The monarchy must sustainably self-fund

The argument

This argument holds that the objection to public funding of the monarchy is a case for reform rather than abolition: the institution's costs should fall on the institution itself. Public opinion is offered as the starting point. In a survey commissioned by Republic, 76% of British citizens stated that they did not want their taxes spent on Meghan Markle's and Prince Harry's wedding — an indication that objection to royal spending is not a minority view but the majority position on at least one prominent occasion. The reason the objection bites is the alternative use of the money. Many people in the country can't even afford to pay for their rent or food, so taxes spent on royal ceremonies are taxes not spent on citizens with immediate needs. The comparison proponents draw is not between the monarchy and nothing, but between the monarchy and the welfare of taxpaying citizens, and on that comparison public funding is difficult to defend. What makes the case a reforming one rather than an abolitionist one is the family's own wealth. In England, people find it unreasonable that their taxes are funding royal ceremonies and the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace when the family has immense wealth available to cover the funds themselves. The complaint is therefore about the source of the money rather than the existence of the institution: a self-funded monarchy would impose no burden on taxpayers, and the ceremonies objected to could continue if the family paid for them. Sustainability is the other half of the claim, since a monarchy that meets its own costs is not exposed to the shifts in public opinion that periodically threaten it. Because the family can fund itself and the taxes in question are needed elsewhere, the argument concludes that the monarchy should be reformed, if not abolished, so that it sustainably self-funds.

Context

The UK government subsidizes the Monarchy with tax payer money each year. This is estimated at £300 million per annum and is greater than any tourism revenue generated. Royals do not pay tax nor have to insure their properties. When there was a major fire at Windsor castle, the Queen expected taxpayers to pay for repairs.

Premises

Counter-arguments

In Britain, the funds that come from Queen's Crown Estate are taxed at 75%, which makes the monarchy self-funded. In 2018, the British royal family brought £595 million in the country through tourism, merchandise, and the arts, while costing £165m. They make much more profit than other European monarchies. The family spends generously on the country's taxpayers and supports them through self-funded events and projects.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A single question commissioned by an organisation campaigning for abolition is weak evidence of settled public opinion, and it asked about one event; the public element of that cost was overwhelmingly policing and security, which no private family can provide for itself. [Rejecting P2] The premise also misdescribes the arrangement it objects to: the Crown Estate's surplus goes to the Treasury and the Sovereign Grant is calculated as a percentage of it, so the institution already returns more to public funds than it draws — which means the reform proposed either describes the status quo or is really an argument about the private fortune, a separate question the premises do not distinguish.