If the monarchy was abolished, how many people would be out of work? I’m thinking of regular jobs like chauffeur, not a specialized job or unique position that only a monarchy would create, like royal spokesman.
A hell of a lot if people work in the Royal Mews (Stables) in order for the Queen to have her (weekly?) changing of the guard parade. It is awesone to see BTW.
Update: Google says that 198 people AND their familes live next to the palace to support the stables. And that they employ 1200 people at Buckingham Palace alone.
I don’t know the answer, but one job would be the valet who put toothpaste on Prince Charles’ toothbrush or who irons his shoelaces. 
It’s hard to say , but I’m guessing not that many jobs would actually be lost. Even if the monarchy was abolished, they would still be a wealthy family with chauffeurs and housekeepers , the stable needs a certain number of people to run it whether it’s owned by the Queen or a rich family, they might still have spokespeople and so on. There are no doubt certain jobs that would get moved elsewhere- somebody is going to be the head of state and will need travel arrangements made and so on.
Probably far less than you might think. Those who would be retained can be broken down into several different categories.
There would be those jobs that would continue to be required by a elected president. A presidential spokesperson would be as much a full-time job as a royal one. Also, presidents tend to have an official residences and so require staff to maintain them. Even if one suggests that a president would require fewer residences and would need a smaller household, these functions cannot be completely eliminated. Some elected heads of state manage fine with relatively small households. But plenty don’t. Would the president of a British republic copy, say, France or Germany? No one can possibly know.
Then there are the heritage jobs. Even if a president wasn’t using using them, the current royal palaces would still have to be maintained. Doubtless they would be run as tourist attractions. But most of them are already being used as that and a significant chunk of the present Royal Household is already employed for that purpose.
Even the quirkier royal jobs might well survive. Some republics have their equivalents of Changing of the Guard and there is no reason why a British republic wouldn’t continue it. Just about any current tradition could also be adapted.
Arguably, the only significant job losses would be in the households of the lesser royals. But those aren’t publicly funded and whether they could maintain their former lifestyle would depend not on whether there was a republic but on whether that republic then seized their private assets.
So many of the old manor houses turned into tourist attractions because of inheritance taxes; unless the family had good assets they could not afford the taxes on something like a Downton Abbey. So there’s also the possibility that much of the royals’ private assets would disappear over a generation or three, i would imagine. Windsor Castle already gets tourist visits, but AFAIK places like Sandringham and Balmoral are private at this time. (Apparently St. James Palace offers tours now. Is this new?)
Another part of the counting of employees has to do with lifestyle. Would a non-royalty still have fancy balls, charity events, and other such social activities regularly enough to require a large staff? Or would they be like, say, most American billionaires who have moderately large houses (or penthouses) but few staff, and any decent social gathering might instead happen at a more public venue like a rented space in a hotel or club?
Sandringham and Balmoral are private in more than one sense: They are not open to visitors (unlike Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace), and they are owned by the Queen as a private individual, whereas Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace are owned by the Crown (the British government conceptualised as an abstract entity) and only made available for use by the Queen. The difference came to matter a great deal when Edward VIII abdicated in 1936: He got to keep Sandringham and Balmoral (which he had inherited from his father, George V), while the throne passed on to his brother, George VI. George ultimately bought the two estates from Edward in a private transaction.
As a consequence, all questions about royal finances in the event of a hypothetical abolition of the monarchy depend on whether the royal family is simply expelled from the residences owned by the Crown but gets to keep its private property and, or whether the latter is also confiscated.
The Guards Regiments would presumably largely go back to fulltime normal soldiering and be rid of having to put up with tourists.
The various Foot Guard are full time soldier, having fought in nearly every conflict. A small unit is detached for guarding the Queen, Windsor, etc, and a even smaller part stand outside doing ceremonial duties.
Same as the Household cavalry.
wiki- The Household Cavalry Regiment (HCR) has an active operational role as a Formation Reconnaissance Regiment, serving in armoured fighting vehicles, which has seen them at the forefront of the nation’s conflicts. The regiment forms one of five formation reconnaissance regiments in the British Army’s order of battle. The HCR has four operational squadrons, three of which are traditional medium reconnaissance squadrons equipped with the combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked) or CVR(T) range of vehicles (Scimitar, Spartan, Sultan, Samson and Samaritan) and the fourth is referred to as Command and Support Squadron and includes specialists, such as Forward Air Controllers. One of HCR’s squadrons is assigned to the airborne role with 16 Air Assault Brigade as of 2003. The Regiment was formerly based at Combermere Barracks, Windsor, one mile from Windsor Castle, until its move to Bulford Camp, Wiltshire, in May 2019. The men of the Household Division have sometimes been required to undertake special tasks as the Sovereign’s personal troops.
