Britain has had a monarchy for centuries, yet in recent years there has been more of a debate regarding whether we still need it. The British monarchy may be iconic, but in the twenty-first century, it is no longer a necessity, only creating an undemocratic, elitist atmosphere, and costing the taxpayer and country a considerable amount of money.

One of the most common arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that the royal family attracts hundreds and thousands of tourists, either people visiting Buckingham palace, or spectating events such as royal weddings. However, it’s not necessarily the royal family/monarchy that attracts tourists, but rather, the buildings- such as Windsor castle, which attracted ‘1.65 million visitors in fiscal year 2018/2019’ [1]

Without a monarchy, there is little reason why people would stop visiting these monumental buildings, for example, Windsor Castle still brings in thousands of visitors even when there are no royals currently residing there. According to a recent study, the Queen’s residences combined attracted ‘2.8 million people in 2016’ [2], while the Palace of Versailles, an empty palace where French Monarchs such as Louis XIV used to rule ‘receives over 7.5 Million visitors each year’ [3].

Without a royal family, these palaces may attract even more people as it would be likely that they would be opened to the public similarly to museums (which also attract millions), and visitors could look back and remember the history of the royal family, so the ‘unity’ that the monarchy brings would still be present.

There are also reasons why we do not need the British Monarchy anymore, one of them being that having a monarchy goes against the democratic nature of the country. It is widely believed that the royal family’s role in society is purely ceremonial.

However this is not the case: the Queen has the power to issue passports, declare war, grant honours and mercy, commission officers into the army, and much more, and so will the monarch who comes after her, who of course, will be next in the hereditary line (a form of succession which has been disputed for centuries).

As well as being undemocratic, having a monarchy also ‘cements privilege at the top of state and society’ suggesting that ‘“pedigree” still matters in Britain’ [4], so it can be argued that a monarchy is only prolonging outdated ideas of elitism, when in this day and age, we should be moving forward, and challenge the age-old idea that ceremony and continuity is always a good thing.

The expenses of having a monarchy are also considerably large, costing the British taxpayer money for aspects of royal life that are hardly necessary, such as when Prince Andrew ‘spent 5,000 pounds in taking a "taxpayer-funded helicopter" from his home in Windsor to play a round of golf in Kent’ [5].

This may not seem like a lot compared to other royal family expenses paid for through taxation, yet it comes across as quite tone-deaf, as royals are flying around unnecessarily while other people in the country can’t afford to feed their family, hence widening the class divide which still exists today.

Also, while it’s true that the royals do significant of work for good causes, it can be argued that the hours put in do not add up, according to a Republic spokesperson, there were ‘4,700 engagements last year’ and divided between the royals, they would have worked ‘less than an hour a day each’ [6].

Although a monarchy was important as the main government of society in past centuries, nowadays, having a monarchy is not necessary. This is because tourism income could easily continue to flourish without the royal family, and maintaining said monarchy and the ceremony surrounding it does not benefit us as much as one would think, and comes across as elitist and tone-deaf in a modern age of people partly paying for the royal upkeep.

[1] Statista Research Department, Nov 26, 2020 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/)
[2] Claire Haven-Tang in iNews, December 4, 2017 (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/fact-check-tourists-visit-britain-royal-family-108344)
[3] Heather Hall in Ferreting Out the Fun, April 22, 2019 (https://www.ferretingoutthefun.com/2016/02/26/versailles-visitor-tips/)
[4] Peter Harris in National Interest, March 12, 2020 (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/backwards-britain-why-it%E2%80%99s-time-abolish-monarchy-132407)
[5] Michael Basger in Blasting News, November 21, 2016 (https://uk.blastingnews.com/politics/2016/11/the-royal-family-do-we-still-need-them-001265063.html)
[6] From Pitchfork Cosmonauts, n.d. (http://pitchforkcosmonaut.org/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-a-monarchy-in-britain/)

I would agree that the royal family has questionable finances that do not require taxpayer funding. But I don't think the institution should be abolished over financial reasons or by looking at things purely through cost-benefit analysis. Their nobility of bearing and upper-class pretentious demeanor is an issue as well, but I wouldn't worry about the queen using her war powers any time soon.

