3 ms·

They are just figureheads these days. No role in politics aside from ceremonial. They draw in crowds of tourists to the UK, and they aren’t that expensive to m

They are just figureheads these days. No role in politics aside from ceremonial. They draw in crowds of tourists to the UK, and they aren’t that expensive to maintain. Their £67m yearly grant[1] works out to about £1/year per person in the UK. That’s pretty cheap for a fantastic PR service. Yes there is probably added costs on top like police/security but overall/net they don’t feel like a massive burden on the finances. Maybe £5-10/pp in the UK? (Just me guessing!) 1. https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british-taxpayer https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british...

nprateem 6y ago
That and the (alleged) billions they apparently don't want you to know about > No role in politics aside from ceremonial. Except when it comes to defending their interests. Remember that the 'spider memos' now can't be revealed under FOI requests, for one example? (The Guardian have been covering Queen's Consent recently which should shatter any illusions that they aren't involved in politics)
pseudalopex 6y ago
The French Republic is the number 1 tourist destination in the world. The UK is number 10 with less than half as many visitors. The only other monarchies in the top 10 are Spain and Thailand.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
- yardstick 6y ago
  So what you are saying is without the monarchy more or less people would visit the UK? London hosts more visitors than Paris[1], although France overall hosts more visitors than the UK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_international_visitors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_internatio...
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    I'm saying the implication the royals are important to tourism should be quantified and supported. The city statistics include business travel. And I don't know what point you're trying to make with them.
    - yardstick 6y ago
      The royals appear to be net contributors to the economy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        > Viewed from that perspective, the additional royal-related revenues start to look somewhat trivial. > Moreover, we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism. > The economic boost from visits and festivities related to royal celebrations should certainly be treated with caution given these can displace economic activity as well as create it. > In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.

nprateem 6y ago

That and the (alleged) billions they apparently don't want you to know about > No role in politics aside from ceremonial. Except when it comes to defending their interests. Remember that the 'spider memos' now can't be revealed under FOI requests, for one example? (The Guardian have been covering Queen's Consent recently which should shatter any illusions that they aren't involved in politics)

pseudalopex 6y ago

The French Republic is the number 1 tourist destination in the world. The UK is number 10 with less than half as many visitors. The only other monarchies in the top 10 are Spain and Thailand.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings

yardstick 6y ago
So what you are saying is without the monarchy more or less people would visit the UK? London hosts more visitors than Paris[1], although France overall hosts more visitors than the UK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_international_visitors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_internatio...
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  I'm saying the implication the royals are important to tourism should be quantified and supported. The city statistics include business travel. And I don't know what point you're trying to make with them.
  - yardstick 6y ago
    The royals appear to be net contributors to the economy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      > Viewed from that perspective, the additional royal-related revenues start to look somewhat trivial. > Moreover, we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism. > The economic boost from visits and festivities related to royal celebrations should certainly be treated with caution given these can displace economic activity as well as create it. > In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.