6 ms·

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 re

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.
  - Reason077 6y ago
    > ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch” Correct. > “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.” Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Why was it raised, but only temporarily?
      - Reason077 6y ago
        "The sovereign grant was increased in 2017, from its previous level of 15%, to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace which are likely to run until 2027."
        joubert 6y ago
        And Buckingham is part of the Crown Estate, which is not the private property of the monarch.
        Reason077 6y ago
        No, Buckingham Palace and other “occupied” royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate. ”The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate, but nor are they the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.”
        joubert 6y ago
        Did some research; think I’ve figured it out. See whether this is correct. Occupied palaces, like Buckingham Palace, are owned by the reigning monarch ‘in right of the Crown’ (like you pointed out). Similarly, the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’. “In right of The Crown” means it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. So, you are correct (and I was wrong) that Buckingham is not part of the Crown Estate. Notwithstanding this technicality, would you agree that the overarching point remains that it isn’t as if “the money goes to the monarch for their personal enjoyment” (which is what I interpreted you implied), but towards Buckingham renovations, which is a property of The Crown[1] (i.e the state) and which in turn is embodied by the reigning monarch. It sounds to me as if the monarch is like a custodian/shepherd of these assets for the benefit of the state (the crown). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
smoyer 6y ago
What does a week at Buckingham palace cost on AirBnB?
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  £350m
  - Uberphallus 6y ago
    Still not enough to offset the cost of brexit.
    - collyw 6y ago
      I think corona hysteria may have overshadowed Brexits effects on the British economy.
kochikame 6y ago
This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss. Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that. We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there
- afarrell 6y ago
  That is because: 1. Versailles has a boatload of art in it and is massive. 2. Some rather dramatic things happened there. Buckingham palace has plenty of art, but so does the V&A Museum. And you can't re-create the historical drama and preserve stability.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.
  - FriskyAlter 6y ago
    Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'. And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-of-versailles-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-o... [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-...
  - tweetle_beetle 6y ago
    I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards. These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant. Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc. According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423 https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

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.
- Reason077 6y ago
  > ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch” Correct. > “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.” Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Why was it raised, but only temporarily?
    - Reason077 6y ago
      "The sovereign grant was increased in 2017, from its previous level of 15%, to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace which are likely to run until 2027."
      - joubert 6y ago
        And Buckingham is part of the Crown Estate, which is not the private property of the monarch.
        Reason077 6y ago
        No, Buckingham Palace and other “occupied” royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate. ”The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate, but nor are they the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.”
        joubert 6y ago
        Did some research; think I’ve figured it out. See whether this is correct. Occupied palaces, like Buckingham Palace, are owned by the reigning monarch ‘in right of the Crown’ (like you pointed out). Similarly, the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’. “In right of The Crown” means it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. So, you are correct (and I was wrong) that Buckingham is not part of the Crown Estate. Notwithstanding this technicality, would you agree that the overarching point remains that it isn’t as if “the money goes to the monarch for their personal enjoyment” (which is what I interpreted you implied), but towards Buckingham renovations, which is a property of The Crown[1] (i.e the state) and which in turn is embodied by the reigning monarch. It sounds to me as if the monarch is like a custodian/shepherd of these assets for the benefit of the state (the crown). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

smoyer 6y ago

What does a week at Buckingham palace cost on AirBnB?

smnrchrds 6y ago
£350m
- Uberphallus 6y ago
  Still not enough to offset the cost of brexit.
  - collyw 6y ago
    I think corona hysteria may have overshadowed Brexits effects on the British economy.

kochikame 6y ago

This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss. Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that. We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there

afarrell 6y ago
That is because: 1. Versailles has a boatload of art in it and is massive. 2. Some rather dramatic things happened there. Buckingham palace has plenty of art, but so does the V&A Museum. And you can't re-create the historical drama and preserve stability.
jiofih 6y ago
Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.
- FriskyAlter 6y ago
  Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'. And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-of-versailles-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-o... [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-...
- tweetle_beetle 6y ago
  I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards. These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant. Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc. According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423 https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423