4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoThe 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.