It is kinda like the Guards of the Unknown Soldier- regular enlisted men on a very special detail.
The one estimate I saw was that shorn of the massive Crown Estates, the Queen would be personally worth ~$500 million and own ~70,000 acres as a private individual. I suspect that relative to her current condition that she might be somewhat land rich and cash poor. If so still easily solved by selling a residence or three (there are a variety of lesser homes on the Balmoral and Sandringham estates) and good chunk of land to some nostalgic billionaire(s) and investing the returns.
What’s the status of inheritance taxes nowadays? As I mentioned, the taxes in the mid-1900’s were close to confiscatory for any noble family that did not have decent cash assets (or land to sell) to offset the tax due on fancy manor or estate. Would this still be the case?
(OTOH, as I understand not only is the family filthy rich, but they have many business assets to cover taxes…)
Not quite. Sandringham is open to the public and there is even very limited access to Balmoral.
Regarding inheritance tax, the situation for the classic art-treasure-rich-but-cash-poor aristocrats in the UK is now relatively secure. Inheritance tax doesn’t apply to cultural assets, including houses, if the public have access to them and families can also hand those assets over to charitable trusts, again on condition of public access. Successive governments of all political persuasions have been happy for this situation to evolve over many decades. That’s because this is more convenient for them than having regular panics about ‘saving’ things for ‘the nation’ every time some random aristocrat dies. Of course, any hypothetical government that abolished the monarchy might take a different view on this. But it does mean that the current status of the Royal Collection, exempt from inheritance tax and run by a charitable trust, isn’t so very different from that of the larger aristocratic collections.
There was a huge uproar among the nobility in England over tax hikes in the 1909 “People’s Budget”. An argument against it was that the landed gentry would be forced to lay off huge numbers of valets, gardeners, footmen etc., thereby impoverishing the lower classes.*
The budget eventually passed and there wasn’t a big surge in unemployment. I suspect that in the extreme unlikelihood of subsidies to the monarchy being abolished, masses of people wouldn’t be thrown out of work.
*source: “Dreadnought” by Robert Massie.
The Guards are military regiments with public duties. No reason they wouldn’t continue.
Well, yes, and plenty of presidential republics have equivalent ceremonial military units. But, then again, others don’t. A future republic might well deliberately reject this in order to make visible the break with the past. Or not. No one can predict this. And the same applies equally to any number of other jobs. There is no actual reason why a republic couldn’t have Yeomen Warders (and ravens) at the Tower, a Poet Laureate, bargemen, a Swan Marker etc. French presidents maintained an official hunt until as late as 2010.
I saw a small “changing of the guard” ceremony in Budapest, so certainly does not need a hereditary monarchy for the military to put on a good show.
I assume in the days of modern tech, there is a lot less call for menial personal servants, like the sort that would be the first to go. The Queen I’m sure can run a TV remote and does not need a footman standing by to change the channels for her. Whereas cleaning Buckingham Palace needs to be done whether there are inhabitants or it is a museum piece. The ones most likely to go would be excessive servants like a fancy kitchen staff. Betsy or Camilla may not whip up a good custard or plate of spaghetti every so often, but for a small family gathering they probably would get by with only one or two kitchen staff, and if they no longer were responsible for state dinners, that staff would disappear - to go wherever state dinners would happen from then on.
The sad thing would be if the change were so abrupt and dogmatic as to actively destroy the heritage of the country. (Notre Dame was used as a stable during the time the French Revolution actively suppressed the Catholic Church. The Puritan Revolution resulted in many decorations of the English churches and cathedrals being trashed. St. Sophia was transformed into a mosque and many of the original decorations removed or plastered over. Vandalism during an abrupt regime change is not unheard of.)
I have to say, that sounds like a brilliant job if you like swans.
I think you are missing the point of being a Monarch! 
I have a video of a similar ceremony in Prague. (Capital city of the Czech Republic)
I’m thinking that pursuant to the OP’s question, there are probably a lot of wait staff hanging around the Queen’s residence due to tradition that she would probably forego if the pay came out of her own pocket. Certainly when you get to Camilla or Kate, they have grown up in a less servant-heavy atmosphere and will not require as much manpower.
I’m thinking of the tour I took of Blenheim Palace. The Duke’s family or whatever occupies only a few floors on one wing of the massive building that used to be a full-on Palace not unlike a smaller Buckingham. Other than clean staff and tour guides, the rest of the building does not need as many staff as the “good old days”, plus powered lawn mowers, automatic washing machines, and hundreds of other modern conveniences have probably reduced the need for hiring servants dramatically, not to mention the much smaller actual living quarters - and a lot fewer formal dinners and fancy dress balls and weekend hangers-on visiting.