'monarchy brings in tourists'

Scroll to see replies

Some stats:

- The Monarchy costs the Taxpayer £40 million annually officially, but add security and all the other indirect aspects it's most likely around £90 milllion.

However,

- The Crown Estate pays back the Treasury £211 million every year

Add this to the indirect and direct revenue the Monarchy generates from tourism, it is quite clear the Monarchy gains profit for this country.

This isn't a bad view either - http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family/

This is correct but there are further costs in addition to the £40m and £90m figure summing to roughly £200m, however, the the crown estate is not actually the property of Elizabeth Windsor and if she were to stop being queen it would carry on making money for this country, in the same way what is currently called Her Majesty's parliment would still exist just under a different name, she would not be able to lock herself in the chamber and refuse to allow the government debate.

Original post by Drapetomanic

Not exactly.

LOL getting rid of the queen would if anything be better for tourism because Buckingham palace could be permanently opened to the public and tourists, that was horribly informative, the taxpayer is still paying interest on debt previous monarchs racked up :facepalm:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 81

gladders

Original post by Drapetomanic

Not exactly.

My computer is on silent, so I can't any sound, but what the blazes is 'costs from inflexibility'?

I don't make the argument that Crown Lands revenue means the monarchy brings in more money than it takes, but I'm still curious.

Reply 82

Alpharius

Other countries had monarchies, and survived the transition into democratic republic. If we rely on royals for our tourism (we don't), we have problems.

Reply 83

gladders

Original post by Alpharius

Other countries had monarchies, and survived the transition into democratic republic. If we rely on royals for our tourism (we don't), we have problems.

It's less this that's the problem and more what the benefit of removing the monarchy would be. For many it's a potent positive symbol of Britishness, and removing it would be harmful to them - indeed, given the monarchy's popularity, undemocratic; in terms of the way the country is run, assuming the constitution would still be the same but with a president, there would be very little change on paper - although I myself believe an elected head of state would invite political in-fighting and instability at the top.

Reply 84

rmpr97

Original post by -chiquitita

And this seems to be more of an argument about inheritance rather than the monarchy. There are plenty of people other than the royals who inherit things for absolutely nothing. I will inherit my parents house and garden when they die, for example. :rolleyes:

Yes but this should be state land/money

Reply 85

navarre

The tourism the Royal Family generates is just one of many, many reasons why I will always support a monarchy in Britain.

Reply 86

Schott

The Versailles Palace still remains a top, top tourist spot regardless of the fact a monarchy isn't there.

There is also the argument that if the monarchy/head of state was elected, it would still bring in tourism, so tourism in itself isn't an argument for keeping the head of state unelected.

People argue: "Oh, but if it was elected, we'd just have another horrible politician like a President!" All this is implying, is that if the Queen were to stand for election, the country wouldn't want her - in which case the idea of having elections would be validated anyway. If they keep the Queen upon a semi-regular public vote, fine. She'll still bring in tourism. If people vote her out, then that shows she shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Therefore having an elected head of state does not mean tourism necessarily declines.

Reply 87

When you see it...

Original post by TheHansa

Apparently the queen attracts so much tourism that the tens of millions it costs to protect her and her family is nothing as the cash is made up by this, could someone provide a link or source to the data which shows that the queeny alone brings in enough tourists to make up for how much she costs, ta.

The only real backed up piece of information I can find is this extract:

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

Even if the monarchy did bring in tourists, that is no excuse for them getting ****loads of money and power by accident of birth.

Reply 88

When you see it...

We could have a violent revolution to overthrow the monarchy, then the sites where the revolution took place will replace the royal places as top tourist attractions due to historical interest.
Yes I am joking, don't know why I posted that...

Reply 89

TheHansa

Original post by navarre

The tourism the Royal Family generates is just one of many, many reasons why I will always support a monarchy in Britain.

I was asking for proof of the tourism claim, proof nobody has been able to deliver and the only information which has been posted on this thread has suggested that they do not bring in much tourism.

Reply 90

Converse Rocker

Original post by When you see it...

Even if the monarchy did bring in tourists, that is no excuse for them getting ****loads of money and power by accident of birth.

