Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People always point to France tourism statistics as an argument for why the royals do not bring in tourist dollars. France is very centrally located and has a long front with the Mediterranean. A more apt comparison is with Germany, a much larger country without a beach. The fact that United Kingdom keeps pace with Germany (both hover around 30 million arrivals) is itself remarkable given the fact that Germany shares a land border with 8 countries.
Nobody is stupid enough to say that tourism to the UK would cease without the royal family. The castles would still be visited, just as Versailles is visited. They have their historic content.
But I absolutely believe that tourism would suffer. The royals give a sense of personality to an media driven world. When the Chinese began touring Europe by the millions, I guarantee you that they are much more apt to go to the UK instead of Germany because of the royal family.
An average international tourist spends over $1000 in their visit to the UK. A drop of only 3% represents a billion dollars.
I like your first two paragraphs, up until the point "but I believe"; that's when you lost credibility and I stopped reading..
From a strictly practical perspective the concept of the monarchy is outdated and archaic. If one were starting a government structure from scratch it wouldn't include a hereditary monarchy. In a sense it's bizarre that a modern country still has a hereditary monarchy, placing one family in a position of incredible privilege. Britain certainly doesn't need a monarchy to survive and prosper. So I can see where the republicans are coming from.
On the other hand, the reason the monarchy has survived isn't just because of inertia but because it's become so deeply ingrained into the cultural psyche of the UK and is very intertwined with British history and institutional traditions. That's why I say you either get the monarchy or you don't. That the large majority of the British public aren't opposed to the monarchy indicates that they "get" the monarchy (three quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy and support for republicanism has rarely if ever budged beyond 20% according to this pretty insightful BBC report: BBC News - Why does the UK love the monarchy?).
Supporters of the monarchy understand and accept its role as an institutional symbolism representing a long and old cultural heritage. As such nitpicking over the monetary value of the monarchy is pointless - just as nitpicking over the monetary value of Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral is pointless. Saying the monarchy's budget from the state is too large and should be cut is one thing, but saying off with the monarchy because they cost money period, you might as well say let's demolish Westminster Abbey because it cost money to maintain.
The royals could be totally self funding but if you don't "get" the monarchy it still doesn't matter. It's not a right or wrong issue but one of whether you value the monarchy as a cultural symbolism or not, and such questions of monetary value is relatively pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Well by the same token the same can be said of a Republic, either you get a republic or you don't.
From a strictly practical perspective the concept of the monarchy is outdated and archaic. If one were starting a government structure from scratch it wouldn't include a hereditary monarchy. In a sense it's bizarre that a modern country still has a hereditary monarchy, placing one family in a position of incredible privilege. Britain certainly doesn't need a monarchy to survive and prosper. So I can see where the republicans are coming from.
On the other hand, the reason the monarchy has survived isn't just because of inertia but because it's become so deeply ingrained into the cultural psyche of the UK and is very intertwined with British history and institutional traditions. That's why I say you either get the monarchy or you don't. That the large majority of the British public aren't opposed to the monarchy indicates that they "get" the monarchy (three quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy and support for republicanism has rarely if ever budged beyond 20% according to this pretty insightful BBC report: BBC News - Why does the UK love the monarchy?).
Supporters of the monarchy understand and accept its role as an institutional symbolism representing a long and old cultural heritage. As such nitpicking over the monetary value of the monarchy is pointless - just as nitpicking over the monetary value of Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral is pointless. Saying the monarchy's budget from the state is too large and should be cut is one thing, but saying off with the monarchy because they cost money period, you might as well say let's demolish Westminster Abbey because it cost money to maintain.
The royals could be totally self funding but if you don't "get" the monarchy it still doesn't matter. It's not a right or wrong issue but one of whether you value the monarchy as a cultural symbolism or not, and such questions of monetary value is relatively pointless.
I like your first two paragraphs, up until the point "but I believe"; that's when you lost credibility and I stopped reading..
Ultimately none of these concepts is provable. But if you look at promotional literature for travel to Britain, and the fact that it concentrates so much on royalty, I believe that tourism would take at least a 3% hit if the royals were gone. That's a billion dollar hit.
