Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The monarchy and tourism

Announcements Posted on
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 50 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've heard the Winsor Castle #17 argument alot over the few days but want to ask something because i'm curious.

    Surely having one so famous puts our country on the map, even if they don't actually visit the buildings. And events like the jubilee and the royal wedding bringing more attention to the Uk. Logically the more attention (1-2 billion apparently watched the wedding) the more interest in the Uk and then the more tourism. Simular to how Azerbaijan used Eurovision to promote Baku and their country, but with the Royal family?

    Thoughts? Perhaps i'm completely wrong.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd be interested to know if there's any data about whether the Monarchy funds itself via tourism or not. Because there seemed to be vast amounts of money spent on the Jubilee weekend and the Royal Family in general in a time of recession where many people are hit economically
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes, It makes sense that the income which the monarchy franchise generates through public events and increased tourism is probably greater than their expenditure, however there is little evidence to back this up since despite interest in the British monarchy being a motivating factor which helps tourist decide to come to England, however this might not be the main factor, so it would be very difficult to establish whether interest in monarchy as a significant 'direct' impact in increased tourism, or if it's just one of many other factors.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, people don't visit the UK because of the institution - they come to see palaces and castles, that are permanent cultural fixtures which can exist without an anachronistic monarch occupying them (indeed, without the monarch then there would be more access to them).

    Second, people seem to think that the average person benefits from monarchy-related tourism. On the contrary, the money that goes to preserving the royal family comes from the taxpayer, whereas tourism money goes straight into either the private sector or back into government coffers to be recycled on other things that might not necessarily favour the taxpayer. People are deluded if they think the royal family returns favour to the people who keep them lavished.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    Firstly, people don't visit the UK because of the institution - they come to see palaces and castles, that are permanent cultural fixtures which can exist without an anachronistic monarch occupying them (indeed, without the monarch then there would be more access to them).

    Second, people seem to think that the average person benefits from monarchy-related tourism. On the contrary, the money that goes to preserving the royal family comes from the taxpayer, whereas tourism money goes straight into either the private sector or back into government coffers to be recycled on other things that might not necessarily favour the taxpayer. People are deluded if they think the royal family returns favour to the people who keep them lavished.
    Now that is a bald statement if ever there was one.

    For starters the Changing of the Guard would have little point were there nobody to guard. Similarly those other iconic figures of the London tourist scene, the Yeomen of the Guard.

    Trooping of the Colour would seem a little pointless is it were nobody's official birthday.

    Now for the recent little shindig. No Queen means no Jubilee. These events have been seen all over the world by billions of people. They have not seen them for nothing. Broadcasting rights are sold not given.

    Look at this:

    http://www.unionjack.co.uk/

    Note "World Wide Shipping"

    Regardless, all the proceeds from this tat generates wages and taxes. Last year it was a Royal Wedding. In the years to come we can expect another royal wedding and, heaven forbid but she is 86, a coronation that will undoubtedly be soon followed by the new Prince of Wales' investiture. If not by a ruby anniversary (is there such a thing as a ruby jubilee?)

    Add to that all the books souvenirs that are sold on a continuous basis outside of royal events.

    It all makes one wonder what commercial value could be put on royal brand rights.

    It costs the tax payer ~£8m p.a. of which £231m was delivered to the Treasury by the Crown Estates leaving a £223m profit. Not a bad deal I would have thought.

    'Money comes from the taxpayer to the monarchy and then more goes back into the government coffers for things that might not necessarily favour the taxpayer'?

    You appear to want it both ways. Good taxpayer money is stolen out of the mouths of starving babies by 'rich parasites', but when returned to the taxpayer in greater quantities indirectly or otherwise, it is now bad money and can't be used to feed starving babies :rolleyes:

    Anti monarchists are deluded if they believe that the 'average person' does not benefit from exports and all of the rest that increase the country's GDP figures, instead they would take all that away out of spite and replace it with what?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure the French would disagree. They're doing all right with the Louvre and Versailles without the need for a King or Queen.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Pretty sure the French would disagree. They're doing all right with the Louvre and Versailles without the need for a King or Queen.
    The French? Who cares if the French, or the people of any other country think negatively of the fact that we in England have a King or Queen.

