A Lefty’s Economic Argument for the Monarchy

As such a staunch leftie, people usually expect me to vehemently oppose the monarchy. Yet I don’t. What I do is deconstruct the anti-monarchist economic arguments: taxpayers pay the monarchy and presidents are more cost-effective than monarchs.

 

The Queen owns The Crown Estate, a portfolio of businesses and residential properties.

All profits are paid into the Treasury. All of it. Usually 15% is given back to the Queen as the Sovereign Grant to ensure all royals have the money to perform their duties.

Hence the Queen is essentially taxed 85%. And it’s voluntary (there’s no legal requirement for her to pay that money). There would be uproar if others had to pay 85% tax and I doubt anyone would volunteer to pay tax if they weren’t obliged to do so.

So if the Queen pays for herself and her family, and the Treasury keeps most of her money, taxpayers clearly aren’t paying for the monarchy. Thus the Queen pays for herself: to claim otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts.

 

People often argue that monarchs cost more than presidents. This is simply untrue. If people want an elected head of state then they fully well should, but using money as the justification is illogical.

A country with an elected head of state has to pay for the elections via citizen’s taxes. Plus candidates seek donations for their campaigns. This money could be filtered into charities, parliamentary elections and other investments.

Royals bring in far, far more money than presidents ever could. Think of merchandise, the tourism industry and cultural/historical sites like museums, gardens and homes. Not only does paying for these things bring in money for the country but it also creates jobs for the citizens of the country, too.

Furthermore, having a family of royals means that multiple people can officially engage with communities, schools and charities on a local and national scale. It likewise means there are multiple people who can be sent on international trips and tours to promote the interests of the country. A president may come with a handful vice-president but they can’t work on the same scale as a royal family.

So if a monarch pays for itself (and a president doesn’t) and brings in a lot of money (compared to a president), the argument that monarchs cost more than presidents is unfounded.

 

Like I said, this is the economic argument to have a monarch as head of state. This neither ventures into the problems of privilege, nor does it justify abuses committed by absolute monarchs who are also head of government. But on a purely economic front, the monarchy (in the UK at least) is far more beneficial than a presidency.