You have to concede that anything that gets billions of people to read articles and watch TV shows is a draw. Germany does not have a similar focal point. There are as many people of German ancestry as British ancestry in the USA. Yet Americans go to Britain far more than Germany. Partly that is language related, but many Germans speak English.
Americans grow up with Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Henry VIII. The past monarchy is how everyone understands British history. The fact that it still continues is a huge draw.
Ultimately none of these concepts is provable. But if you look at promotional literature for travel to Britain, and the fact that it concentrates so much on royalty, I believe that tourism would take at least a 3% hit if the royals were gone. That's a billion dollar hit.
You have to concede that anything that gets billions of people to read articles and watch TV shows is a draw. Germany does not have a similar focal point. There are as many people of German ancestry as British ancestry in the USA. Yet Americans go to Britain far more than Germany. Partly that is language related, but many Germans speak English.
Americans grow up with Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Henry VIII. The past monarchy is how everyone understands British history. The fact that it still continues is a huge draw.
British history will always be what it is regardless of a continuation of monarchy or not. Like I already stated, the biggest tourist draws in the UK have nothing to do with the queen or prince William! Claiming that royalty is a draw when Legoland gets more visitors is a stretch at best no? Don't make the mistake of linking what is great about the UK and the monarch. I have several friends here who have visited the UK in the past year; they all show moderate interest in the royals but it it wasn't even a fraction of a percent of why they visited the country.
From a strictly practical perspective the concept of the monarchy is outdated and archaic. If one were starting a government structure from scratch it wouldn't include a hereditary monarchy. In a sense it's bizarre that a modern country still has a hereditary monarchy, placing one family in a position of incredible privilege. Britain certainly doesn't need a monarchy to survive and prosper. So I can see where the republicans are coming from.
Then on an isolated level we agree in principal. However with application to the UK we disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt
On the other hand, the reason the monarchy has survived isn't just because of inertia but because it's become so deeply ingrained into the cultural psyche of the UK and is very intertwined with British history and institutional traditions.
You don't get much more traditional than being inspected by the Queen at the Sovereigns Parade during passing-out at Sandhurst. Have you experienced that? I have. However I can decouple what is rational and what is not, and know that many traditions are not positive, and just because something is tradition does not mean it should continue. Female circumcision is traditional in some places too, should we allow this tradition to continue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt
That's why I say you either get the monarchy or you don't. That the large majority of the British public aren't opposed to the monarchy indicates that they "get" the monarchy (three quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy and support for republicanism has rarely if ever budged beyond 20% according to this pretty insightful BBC report: BBC News - Why does the UK love the monarchy?).
So as I've had as much and more exposure to royal tradition in the UK as you have, and "don't get it", then we're back to who is right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt
Supporters of the monarchy understand and accept its role as an institutional symbolism representing a long and old cultural heritage. As such nitpicking over the monetary value of the monarchy is pointless - just as nitpicking over the monetary value of Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral is pointless. Saying the monarchy's budget from the state is too large and should be cut is one thing, but saying off with the monarchy because they cost money period, you might as well say let's demolish Westminster Abbey because it cost money to maintain.
Well then perhaps the supporters should stop bringing up the aspect of the Royals being net producers of wealth in the UK. I totally agree that net positive income isn't everything, most republicans understand that we will never know how much total money is given to the monarch, thus making the argument of being net producers pointless since we don't know costs we can't know whether they are or are not net producers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt
The royals could be totally self funding but if you don't "get" the monarchy it still doesn't matter. It's not a right or wrong issue but one of whether you value the monarchy as a cultural symbolism or not, and such questions of monetary value is relatively pointless.
How could they be? If they could why aren't they? We've been told that the Queen is doing the job she does out of duty (I remember her saying that a few times in Christmas Addresses), well then she shouldn't need pay for it should she? Angelina Jolie isn't paid to be a Special Envoy for UNHCR, does she take her duties more seriously?
Much of the assets of the crown aren't held by the Royals, the Crown Estate for instance is owned by the public, so it's only their personal wealth, while comfortable it's not going to be the same as getting who knows how much annually from the tax-payer. So while from a purely financial perspective the Royals could be independent, would they be prepared to alter their lifestyle to live within their new means? If the Estimated Royal Assets are 100M GBP (which the Keeper of the Privy Purse mentioned was grossly inflated) then a 36M GBP grant, and 13M GBP from the Duchy of Lancaster is pretty significant. Now if she was replaced as head of state the Duchy is hers and valued at 350M GBP, but it only generates 13M in financial gains per year. That's a pretty steep pay cut from 50M (grant and income from the Duchy) to 13M (just the Duchy).