    They wouldn't have had those nice buildings with fine art or fine palaces for tourists to visit if they didn't have a King or Queen at some point, and sure, if their monarchy back then had treated the people a bit better, they may even still have one.

    Plenty of countries these days are happy with the monarchy they have, and like England, they're fully functioning democracies. And that's the choice of their people, not the French, or any other country.

    Thousands of tourists travel to Britain each year just to watch the royalty parading.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MonkeySee)
    the monarchy gets 40million a year in taxpayers money
    but 200million comes back from the royal estate
    so thats 160mil up, the queen is defo a worthwhile investment!

    There are lots of other costs, protecting the entire family, supplements to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall which then go to their personal income, servicing in the interest on the debt king George 3 ran up, the estimated total cost is just over £200m per year that £40m is just her personal allowance, but the real annoyance is that the royal estate is not owned by any of the royals so that £200m would be recieved anyway. Saying that the monarchy only costs the country £40m per year is the equivalent of a child who recieves £5 per week pocket money, claiming that he only costs his parents £5 per week to bring up.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I saw the most stupid thing the other day, a Republican protester holding up a sign saying "Sell the crown jewels! Recession = Over". No, sell the crown jewels and you might just have enough to pay the wages that this "democratically elected head of state" will demand.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    I saw the most stupid thing the other day, a Republican protester holding up a sign saying "Sell the crown jewels! Recession = Over". No, sell the crown jewels and you might just have enough to pay the wages that this "democratically elected head of state" will demand.
    Funny you should say that...

    Arthur Scargill's Real Socialists would have got rid of her, he said he would find her a job in M&S - now whatever happened to him?

    There's the dilemma, if you're person who thinks the monarchy are a disease, you have to vote for a retarded lefty cure that's far worse than any disease.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Now that is bald statement if ever there was one.
    A bald statement?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    A bald statement?
    http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ictionary/bald

    #3

    You learn something new every day.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ictionary/bald

    #3

    You learn something new every day.
    Well I never....
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    Firstly, people don't visit the UK because of the institution - they come to see palaces and castles, that are permanent cultural fixtures which can exist without an anachronistic monarch occupying them (indeed, without the monarch then there would be more access to them).

    Second, people seem to think that the average person benefits from monarchy-related tourism. On the contrary, the money that goes to preserving the royal family comes from the taxpayer, whereas tourism money goes straight into either the private sector or back into government coffers to be recycled on other things that might not necessarily favour the taxpayer. People are deluded if they think the royal family returns favour to the people who keep them lavished.
    You're deluded if you think there is currently an alternative available that would be feasible, acceptable to the majority and financially beneficial.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Windsor Castle is so low on the list because it's in Windsor. It's not a major tourist centre at all, plus it's not exactly a family friendly attraction, I'm pretty sure many small children would find it quite boring compared to Legoland. I'm a monarchist and I've been to Windsor Castle, it's boring as hell. A lot of the tourist money is indirect, people staying in hotels, spending money in shops, bars and restaurants and using public transport - money the local economy would otherwise be deprived of.

    The republicans dismissed a lot of the Jubilee celebrations/parades etc as being 'British' traits as opposed to having anything to do with the monarchy; almost as if they think that in a republic there'd just be spontaneous parades and national celebrations for the sake of it. The last one was the Royal Wedding, prior to that it was the Golden Jubilee, get the picture here? We're not going to win the World Cup again any time soon. This is why most republicans are miserable bastards, they don't celebrate anything.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is something I posted on another thread, thought it was relevant.

