5 ms·

Honestly, seems fairly low considering how much tourist economic value the royalty generates for Britain, which is something like £23 billion pounds a year in (

Honestly, seems fairly low considering how much tourist economic value the royalty generates for Britain, which is something like £23 billion pounds a year in (total) spending alone. If the monarchy and associated “living history” traditions ceased to exist, I’d imagine that the UK would get a significantly less amount of tourism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_Kingdo...

lozenge 4y ago
I don't. Versaille gets plenty of visitors even though the French monarchy is no longer legal. Nobody steps off a plane expecting to see the Royal Family.
- sandspar 4y ago
  France hasn't spent the last 60 years building their tourist and media complex around living royals. Sure, France does fine with museums alone. Would England? Maybe. Maybe not.
superhuzza 4y ago
The article you posted claims the ENTIRE tourist spend per year in the UK is around £23 billion GBP: "Official statistics for the final quarter of 2019 have yet to been published, although in 2018 a total of 37.9 million people visited the UK from overseas and cumulatively spent £22.8 billion" What percentage of that spending are the royal family actually responsible for? It's hard to disambiguate, but it's surely only a portion of it. How much less spending would there be if there was no more royal family? Again, hard to estimate. But several European countries have more tourism without royal families. So possibly less than one would expect.
- keiferski 4y ago
  I think the royalty is much more tied to the identity of the UK, especially when perceived from abroad and in popular culture. The global response to Lady Diana’s death, Downton Abbey, James Bond, just as a few examples. Most of the other European countries do not have a royal-associated brand.
  - zrobotics 4y ago
    I may be misremembering, but the only thing in the bond franchise I can think of that is at all related to the royals is the title of one of the films (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). I guess he's a government employee, but other than that I can't think of anything else in the films that is connected to the royal family.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >What percentage of that spending are the royal family actually responsible for? It's hard to disambiguate, but it's surely only a portion of it. I doubt the royals drive that much tourism. Tourists still flock to Paris and Istanbul despite no royals living there and also to Amsterdam where the royals don't have a powerful brand image. My point is you don't need living or active royals for tourism.
  - bruceb 4y ago
    France has south of France, vineyards, and a ton of art and fashion. Turkey has sunny locations. England is rainy. Music, literature and the royals are its reason for visiting
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      The royals aren't something you can actually see, unless you're incredibly lucky. They just sit in their glorious homes away from prying eyes of tourists. I never visited England for the royals. I went to see London, York, Cambridge. Couldn't care less if any royals are currently there or not because I can't see them anyway.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      Buckingham Palace, 550k visitors. Palace of Versailles, 10m visitors.
      - meany 4y ago
        That’s not a good comparison. I’ve been to both. buckingham palace is a working palace with very limited access. Versailles is an open museum. On my last visit to Buckingham palace, I got timed tickets and went on a limited tour with about 20 people. As we walked out the front, there were thousands standing outside looking at it.
        lozenge 4y ago
        That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.
gsatic 4y ago
Tourism is just a story. Upper/cermonial classes exlst all over the world. Conspicious consumption and conspicuous leisure serve a purpose - you want to be like me then do what I say. Its a method of control.

lozenge 4y ago

I don't. Versaille gets plenty of visitors even though the French monarchy is no longer legal. Nobody steps off a plane expecting to see the Royal Family.

sandspar 4y ago
France hasn't spent the last 60 years building their tourist and media complex around living royals. Sure, France does fine with museums alone. Would England? Maybe. Maybe not.

superhuzza 4y ago

The article you posted claims the ENTIRE tourist spend per year in the UK is around £23 billion GBP: "Official statistics for the final quarter of 2019 have yet to been published, although in 2018 a total of 37.9 million people visited the UK from overseas and cumulatively spent £22.8 billion" What percentage of that spending are the royal family actually responsible for? It's hard to disambiguate, but it's surely only a portion of it. How much less spending would there be if there was no more royal family? Again, hard to estimate. But several European countries have more tourism without royal families. So possibly less than one would expect.

keiferski 4y ago
I think the royalty is much more tied to the identity of the UK, especially when perceived from abroad and in popular culture. The global response to Lady Diana’s death, Downton Abbey, James Bond, just as a few examples. Most of the other European countries do not have a royal-associated brand.
- zrobotics 4y ago
  I may be misremembering, but the only thing in the bond franchise I can think of that is at all related to the royals is the title of one of the films (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). I guess he's a government employee, but other than that I can't think of anything else in the films that is connected to the royal family.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>What percentage of that spending are the royal family actually responsible for? It's hard to disambiguate, but it's surely only a portion of it. I doubt the royals drive that much tourism. Tourists still flock to Paris and Istanbul despite no royals living there and also to Amsterdam where the royals don't have a powerful brand image. My point is you don't need living or active royals for tourism.
- bruceb 4y ago
  France has south of France, vineyards, and a ton of art and fashion. Turkey has sunny locations. England is rainy. Music, literature and the royals are its reason for visiting
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    The royals aren't something you can actually see, unless you're incredibly lucky. They just sit in their glorious homes away from prying eyes of tourists. I never visited England for the royals. I went to see London, York, Cambridge. Couldn't care less if any royals are currently there or not because I can't see them anyway.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Buckingham Palace, 550k visitors. Palace of Versailles, 10m visitors.
    - meany 4y ago
      That’s not a good comparison. I’ve been to both. buckingham palace is a working palace with very limited access. Versailles is an open museum. On my last visit to Buckingham palace, I got timed tickets and went on a limited tour with about 20 people. As we walked out the front, there were thousands standing outside looking at it.
      - lozenge 4y ago
        That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.

gsatic 4y ago

Tourism is just a story. Upper/cermonial classes exlst all over the world. Conspicious consumption and conspicuous leisure serve a purpose - you want to be like me then do what I say. Its a method of control.