This nonsense that 'the Windsors bring in far more money in tourism than they take' - where are people regurgitating this nonsense from? (I suspect, the Windsor's own propaganda machine). It's utter bilge, and when even slightly broken down simply doesn't stand up to the lightest scrutiny.
The former, the 'bringing in' of money to the UK by the power-earning Windsors is unquantifiable. Based on the following, though, it's highly likely to be bunkum. Top UK tourist destination: The Tate Modern. Coming in at 20 is Stonehenge. Falling in between are various attractions from Chester Zoo to the major London cathedrals. The Windsors and their numerous homes fall nowhere on that list.
As for taking money from the state the same criterion holds true. It too is unquantifiable, for the very good reason that the Windsors are amongst - if not the only people in the UK who are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. This exemption extends to every member of their family. They pay tax at an amount they think they will - could be £1 per annum for all we know - and only after succumbing to intense public pressure. The funds used to doll up their numerous grace and favour homes are astronomical. We're not only supporting an unelected head of state, but a vast, bloated, extended family of them (£ms on a home refurbishment for the 6th in line - why)? A conservative estimate of their cost including security is £350m PA.
Arguments about benefits -v- costs are as nebulous as trying to catch the moon in a bucket with a fishing net. They're baseless. You don't know - because they don't want you to know.
Even so, it isn't funding that is my main reason for objecting to a monarchy. They're an affront to equality, democracy and meritocracy. And they behave in such a way (not discounting the tax 'exemption' (would be evasion for anyone else) that would land any other citizen of these islands with a prison sentence. These people are lawless.
There needs to be a huge spotlight of transparency shone on the whole lot of them; not just Elizabeth's particularly loathsome second son. Their finances should be one stop. More importantly, why are pertinent questions not being asked - particularly in the wake of the Epstein scandal - about why the next successive air was so cosy with the most notorious child abuser of them all?
There's a 100-mile-radius miasma swirling around the whole lot of them, and it stinks to high heaven. Should total transparency be forced upon the Windsors in the name of real equality and democratic accountability, how long would they last?