Don't abolish it, just defund them and turn them into tourist puppets.
Of course the Queen is not frugal. She's one of the wealthiest women in the world, her private wealth is estimated to be a bit under a billion (and she has actively used her influence and status to try to interfere with the passing of bills and to intervene in politics to hide her private wealth), yet she's famous for paying her staff a pittance and forces the taxpayer to pay for work on her palaces when she could very easily foot the bill herself.
Do people really not understand that there's a reason the Queen's extensive team of very expensive publicists release stories and photos of tupperware to the media? Like the media would have access to photos of something as private the Queen's personal breakfast table if she hadn't decided she'd gain from having those photos made public? It's sheer image manipulation and they all do it.
Royals spent a shitton of money on media image manipulation. They have access to the best publicists in the world, and the media are happy to serve them. Charles and Camilla's publicity team have spent years and probably millions of pounds shifting their public image from gaslighting homewreckers, to starcrossed lovers cruelly prevented from marrying whose love has endured and are finally able to be together. The number of posts I've seen online "Charles and Camilla should have been allowed to marry back in the 70s." When every indication is that Camilla had no interest in marrying Charles and that Charles had multiple mistresses, and that they live separate lives now. William and Kate's media-manipulated image is normal middle class young parents, people genuinely believe Kate's doing the school run and trying to cook tea while Zooming with huge international charities, when they have a full household staff including live-in nannies and currently split their time between in TWO mansions (Anmer at Sandringham House). The Queen's media-image is frugal kindly grandmother who uses her own Tupperware. It's pure PR! Are people really that naive?
Hell Kensington Palace placed a suck-up story the other day claiming the reason William fell for Kate is because she was the one woman at uni who didn't chase him, when she literally changed dropped out of university and applied to a new one at the last minute, followed him to a remote village in Chile on his gap year, and signed up to model for a fashion student's graduation showcase because William would be in the audience, then took off the outfit she'd been given to model as she was waiting to go on and walked down the catwalk in her underwear instead, all just to chase him and catch his attention.
The press act like all her goofs and etiquette faux pas and scandals, which were far more serious than Meghan's, never happened which is Orwellenian revisionism.
The media handling of the Rose Hanbury story is the same, not just William threatening the press to censor them but his own mishandling of the story and the weirdness around the Tatler censorship.
The Queen directly financially profits (they all do) and abuses the law to cover it up. They have a thousand ways to directly financially profit from their royal status in ways where it doesn't 'count' as profiting. For example Buckingham Palace sells Royal-branded merchandise, which is literally the definition of financially profiting from the royal brand, but uses the technicality that the money goes into a specific tax-free trust set up to purchase and maintain the Royal art collection, as a way to get around the rules. Oh goody does that mean if I set up a "Rain Gucci Trust" that means if I blow my paycheck on buying Gucci handbags I don't have to pay any tax because it doesn't count as earning money? Yes the art collection is supposed to be for the nation but what do you think would happen if I knocked on the door asking to see some of it?