9 ms·

Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested

by dTal 6y ago

Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside. On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.

henrikschroder 6y ago
Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
  - kitd 6y ago
    Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
      - kitd 6y ago
        Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.
        kitd 6y ago
        IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then. In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person? > In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. I don't think there's much evidence of that. > You don't want one person having both Why not? > Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces. The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    No, the prime minister is the head of government, while the monarch is the head of state, those are two different roles. You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.
    - RandomBK 6y ago
      I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.
  - jonp888 6y ago
    So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.
    - oblio 6y ago
      > So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).
      - jonp888 6y ago
        Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?
        CobrastanJorji 6y ago
        That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government. Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats. The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.
        oblio 6y ago
        That comment was literally about coalitions ...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does? Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.
- posterboy 6y ago
  No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.
peruvian 6y ago
If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.
- stqism 6y ago
  A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.
  - patmcc 6y ago
    I think you'll be surprised what a government can accomplish when it really tries. Being able to make laws helps with that.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Laws still have to respect the rights of the people, no? I’m not well versed in UK law, but the US, the legislature can’t just make a law making criticism of the government illegal because it’s a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.
      - salawat 6y ago
        Mmmm. Tell that to all the lawmakers and Executives that made their careers by pulling off end runs around the 4th, 5th, and 2nd amendments.
  - joubert 6y ago
    The Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate Also see, from https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 > The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest. In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant. The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign. The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies. The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency.
vkou 6y ago
> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. Only because of Hollywood accounting. Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government does. If the Queen were to disappear tomorrow, tourists would still come to England to see Buckingham Palace.
- setr 6y ago
  The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other places kings and queens have lived)
  - oblio 6y ago
    Counterargument: all those grandiose empty buildings. People still come to see our Place of the Parliament in Bucharest and ain't nobody bringing back Ceaușescu :-))
    - setr 6y ago
      The question isn’t whether people would visit, but rather do they visit more because of the queen’s existence. That is, would be worth a billion rather than billions
      - oblio 6y ago
        That's probably impossible to quantify. The example next door, Versailles, kind of says you don't need a living monarch.
        6y ago
kenneth 6y ago
Stripping the Monarchy of their lands goes quite a bit further than just abolishing the monarchy. Removing the right to rule a county is one thing. Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  > Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings An Act of Parliament could just ascertain that the Windsors exempting each other from Inheritance tax was unlawful, and ask the new Republican Revenue & Tax office to assess 40% IHT on every historical generational transfer of assets. Just redressing the historical injustices that the Windsors benefitted from would strangely make them much less rich.
- psychoslave 6y ago
  >Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property. The concept of personal property can perfectly accommodate of a limit in how much a individual person can personally own, especially in regard to the distribution of wealth in the whole population.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  Do you let a thief keep the stuff they stole?
  - girvo 6y ago
    Historically, it seems to depend on how long ago they stole it.
    - MockObject 6y ago
      Logically too, when the crime victims may have died centuries or even millennia ago.
russellendicott 6y ago
I expect to be downvoted for this but I think there is an appeal in an institution that dogmaticaly upholds a "higher" ideal of human behavior. They try to provide us with an example of how a hypothetical family with essentially unlimited resources that is born into this world with a social duty should theoretically behave. They also show us constant examples that human emotions are a factor regardless of your socio-economic situation. This provides the layman with an answer to the question "what would I do if I won the lottery and was instantly vaulted into the highest social circle?" Would you use your influence for the good of the people while maintaining a scandalous affair? Would you fall into the same emotional traps as the royals? I think it's an interesting social experiment that may be worth the cost it requires to maintain.
- guiriduro 6y ago
  And then there's Prince Andrew.
- salawat 6y ago
  What you describe is noblis oblige. It's a long standing cultural force ofarguable efficacy peculiar in particular to France/Britain. Elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints. The funny thing is that your proposed institution assumes the layman is the one who needs to be taught or reminded more often than not.
  - russellendicott 6y ago
    Thanks for letting me know what the proper term is. I think it's very interesting.
anonymousDan 6y ago
It's total bullshit. France got rid of their monarchy a long time ago and it's not like their tourist industry suffers.
psychoslave 6y ago
Tourism in France works without any royal family to feed.
gbronner 6y ago
It is useful to have a hereditary figurehead to open flower shows and the like. It keeps the elected politicians from forming a personality cult, and gives them more time to govern. Pardoning turkeys probably isn't the highest and best use of the us President's time
ric2b 6y ago
> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. Ok, but how is that related to the political power of the monarchy? I don't think tourists even know what powers the Queen actually holds.
brnt 6y ago
> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. It is however seldomly proven. Should that not be a requirement, like it is for the rest of us?
throwaway_2047 6y ago
According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw, the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism

