I don't think that Parliament would consider such a thing, but King George might.
Oh, so you're thinking that parliament vetoed any grand dukes coming over because they were afraid the King would grant them huge allowances? That's an odd thought and besides, such an executive decision (not allowing the grand dukes in) was the government's, not parliament's, to make.
Exactly who paid the whole bill for Ksenia's "grace and favor" mansion or the income that was settled on the Dowager Empress.
I assume both Frogmore Cottage and Wilderness House were Crown Estate properties. So the question must be who paid the coal bill. The income that was settled on the Dowager Empress was of course paid by the King, probably through the Privy Purse.
I know that King George had his "own" income, but in fact much of the money used for all royal support came from the UK taxpayer.
Remember that only since the People's Budget of 1909 had the British tax system started to redistribute wealth instead of preserving inherited wealth. Thus it was still a novel concept that the Crown Estate, whose income the monarch surrendered to the government in return for a civil list, belonged to the nation and not to the wearer of the crown.
Even when Windsor Castle burned in 1997, the first thing that was on everyone's mind was who would pay for the repairs and should the Queen pay out of her "own" income or should the taxpayer fund them.
Just shows you how much had changed since the People's Budget.
It only occurred to me that King George might have asked Parliament to settle incomes on some of these poor relations.
That would have been political suicide. Not only the Labour Party, but also High Tory Lords would have protested against Britons paying for "damn foreigners" who now were politically lame ducks.
I wonder what prompted the Queen of the Netherlands to offer succor to Kaiser Wilhelm while those who were fighting in the Entente did nothing for the Romanovs.
It is important to realize that while Wilhelm II was seen as pompous and war-mongering, he was also regarded as far less reactionary than Nicholas II, especially in neutral countries like the Netherlands. Wilhelm II started his reign with settling strikes (he threatened the employers with withdrawing his troops and leaving their villas to the angry mobs, lest they agree the to the workers' demands) and re-legalizing the Socialist Party, while Nicholas II was forever tainted as "the bloody Tsar" who shot down his own striking people.
I don't think it had any direct effect, but it is interesting to consider that just when the Kaiser arrived in the Netherlands, the Socialist Troelstra was trying to bring about a Dutch revolution, while the Prime Minister, Charles Ruijs de Beerenbrouck, was the son of the minister responsible for the first Dutch social legislation with regard to work.