It's good for tourism!
This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it.
Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.
Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.
But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of visiting tourists to determine what kind of political system we have?
Royal residence admission numbers can be found in the Royal Collection Trust's annual reports
It unites the country
You only have to look around to realise that Britain is no more unified than many republics – in fact, it's probably less so.
It's often said that the royal wedding and the jubilee brought the country together, but the vast majority don't participate in royal events, which have no lasting impact other than a bill for the taxpayer.
The reality is that monarchy has no real bearing on how united or divided a country is. In fact, the three European countries with the most active separatist movements are Spain, Belgium and the UK - all monarchies.
It doesn't cost too much - it's great value for money
Our opposition to the monarchy isn't about money, it's about principles. If the monarchy cost nothing, we would still campaign for an elected head of state because hereditary public office has no place in a democracy.
Nevertheless, the British monarchy is expensive – very expensive. With an estimated annual bill to the taxpayer of £300m, the Queen and her family cost over 100 times more than the Irish president.
The royals do a lot for charity
It is true that most royals are “patrons” of a string of charities, but very often this is only on paper – their name may appear on the letterhead, but they are not an active ambassador for that cause.
Some royals certainly do help to raise the profile of certain charities they care about, but so do many actors, singers and sportspeople. And what about the millions of ordinary Britons who make donations and give up their free time to volunteer for good causes? They do so without any of the glory - or luxury trappings – that the royals receive.
It's also worth noting that when a member of the royal family visits a charity, it can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds – often vastly exceeding any increase in donations. The royals gain more in PR than the charities do in support.
But, as with the tourism argument, the amount of charity work the royals do or don't do has no bearing on the question of whether we should have a monarchy. And of course, the Windsors would be free to continue their charitable activities as free citizens in a republic.
