A few questions. How is a continued monarchy important for UK culture and future history? How are they reassuring?
While British Royalty has played their role in history, does that really justify their continuance? And while you can argue that they sustain themselves, the truth of the matter is that Royal estates without monarchs would likely thrive (especially as they'd be able to open their doors to the public). And while Trump as president is discerning, he was put there by democracy and can be removed by democracy - he doesn't have an implied supernatural authority to be in the job. At a time when people are struggling to feed themselves, we have a family that wants for nothing at the expense of the people, and is held in high regard for absolutely no reason. It's as absurd as it is repugnant.
Feels weird being cast in the role of royal defender, having been pretty antagonistic towards the pompous old farts all my life, but it's 2017 and the world has entered the Twilight Zone, so here goes...
Firstly, the pageantry and ceremony (changing of the guards, etc.) not only gives the UK a very distinct and memorable image, it also serves as a continuous link to the past thousand years of history. Politicians in suits don't really provide much of a cultural identity; indeed, the enduring cultural imagery of many republics is the oceans of blood spilled in their inception (France, USA, Russia). Sure, the historical relics will live on like they do for Ancient Rome, and there will always be someone around to dress up and play the part of the Historic Royal Family; but wouldn't Pompeii be even more fascinating if it had real live Romans going about their lives in 1st century style, or the Forum if political debate still took place there in the open air? So it is clear that a functional monarchy is a major attractant for cultural tourism.
Furthermore, if the royal family is self-sustaining (and I have no idea whether it is or not, but surely they have the means to be), then their ability to live the high life without doing a "real" job is no different to the thousands of trust-fund babies all over the world who perform no public duties whatsoever - and let's not pretend that the royal family's public duties or the paparazzi targets on their chests are not a major trade-off to their luxurious surrounds, while others similarly favoured by birth get to spend their nights in 3-hatted restaurants sipping Dom Perignon with relatively little scrutiny. I feel the same resentment towards billion-heirs that the rest of you do, but the alternative of, say, seizing people's assets for the state upon their death, is a non-starter, so why be so adamant that they need to be torn down?