What real power do the monarchy have? This isn't the days of old when the Monarch could literally do whatever they want, lopping off heads left, right and centre :tongue:

I'd question whether the monarchy really have much power at all, apart from perhaps influence as a result of their status. Other than that, what can they actually do?

Reply 91

When you see it...

Original post by Converse Rocker

What real power do the monarchy have? This isn't the days of old when the Monarch could literally do whatever they want, lopping off heads left, right and centre :tongue:

I'd question whether the monarchy really have much power at all, apart from perhaps influence as a result of their status. Other than that, what can they actually do?

The queen is the head of state. Why can't we elect our head of state? Why do we need a head of state at all? I just hate being represented by her, especially given that she is not elected.
The main thing that annoys me about the royal family is that the fact that they are still around implies that people believe them to be superior to everyone else because their ancestors invaded England/Scotland/whatever.

Reply 92

jkneen95

The Royal family are a symboln that the entire country can rally behind. If we didn't have the Monarch as a head of state, we'd have a presidential system, which would just suck. We have an elected leader representing us on the world stage, and who is more popular, David Cameron or Queen Elisabeth II? If we had an elected Head of state, then theyw ouldn't be a person that people can unite behind, because there would always be other people wishing that another candidate had been elected, and would resent the Head of State. The Monarchy is a great source of tourism, great in encouraging economic and diplomatic ties, and honoring the great, both in this country and others.

Reply 93

Scumbaggio

Original post by ras90

The Spanish flag is a glitch where TSR wont let me change the flag. Pls my flags make no difference.

Yes spongeing, they live in luxury while everyone pays for it.

I'm certain the royal family aren't the only group to fall into this category.

Reply 94

Converse Rocker

Original post by When you see it...

The queen is the head of state. Why can't we elect our head of state? Why do we need a head of state at all? I just hate being represented by her, especially given that she is not elected.

That's a fair point that you don't like the fact the monarch is unelected, but when you actually look at their power, they have very little, arguably it's virtually none.

I don't think too much power is a reason to dislike the monarchy, because they don't even have much, but I can see the other reasons that people want them gone.

Reply 95

User257034

Original post by gladders

The PM can't do everything; least of all can the PM act as a general symbol for the country and its history. Moreover, if it was so simple, why hasn't any other country followed your model? Clearly, they need a head of state.

It's not her physical presence that counts - it's the monarchy's association with a living, breathing monarchy.

China.

Reply 96

User257034

Original post by Scumbaggio

I'm certain the royal family aren't the only group to fall into this category.

Exactly, the same peope who moan about people on job seekers with 5 kids all recieving benefit are the ones defending the queen!

At least im consistent, i have said many times I want the welfare state removed.

Reply 97

JoeLatics

[QUOTE="gladders;37630204"]The PM can't do everything; least of all can the PM act as a general symbol for the country and its history. Moreover, if it was so simple, why hasn't any other country followed your model? Clearly, they need a head of state.

Obama manages to unite Americans. Even GWB managed it (with 90% approval ratings) post 9/11. You can disagree with a person's politics but still rally behind them when they're wearing their Head of State hat.

Original post by gladders

It's not her physical presence that counts - it's the monarchy's association with a living, breathing monarchy.

That would explain why nobody has ever visited Versailles, of course. Nonsense. Look at the success of the Tower of London; hugely popular but we haven't been keeping prisoners in there for quite some time! :wink:

Reply 98

gladders

Original post by ras90

China.

You're offering China as an alternative model for Britain to adopt? :eek:

what about a democratic country?

Reply 99

gladders

Original post by JoeLatics

Obama manages to unite Americans. Even GWB managed it (with 90% approval ratings) post 9/11. You can disagree with a person's politics but still rally behind them when they're wearing their Head of State hat.

Obama in no way unites Americans. I like him myself and would vote for him if I were American, but I know enough of American politics to know how intensely despised he is by the half of the country which are Republican. Moreover he is just one president - I'm considering the entire office over time.

Moreover the danger is in America that such high popularity, when it appears, will be combined with the large powers of the office for abuse - particularly in clashes with Congress. At least here the Prime Minister can be rapidly replaced if need be.