    Regardless of what you think about the monarchy, there is one argument in favour of the monarchy which in spite of the fact that it is one of the most frequently stated, is a genuinely terrible argument; the tourism argument. People always go on about how much damned tourism the monarchy brings to us and seem to think that this justifies keeping our royal family. I have several problems with this:

    1) How on earth are these figures calculated? I've read various figures such as the royal family bringing in 57p per person to the UK, but who calculates this and what is it based on? If it's based on the amount of tourists going to Windsor or London, then this is absurd because these tourists may visit us anyway. If it is based on the number of tourists who go to see royal attractions then this to is absurd for a reason I will get to later. The point is, most of these figures are absolute nonsense and so cannot be trusted.

    2) Let's assume that the figures are sound and accurate; this argument still assumes that these tourists wouldn't come to the UK if the royal family weren't to exist. But is this really the case? Do we genuinely believe that people wouldn't come to visit us if we didn't have a royal family? Plenty of people visit the Palace of Versailles and France hasn't had a royal family since the 19th century! In any case, surely if the family were gotten rid of, could we not have our government sell off the estates to private entrepreneurs (investing money in the public sector) who could use them as tourist attractions anyway?

    3) Importantly though, is it really the case that we think that we ought to based our system of government on how much money our institutions give us? Following this line of thinking, surely it would make sense to run the entire judicial system as a tourism industry where foreign tourists can observe police interviews, watch terrorist interrogations and pay money to sit on a 'genuine British jury'? After all, English common law is one of the most widely used systems of law in the world - why not make a profit out of it? Of course - this would be ridiculous, we shouldn't be trying to flog our judicial system to tourists, and neither should be arguing that we should keep our monarchy simply because it makes us a bit of money. Systems of government should be based on a set of principles that are based on the most efficient and legitimate way of governing - not on how much money we can make.

    Personally I'm rather indifferent to the monarchy; I have no problem with it being in place if most people support it, but if it were to be replaced I would shed no tears. However, this argument is infuriatingly poor and I should like to see it dismissed altogether.
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They need a monarchy for the common wealth. End of topic imo.
    Sorry to burst your bubble.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richiemayne)
    This is something I posted on another thread, thought it was relevant.

    Regardless of what you think about the monarchy, there is one argument in favour of the monarchy which in spite of the fact that it is one of the most frequently stated, is a genuinely terrible argument; the tourism argument. People always go on about how much damned tourism the monarchy brings to us and seem to think that this justifies keeping our royal family. I have several problems with this:
    Why is it a terrible argument? Tourism is one of the main benefits that the monarchy brings.

    (Original post by richiemayne)
    1) How on earth are these figures calculated? I've read various figures such as the royal family bringing in 57p per person to the UK, but who calculates this and what is it based on? If it's based on the amount of tourists going to Windsor or London, then this is absurd because these tourists may visit us anyway. If it is based on the number of tourists who go to see royal attractions then this to is absurd for a reason I will get to later. The point is, most of these figures are absolute nonsense and so cannot be trusted.
    So if the figures are nonsense and cannot be trusted so much that you are dismissing them out of hand, perhaps provide us with your own figures?

    How about this one. "The ONS said that over the month of April (Royal Wedding) there were 350,000 extra visitors to the UK compared to the previous year."

    (Original post by richiemayne)
    2) Let's assume that the figures are sound and accurate; this argument still assumes that these tourists wouldn't come to the UK if the royal family weren't to exist. But is this really the case? Do we genuinely believe that people wouldn't come to visit us if we didn't have a royal family? Plenty of people visit the Palace of Versailles and France hasn't had a royal family since the 19th century! In any case, surely if the family were gotten rid of, could we not have our government sell off the estates to private entrepreneurs (investing money in the public sector) who could use them as tourist attractions anyway?
    As already stated, people come to see the royalty and their entourages. The Changing of the Guard would have little point were there nobody to guard. Similarly those other iconic figures of the London tourist scene, the Yeomen of the Guard.

