@Legrandsophie
You are dreadfully naive. They don’t have to be sold but they will be. Why would the government (especially if times get tight again) pay to keep numerous larger, expensive building that weren’t being used for state business.
And yet, you're here naively mainly concerned about what happens to the royal residences and where the president might have to live.
You do know that the crown estate is more than just the royal residences, don't you?
They're just the tip of the iceberg.
And in any case, as I and pps have mentioned, the royal residences could be opened to the public to help cover running costs.
The crown estate is worth billions and includes commercial and investment properties and is operated as a revenue generating commercial business in its own right.
Most people don't even know that it includes retail parks and shopping centres, offices and warehouses, (as well as a lot of land)
Incidentally, the crown estate can already sell land and property.
It doesn't need the abolition of the monarchy to sell things.
Unless you are intending to have a President live in Buckingham Palace. Even then they wouldn’t need Kensington Palace, Clarence House or any of the other official residences. They get paid for now because they are used for official duties as directed by the government.
If you've reached the level of making strawman arguments about the president having to live in Buckingham Palace because that's the only way "they get paid for", you've probably run out of sensible things to say about the matter.
A president doesn't need to live in Buckingham Palace for it to be the only way for Buckingham Palace to be paid for. And this applies to the other royal residences.
Everything would slowly but surely be auctioned off to foreign investors and the money frittered away on paying government cronies for contracts that are never fulfilled.
Government corruption regarding unfulfilled contracts is a separate issue. It's yet another logical fallacy to try and use it as an argument against abolishing the monarchy.
You are a fool if you think scrapping to monarchy would see a penny extra in the pockets of the citizens of the U.K.
Ah, now you're putting words into my mouth and then using that as a basis for a backhanded insult. I've not argued anywhere that the (or even a) reason for the abolition of monarchy would be so that citizens would see a penny extra in their pockets. Mainly because that's not how public sector funding works. When things are cut, the resulting saving is just redirected elsewhere.
Tax breaks are politically driven.
In any case, lots of things that are scrapped not because they generate significant savings.
Things get scrapped because there are better ways, better things that could be done with the money, or the thing has become obsolete.
There are many reasons why people argue for the abolition of the monarchy.
For example, just to name a few : So as not to subsidise an already privately wealthy family any further; Recognising that one family is not better than another because of an accident of birth; Not having an unelected head of state; Recognising that a monarch doesn't have a God-given "divine right"