Much of the assets of the crown aren't held by the Royals, the Crown Estate for instance is owned by the public, so it's only their personal wealth, while comfortable it's not going to be the same as getting who knows how much annually from the tax-payer.
It is my understanding that the proceeds to the crown estate were given directly to parliament in exchange for an annual income in 1760 when George III came to power. That agreement has been renewed with each new monarch since then. It is unlikely that a monarch will refuse to renew the agreement, but a deposed monarch may be a different story.
While many politicians feel that the crown estate has effectively been nationalized, it is basically still an agreement. If it were to go to court, there is a possibility that it could be ruled either way.
It is also possible that a theoretical deposed monarch may sue for a portion of the Crown Estate. Windsor Castle is an obvious candidate for a property that a deposed monarch may insist is personal property.
British history will always be what it is regardless of a continuation of monarchy or not. Like I already stated, the biggest tourist draws in the UK have nothing to do with the queen or prince William! Claiming that royalty is a draw when Legoland gets more visitors is a stretch at best no? Don't make the mistake of linking what is great about the UK and the monarch. I have several friends here who have visited the UK in the past year; they all show moderate interest in the royals but it it wasn't even a fraction of a percent of why they visited the country.
I find it difficult that you can't accept that some small percentage chooses London over Berlin because of royalty. If nothing else, royalty has people reading about Britain (as opposed to Germany). A mere 3% of the international tourist trade is a billion dollars.
I am not even disputing your central point that most tourists don't care about royals. But the newly middle class in Beijing are going to have to pick someplace in Europe to visit for the first time. I don't find it so difficult to believe that the country with the largest number of magazine articles and TV shows will decide the choice.
It is my understanding that the proceeds to the crown estate were given directly to parliament in exchange for an annual income in 1760 when George III came to power. That agreement has been renewed with each new monarch since then. It is unlikely that a monarch will refuse to renew the agreement, but a deposed monarch may be a different story.
While many politicians feel that the crown estate has effectively been nationalized, it is basically still an agreement. If it were to go to court, there is a possibility that it could be ruled either way.
It is also possible that a theoretical deposed monarch may sue for a portion of the Crown Estate. Windsor Castle is an obvious candidate for a property that a deposed monarch may insist is personal property.
Clarence House is another such property.
The agreement consisted of three provisions, absolving the monarch of responsibility for the national debt, absolving the monarch of responsibility of his personal debt, absolving the monarch of responsibility for paying the costs of government. In return he handed over the keys to the Kingdom (more or less) and received a stipend of the Civil List.
However that said, it's no less legal than signing a reverse mortgage contract, and they're entirely legal in the UK.
Overturning that decision would be awesome for the country, because if that happened part of the agreement was that the Monarch would no longer be responsible for the national debt, so if the Crown Estate agreement was ruled non-binding, then the crown would be required to accept the UK national debt as personal debt (around $1T) so they could take Windsor, and the bill for $1T. They would be required to repay the personal debts George III was absolved of (plus interest), of course property upkeep costs the taxpayer has made would need to be negotiated, not sure about the Civil List and Sovereign Grant payments, but they may need to be returned in their entirety. Pending that the UK could slap a compulsory purchase order on all intertidal, mineral, land zones and buildings they felt should be in public ownership. They could pay for it from the payments received from the former monarch to service the National Debt, and return of property upkeep and personal payments.
Let's just say it wouldn't end well for the Royals if the tried that when deposed, they got the better deal out of the Crown Estate act, attempting to dissolve it would be a no win for the former Royals.
I find it difficult that you can't accept that some small percentage chooses London over Berlin because of royalty. If nothing else, royalty has people reading about Britain (as opposed to Germany). A mere 3% of the international tourist trade is a billion dollars.
The UK Tourism revenue is 127B GBP (Britain's Tourism Industry : VisitBritain Corporate site). That's $208B. $1B is under 0.5% of tourist revenues. It's not even a drop in the bucket, it's the smaller drop that bounces up when a drop falls into the bucket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