    Trooping of the Colour would seem a little pointless if it were nobody's official birthday.

    Now for the recent little shindig. No Queen means no Jubilee. These events have been seen all over the world by billions of people. They have not seen them for nothing. Broadcasting rights are sold not given.

    In any case, the anti-monarchists in this country, such as yourself are a minority. The majority are pretty happy with the monarchy, as evidenced by recent opinion polls, and every opinion poll since they started taking opinion polls, not to forget the millions supporting this year's Royal Wedding and Jubilee celebrations.

    You'll forget that when France did away with their monarchy, albeit rather more brutally, they had the majority support of the oppressed people.

    And yet the minority of you would like to get rid of something that the majority enjoy and support. How very democratic of you. Completely not hypocritical at all.

    (Original post by richiemayne)
    3) Importantly though, is it really the case that we think that we ought to based our system of government on how much money our institutions give us? Following this line of thinking, surely it would make sense to run the entire judicial system as a tourism industry where foreign tourists can observe police interviews, watch terrorist interrogations and pay money to sit on a 'genuine British jury'? After all, English common law is one of the most widely used systems of law in the world - why not make a profit out of it? Of course - this would be ridiculous, we shouldn't be trying to flog our judicial system to tourists, and neither should be arguing that we should keep our monarchy simply because it makes us a bit of money. Systems of government should be based on a set of principles that are based on the most efficient and legitimate way of governing - not on how much money we can make.
    Well, if you lot that feel the same can get together, you can make a political party called the republican party - what, they already exist? Wonder why it's a minority party?

    Then if and when this party enjoys the support of the majority in this country, you can vote DEMOCRATICALLY and LEGITIMATELY to do away with the monarchy. However, I suspect hell will freeze over first and you lot will continue to do nothing but whinge pathetically about elitism.


    (Original post by richiemayne)
    Personally I'm rather indifferent to the monarchy; I have no problem with it being in place if most people support it, but if it were to be replaced I would shed no tears. However, this argument is infuriatingly poor and I should like to see it dismissed altogether.
    Most people do support it, so what's the problem?

    If you have no problem with and are indifferent to the monarchy, then why would you say something like 'surely if the family were gotten rid of'? The 'infuriatingly poor' argument is the one spouted by the few who would like to have their own way over the wishes of many. Is it just a coincidence that pretty much everything you have posted is an extremely biased excuse to do away with the monarchy with absolutely no positives at all?

    What an odd thing to write for someone who claims to be 'indifferent'.:rolleyes:
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Pretty sure the French would disagree. They're doing all right with the Louvre and Versailles without the need for a King or Queen.
    France is a mediterranean country featuring a warm climate and sunshine, a world renowned cuisine etc.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)

    If you have no problem with and are indifferent to the monarchy, then why would you say something like 'surely if the family were gotten rid of'?

    Doesn't sound indifferent to me.
    You don't have to be a Republican to dislike a particular argument in favour of the monarchy. The greatest argument in favour of the monarchy, that it brings the nation together under a non-partisan national figure and gives us a sense of 'togetherness' is a particularly strong one, as is your argument that if they are supported by a vast majority of the people then there is no reason to remove them.

    I simply take considerable issue with the argument that we should keep the Royal family because they are a tourist attraction. Government should be organised by legitimacy and efficiency. At the moment our system is both of those things, but should people feel that they no longer want the Royal family I would not object because they would lack legitimacy.

    Edit: My point about 'if they were gotten rid of' was that if the tourism argument is so strong, then surely, if we could make more money by abolishing them, we ought to do that. It is the same logic after all. Of course, this would be a poor argument because the monarchy has other benefits beyond tourism and it would be foolish to do away with these benefits for the sake of a bit more wealth.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 8, 2012
New on TSR

'Stalking pages' have changed!

Find other uni applicants with University Connect

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.