by dTal 6y ago

henrikschroder 6y ago

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

michaelmrose 6y ago
But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
- kitd 6y ago
  Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
    - kitd 6y ago
      Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.
        kitd 6y ago
        IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then. In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person? > In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. I don't think there's much evidence of that. > You don't want one person having both Why not? > Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces. The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  No, the prime minister is the head of government, while the monarch is the head of state, those are two different roles. You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.
  - RandomBK 6y ago
    I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.
- jonp888 6y ago
  So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.
  - oblio 6y ago
    > So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).
    - jonp888 6y ago
      Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?
      - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
        That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government. Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats. The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.
      - oblio 6y ago
        That comment was literally about coalitions ...
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does? Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.
posterboy 6y ago
No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.

peruvian 6y ago

If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.

stqism 6y ago
A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.
- patmcc 6y ago
  I think you'll be surprised what a government can accomplish when it really tries. Being able to make laws helps with that.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Laws still have to respect the rights of the people, no? I’m not well versed in UK law, but the US, the legislature can’t just make a law making criticism of the government illegal because it’s a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Mmmm. Tell that to all the lawmakers and Executives that made their careers by pulling off end runs around the 4th, 5th, and 2nd amendments.
- joubert 6y ago
  The Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate Also see, from https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 > The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest. In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant. The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign. The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies. The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency.

vkou 6y ago

> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. Only because of Hollywood accounting. Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government does. If the Queen were to disappear tomorrow, tourists would still come to England to see Buckingham Palace.

setr 6y ago
The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other places kings and queens have lived)
- oblio 6y ago
  Counterargument: all those grandiose empty buildings. People still come to see our Place of the Parliament in Bucharest and ain't nobody bringing back Ceaușescu :-))
  - setr 6y ago
    The question isn’t whether people would visit, but rather do they visit more because of the queen’s existence. That is, would be worth a billion rather than billions
    - oblio 6y ago
      That's probably impossible to quantify. The example next door, Versailles, kind of says you don't need a living monarch.
      - 6y ago

kenneth 6y ago

Stripping the Monarchy of their lands goes quite a bit further than just abolishing the monarchy. Removing the right to rule a county is one thing. Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.

MagnumOpus 6y ago
> Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings An Act of Parliament could just ascertain that the Windsors exempting each other from Inheritance tax was unlawful, and ask the new Republican Revenue & Tax office to assess 40% IHT on every historical generational transfer of assets. Just redressing the historical injustices that the Windsors benefitted from would strangely make them much less rich.
psychoslave 6y ago
>Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property. The concept of personal property can perfectly accommodate of a limit in how much a individual person can personally own, especially in regard to the distribution of wealth in the whole population.
Nullabillity 6y ago
Do you let a thief keep the stuff they stole?
- girvo 6y ago
  Historically, it seems to depend on how long ago they stole it.
  - MockObject 6y ago
    Logically too, when the crime victims may have died centuries or even millennia ago.

russellendicott 6y ago

I expect to be downvoted for this but I think there is an appeal in an institution that dogmaticaly upholds a "higher" ideal of human behavior. They try to provide us with an example of how a hypothetical family with essentially unlimited resources that is born into this world with a social duty should theoretically behave. They also show us constant examples that human emotions are a factor regardless of your socio-economic situation. This provides the layman with an answer to the question "what would I do if I won the lottery and was instantly vaulted into the highest social circle?" Would you use your influence for the good of the people while maintaining a scandalous affair? Would you fall into the same emotional traps as the royals? I think it's an interesting social experiment that may be worth the cost it requires to maintain.

guiriduro 6y ago
And then there's Prince Andrew.
salawat 6y ago
What you describe is noblis oblige. It's a long standing cultural force ofarguable efficacy peculiar in particular to France/Britain. Elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints. The funny thing is that your proposed institution assumes the layman is the one who needs to be taught or reminded more often than not.
- russellendicott 6y ago
  Thanks for letting me know what the proper term is. I think it's very interesting.

anonymousDan 6y ago

It's total bullshit. France got rid of their monarchy a long time ago and it's not like their tourist industry suffers.

psychoslave 6y ago

Tourism in France works without any royal family to feed.

gbronner 6y ago

It is useful to have a hereditary figurehead to open flower shows and the like. It keeps the elected politicians from forming a personality cult, and gives them more time to govern. Pardoning turkeys probably isn't the highest and best use of the us President's time

ric2b 6y ago

> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. Ok, but how is that related to the political power of the monarchy? I don't think tourists even know what powers the Queen actually holds.

brnt 6y ago

> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. It is however seldomly proven. Should that not be a requirement, like it is for the rest of us?

throwaway_2047 6y ago

According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw, the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism