The British Monarchy

[Alan Harper's Tash]

So everybody's wrong and everybody's right. Actually in this case the sceptics are just wrong.

I tend to tune out of your rants. They’re just sad.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Have done. All articles point to royals not having any benefit on tourism in this country. The buildings - yes. The royals - no. Unless there is something like a coronation which isn’t very often. Royals impact on tourism has significantly declined over the last 10 years.

Wrong articles I guess?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Usually that's based on dubious calculations that attribute huge amounts of tourism to them, while not deducting the huge amounts of cash that "their" properties and land earn.

The Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle and many more places are a lot more interesting to visitors than the current residences of the Royal family, and earn a lot more money.

We could get the same tourism benefits, and provide them with fabulously wealthy lives, without them needing to financially profit from huge areas of the country - land that simply comes with the job.

Dubious as in you don't agree with them I assume? I found two that said they brought in more than they cost. They weren't hard to find, sure some we be slanted to say they don't. But we are where we are , I don't think they are as popular as they were , but the King and Will and Kate are very popular. Always get lots of support, with only a few protests.

 

[johnny crossan]

I tend to tune out of your rants. They’re just sad.

Well, well - the old AHT uncurls inside its mod shell and the ordure seeps out

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Well, well - the old AHT uncurls inside its mod shell and the ordure seeps out

Like now.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I would just add, that the Monarchys popularity is declining and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they didn't exist in a couple of generations. Or certainly had a much diminished role and profile like other European royal families.

 

[Pedestrian]

The many properties that the tourists want to visit will still be tourist attractions. No fucker actually meets the royals when they go to Buckingham palace for a photo. The French do ok with tourism without needing a king and all the other shite that goes with him.

 

[Manc baggie]

According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy is £1.76bn . Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.

It’s not exactly accurate though is it?
These are all estimated values, based mostly on the value of the architecture of the ‘royal estate’ buildings, which would still draw in visitors whether there were a royal family or not.
Brand Finance are far from impartial too as the report itself was prepared as stated.
“To coincide with the granting of the Brand Finance Coat of Arms by the College of Arms”

The same College of Arms, who are also known as Heralds’ College, situated in the City of London. It consists of thirteen officers: three Kings of Arms, six Heralds of Arms and four Pursuivants of Arms, who are appointed directly by the Sovereign.

I understand that many people like & want to keep the monarchy, but to quote from Republic about the royals & their impact on tourism:

“The monarchy is part of our constitution. It’s corrupt, secretive, bad for our politics and totally unprincipled. Saying we should keep it because of some money coming in from tourism is an amoral argument, it says we’re more concerned about doing what’s profitable than what’s right”

Link below. It’s an interesting & thought provoking read, whether you like the royals or not.

Tourism

CHANGE THE COUNTRY FOR GOOD.

www.republic.org.uk

 

[BrianW]

I honestly don't give a monkey's whether the royals bring in tourist revenue or not.

It is simply beyond my comprehension that in the 21st Century, people not only tolerate, but acclaim, an unelected Head of State and an unbelievably privileged family - not because of anything they do or have done - but because of a pure accident of birth. I just don't understand it and I never will.

 

[bluenova]

All the analysts agree the net financial benefits to the UK of the Royals through tourism are undeniable. It Is abolitionists who call the figures dubious without any convincing contrary evidence. Who do you think would profit from the crown estates if Charlie & Co got the chop? Calling all US hedge funds.....

So the Royal Family are protecting us from selling the sea to a US hedge fund? No wonder they're so vital ;)

I'm not aware of any suggestions that the Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle, or The Crown Jewels would be sold off without the protection of the King. I'd have thought it's one thing that people across the political spectrum would be fairly united about.

And why is there financial benefit undeniable? Our collective history, all the bricks and mortar, and all the things Britain has 'collected' over the years are what brings tourists to the UK. We'd make more money opening up all their houses as tourist attractions year round, than we do from having the piecemeal current arrangements in return for them living their occasionally, and waving on the balcony once a year.

And my slightly more in depth comment, just before yours, didn't suggest abolishing them. I'm quite happy for them to live a millionaire lifestyle, and for us to pay for them to travel round the world on glamorous tours. What they don't need is the lifestyle of multi-billionaires, the 'ownership' and/or profits from tens of billions of pounds of land and jewels.