalist but I do get confused when people say that the Royals cost the tax payer money, such as this BBC article, which says “Spending on official travel, which is paid for by taxpayers, was £2.7m overall last year”. I can’t help wonder if this is misleading?

According to the royal website, the Royal Family gets money from 3 places:

1. Sovereign Grant
2. The Privy Purse
3. The Queen’s personal wealth and income

The sovereign grant is the bit which technically comes from the UK Government but upon closer inspection it is perhaps not that clear. Funding for the sovereign grant comes from “income generated by the Crown Estate, an independent commercial property business owned by the reigning monarch”. So the sovereign grant is paid to the royal family by the government using money which comes from the Royal Family itself. Around 75% of the profit from the crown estate actually goes to the government, whilst 25% of their own money is paid back to the Royal Family. This is the part which the BBC was referring to when they said “paid by taxpayers”.

The Privy purse and the Queens personal wealth and income are both incomes from private properties owned by the Queen. Legally the Royal Family doesn’t need to pay tax on these incomes but since 1992 she has agreed to pay the equivalent of UK income tax on them.

So, the Royal Family contribute 75% of the income from their Crown Estate and the equivalent of regular income tax on their other properties. Unless I am missing something I find it hard to see how the Royal Family are costing people money. It seems that they generate far more income for the government than expenditure.

Of course, it can easily be argued that the Royal Family should not have such properties, that they come from historical exploitation of the country, that they should have paid more inheritance tax over the years, or that society itself should be more egalitarian and everyone should start on a more equal footing, but these are all different arguments. My point here is that I don’t understand how UK taxpayers “pay for the monarch” when they actually profit from it more. I would be very happy if somewhat could correct me or point me towards a more accurate interpretation.