Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

Should the monarchy be abolished? Show more Show less

The Royal Family is considered a pillar in the British cultural and political landscape. The country tunes in for their weddings, places bets on their baby names and earnestly discusses their wardrobe choices. However, polling shows that many people have a critical view of the royals and do not support the way they operate – for example their secrecy or tax-avoidance – or the public money that's spent on them. Given the monarchy's diminished role in politics, is it time to get rid of the royals? Or do they still serve a purpose in modern society?

We should reform the monarchy Show more Show less

The monarchy is important to preserve but needs to adapt.
< Previous (2 of 4 Positions) Next >

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.
< Previous (1 of 1 Argument) Next >
public funding sustainability

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.

The Argument

At present the royal family are supported through various tax-payer funded grants as well as income from many estates which they inherited because they are royalty. For instance, Prince Charles’ income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall - land he ‘owns’ because he is Duke of Cornwall. Many countries have ‘down-sized’ their royal family and the income they are given. This has increased their popularity in places like the Netherlands.

Counter arguments

Framing

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Proponents

Further Reading

References

    This page was last edited on Thursday, 5 Mar 2020 at 11:46 UTC