6 ms·

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 ye

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
    Buckingham Palace, 550k visitors. Palace of Versailles, 10m visitors.
    - meany 3y 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 3y ago
        That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.
        blitzar 3y ago
        France with their roughly equal population & GDP as the UK also gets about 5x the number of tourists per year, so that helps boost their numbers a fair bit.

keiferski 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
  Buckingham Palace, 550k visitors. Palace of Versailles, 10m visitors.
  - meany 3y 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 3y ago
      That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.
      - blitzar 3y ago
        France with their roughly equal population & GDP as the UK also gets about 5x the number of tourists per year, so that helps boost their numbers a fair bit.