Should the monarchy be abolished?

The monarchy is wasting valuable taxpayer money

Question: Should the monarchy be abolished?
Position1 of 4›: Yes, we should abolish the monarchy
Argument‹3 of 4›: The monarchy is wasting valuable taxpayer money

Given limited government budgets, we shouldn't be spending millions on the royal family.

The argument

Harry and Meghan's wedding cost £30 million. The amount of money we spend maintaining the lavish lifestyles of the Royals has far better uses, and the objection is not to the sum in isolation but to what it is being weighed against. Given limited government funds, we should not be spending taxpayer money on an elite group of individuals who contribute very little to the country. The Royal family are a net drain on public finances that is taking money away from more important causes — the money spent flying the Queen around the world can provide free school meals or repave country roads. Nor is the cost confined to the few figures the public actually sees. The money spent on the extended royal family, their travel, premises, security and the rest far outweighs any income they generate, and much of that expenditure is fixed regardless of what any individual does in a given year. The usual defence is that the institution pays for itself through tourism, and this is where the argument does its real work. While the Family does bring in money by attracting tourists, the historic locations will continue bringing in visitors regardless of who lives there. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle will continue to be important landmarks that people will want to see, much like Versailles continues to receive thousands of visitors despite no royalty living there for generations. That comparison is the crux: what draws the visitor is the building and its history, not the presence of a serving monarch inside it. If the revenue would arrive either way, then it cannot be credited to the cost of maintaining the family, and the expenditure stands as a straightforward waste of public money.

Premises

[P1]Maintaining the Royal Family's lavish lifestyle — from a £30 million wedding to travel, premises, and security — is a net drain on public finances that outweighs any income they generate. [P2] The tourism revenue cited in their defence would continue regardless, since historic sites like Buckingham Palace attract visitors whether or not royalty live there, just as Versailles still does; the money could instead fund free school meals or road repairs. [C] Because the monarchy wastes valuable taxpayer money that has far better uses, we should abolish it.

Counter-arguments

The Royal family brings in more money than it spends through tourism. Its existence sells merchandise, creates an invaluable marketing tool and creates a buzz around the nation in general. The Royal Finances are transparent and accountable. This means that excess spending will likely be caught and prevented. If the Monarchy isn't actually a substantial drain on public finances, and brings in other substantial diplomatic, PR and soft-power benefits, we have no reason to abolish it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] This is untrue. Most sources show that the Royal Family is self-sustaining and actually benefits the British economy.

The argument

Premises

Counter-arguments

Rejecting the premises

Further reading