3 ms·

I am skeptical. - Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. - Gossip magazines are not the most desirable i

I am skeptical. - Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. - Gossip magazines are not the most desirable industry who need to be boosted by the government. But in any case, they are very adaptable and can just as well write about other celebrities. I doubt their business would shrink just because they write more about George Clooney and less about Prince William. - You're first point is puzzling. Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway?

epolanski 3y ago
> Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. The correlation between "Castles being empty museums, or castles being also museums where real nobles live" is not easy to prove, just a sentiment from people that were asked the question. > Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway? Nobles in UK are like any other private citizens with their own belongings, land, estate, etc. Changing the legal status of this, in particular of The Crown Estate is complex as de jure it belongs to the monarch by various rights till William the Conqueror. It should be noted that no tax payer money goes towards the Royal family, the Royal family gets 15% of the net income of the Crown Estate, a 15B private corporation that manages the belongings of the crown and ranges from rural houses, farming land, tourist attractions, equity in companies, etc. The remaining 85% of the income is spent by the British Parliament for the British citizens. The Crown Estate alone is more than a good reason to not get rid of the monarch to avoid the obvious privatization that would benefit the British citizens very little. Monarchy-related tourism on it's own is valued half a billion pounds. The monarchy moves people for events, celebrations, etc all around UK and the globe. I am not saying that Britain would be destroyed financially by losing the monarchy, but I would advocate that the current status quo works good for the monarchy and its citizens.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
  The Crown Estate is not private property of the King in the sense that Bill Gates owns his property. It would probably be a legal nightmare to untangle this, but it's hard for me to see how it would be bad for the british citizens if 100% of the profits instead of 85% of the profits would go to them.
jfengel 3y ago
Versailles is jaw-dropping. It's a marvel of architecture, independent of royalty. Further, it's not just connected with royalty, but with some of the most romanticized images of royalty. Those are linked: Versailles was a symbol of excess because it is excessive. Nothing in the UK compares. People would still go see Buckingham Palace, I'm sure, but it's nowhere near as grand and nowhere near as historically interesting. It's impossible to say what the profit/loss would be, but that's not really why I bring it up. My point is that Versailles isn't really a great comparison, because it is a modern Wonder of the World.

epolanski 3y ago

> Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. The correlation between "Castles being empty museums, or castles being also museums where real nobles live" is not easy to prove, just a sentiment from people that were asked the question. > Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway? Nobles in UK are like any other private citizens with their own belongings, land, estate, etc. Changing the legal status of this, in particular of The Crown Estate is complex as de jure it belongs to the monarch by various rights till William the Conqueror. It should be noted that no tax payer money goes towards the Royal family, the Royal family gets 15% of the net income of the Crown Estate, a 15B private corporation that manages the belongings of the crown and ranges from rural houses, farming land, tourist attractions, equity in companies, etc. The remaining 85% of the income is spent by the British Parliament for the British citizens. The Crown Estate alone is more than a good reason to not get rid of the monarch to avoid the obvious privatization that would benefit the British citizens very little. Monarchy-related tourism on it's own is valued half a billion pounds. The monarchy moves people for events, celebrations, etc all around UK and the globe. I am not saying that Britain would be destroyed financially by losing the monarchy, but I would advocate that the current status quo works good for the monarchy and its citizens.

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
The Crown Estate is not private property of the King in the sense that Bill Gates owns his property. It would probably be a legal nightmare to untangle this, but it's hard for me to see how it would be bad for the british citizens if 100% of the profits instead of 85% of the profits would go to them.

jfengel 3y ago

Versailles is jaw-dropping. It's a marvel of architecture, independent of royalty. Further, it's not just connected with royalty, but with some of the most romanticized images of royalty. Those are linked: Versailles was a symbol of excess because it is excessive. Nothing in the UK compares. People would still go see Buckingham Palace, I'm sure, but it's nowhere near as grand and nowhere near as historically interesting. It's impossible to say what the profit/loss would be, but that's not really why I bring it up. My point is that Versailles isn't really a great comparison, because it is a modern Wonder of the World.