argument top image

Should the monarchy be abolished?
Back to question

The monarchy must sustainably self-fund

While important, the monarchy cannot continue to be funded by public coffers. Allow them to use the money they generate to sustain themselves.
Public Funding Sustainability


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.

The Argument

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. The royal family should self-fund than rely on taxpayers as many people in the country can't even afford to pay for their rent or food. The taxes should instead be spent on British citizens. [1] In England, people find it unreasonable that their taxes are funding royal ceremonies and the refurbishment of the Buckingham Palace when the family has immense wealth available to cover the funds themselves. [2] The monarchy should be reformed, if not abolished, to protect the welfare of taxpaying citizens.

Counter arguments

In Britain, the funds that come from Queen's Crown Estate are taxed at 75%, which makes the monarchy self-funded. [3] 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. [4]



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 15:14 UTC