British society's relationship with the monarchy has shaped the cultural dynamics of British identity at least since the reign of George VI. With the end of the British Empire by the second half of the 20th century, the monarchy has become a stabilizing symbol during crisis and societal changes. With the outbreak of World War II threatening the existence of the British nation, primary sources of the time referenced the king as a symbol of stability, continuity, and encouragement (Foss, 2012). The monarchy has weathered events that could've led to a crisis during the period of decolonization as said in the 1977 article in the Times:

“The process of decolonization can never be easy, but it can be worse than unhappy, and it is in a large part thanks to the Queen’s influence…that the genuine good that was done in an imperial past lives on, and was not interred with the bones of the Empire”

The purpose of the monarchy might be questioned due to the internal struggles of the royal family and absurd finances, but there is no question of their positive effect on the general public during times of crisis.

Ideally, I believe the position of monarchy must represent one of outstanding citizenship, an example of what the population should aspire to be in terms of virtue and openhandedness. If they want to be maintained by taxpayers they ought to reform themselves to represent the ideal citizen, not represent old-money families, nor millennia of archaic traditions. At the very least they could reform themselves to be more like the Danish royals who at least try to live more regular lives and have more moderate expenses.

Foss, D. The British Monarchy: Symbolism and Salience in Times of Crisis. https://scholar.colorado.edu/concern/undergraduate_honors_theses/5999n378r

“A Lead From the Commonwealth.” Times, June 8, 1977.

I think the best argument for the monarchy in Britain is negative.

You want your head of state to be powerless, a-political, and unifying.

Elected heads of state are none of those (the US, France).
And Appointed heads of state (Israel, Germany) are often deeply divisive (and often corruptible).

TL;DR — The monarchy is outdated and rendered unsustainable by the younger members of the Royal family.

Many of us will have become more aware of the disfunction of the Royal family through Netflix’s The Crown. Whilst the series should not be taken as a fact, it nevertheless reveals a family beholden to antiquated traditions and consumed by delusions of their own grandeur. However, the actual family does little to dispel these assumptions.

This is particularly apparent in the younger generation of Royals, i.e the children of the Queen. [Reports] (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-charles-is-so-high-maintenance-that-he-wont-even-put-toothpaste-on-his-own-toothbrush.html/) emerged in 2020 of the pampered lifestyle of Prince Charles. All of the accounts depicted Charles as an overly privileged man who is almost incapable of doing things for himself. This is particularly evident in the report that Charles has his aides squeeze 1 inch of toothpaste on his brush for him and also has 2 staffers dress him every day.

The entitlement does not end with the heir to the throne. If anything, it gets worse when it comes to the behaviour of Prince Andrew. Even before his disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019 over his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Andrew had [a reputation for entitlement] (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life). One story that stands out is the exorbitant travel bill Andrew amassed in 2011 and 2012, amounting to nearly $500,000. Furthermore, when he went to India in 2012, Andrew refused to stay at the British High Commissioner’s luxury residence for free, preferring to stay at the expensive Maharaja Suite at the Leela Palace. All of this comes at the taxpayer’s expense.

Some will counter this by saying that Andrew and Charles are not reflective of every member of the Royal family. This argument is not unfair but the problems with the Royal family are clear. The power wielded by the monarch is limited but the taxpayers nevertheless fund the family’s life. The benefits provided by the monarchy do not match the cost of keeping them and so there needs to be real consideration over the future of the monarchy.

She is basically just publicly funded celebrity who on paper has some power, that if in practice she were to use, she would lose shortly afterwards.

Britain doesn't need a monarchy, because politics in countries without a monarchy doesn't seem to function worse than in Britain. But this does not imply that Britain should get rid of the monarchy - that's an entirely different question.