Royal Wealth and Finances

[PrincessKaimi]

On the relationship between parliament and The Queen:

Austerity measures and The Queen.

Looks like repairs on Buckingham Palace may have to wait - and that some of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's expenses must be paid now by the Prince of Wales.

Hope this is the right thread.

[padams2359]

I do not understand how many of the British people feel that they would be better off without the Monarchy. They are one of the few attractions to their island. I never heard of anyone going to Britain for the food. It is always something to do with the Royal Family. Aside from the Olympics, which are a random shot in the dark. No one can tell me that the country lost money from the last Royal Wedding, or any of the others for that matter. This is not including what an increase in unemployment would be caused if the Monarchy went away tomorrow, and everyone on the Crown Estates were laid off. Between the Crown Estates, and other events that are put on by the Royal Family, they generate substancially more income than they spend. Get with the program people, there is not much else that attracts people other than the Monarchy, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Iluvbertie]

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't see the staff on the Crown Estates lose their jobs as that work would still need to be done e.g. the farmland of the Crown Estates would still be farmed. The government couldn't afford to lose that income and the bulk of the income of the Crown Estates does go to the government.

The attraction of the royals is that you might see one of them - although on my 18 trips to Britain I have only seen them twice and don't know anyone who has visited Britain to see a royal - but have visited to see their homes e.g. go in August/September to visit BP, but with no monarchy then they could see that palace year round and see all of it rather than just a small section.

The cost of the royal wedding was quite large in terms of lost productivity to businesses with two four day long weekends in succession while the wedding was a one day event. Having been in London for an event like that there was nothing much to make money on - e.g. accomodation - well I was going to be in London for that week anyway so no extra for that one day event, no food available to even buy in the crowd so had to take your own, no souvenirs available on the day so lost opportunity, cost of security - huge, as the bobby near us said those that were there had to do a double shift. They love royal occasions as they get double pay for one shift as it is overtime and one shift on normal pay - but as last year was a public holiday that was two shifts at double pay. Most of the souvenirs for the royal wedding were made outside of Britain so little profit for the nation, and the same with this year's Jubilee - the souvenirs are either so expensive as to be out of the price range of the normal person or made in China to be cheap enough to be made.

The royals cost millions of pounds a year in security and maintenance of the royal palaces, which aren't being fully maintained anyway but they don't bring in all that much. If there was no monarchy do you really believe that people wouldn't go to Britain to see the royal homes. The sheer history of the nation would see a similar number of people visit the nation to see the palaces, castles, churches and the scenery.

[EIIR]

The idea that tourists don't come to Britain to see the Royal Family, or Royal events, is clearly and demonstrably false:

Royal wedding leads to tourism boom - Telegraph

In April 2011 (the month of the Royal Wedding) an extra 350,000 visitors came to the UK compared to April 2010. Overall visits to the UK were up by 800,000 during 2011, with almost half of that increase coming in the month of April. That's no coincidence.

I'm sorry, but we just wouldn't see that kind of surge of extra visitors if the UK were a republic. Does anyone think 350k extra foreigners would come to the UK to see the inauguration of some politician they'd never heard of as British President?

With regards to visits to palaces etc. of course people would still visit them. But, lots of countries (most notably France) have much prettier, more remarkable palaces and castles than the UK does. What sets ours apart from France is that ours are still used, just as our Crown Jewels are still used, the thrones visitors see in the House of Lords etc. are still used. That all adds an extra something to British heritage that countries like France, Germany or Italy can't match.

[Iluvbertie]

Actually yes 350,000 could easily go for the inaugurations of Presidents over the years as they would happen more regularly than a once in a generation wedding. 100,000 every four years for an inauguration adds up to 600,000 every 28 years and weddings happen less frequently than that.

If you really don't think people would still go to see the palaces if no one was living in them you really do underestimate the pulling power of British history. No royals currently live at Hampton Court or The Tower of London and they are two of the most visited sites in the UK - because of the history of those places not that the royal family live there.

[EIIR]

No one from abroad would come to the UK for the inauguration of a President. Ask 1,000 Britons who the president of Germany or Italy is and I'd bet that 999 of them wouldn't have a clue. I'd say the situation would be exactly the same in reverse. To be honest, politicians are so detested, so reviled in the UK nowadays, I think you'd struggle to get 10,000 Britons to attend an inauguration, let alone 100,000 foreigners.

I'm not saying that no-one would visit the palaces or castles in a republic. What I'm saying is that the royal link, the living royal link, the idea that the Queen and her family actually use these places, that they're not just museums but family homes differentiates us from most of our European competitors.

Ultimately, the Royal Family help put the spotlight on the UK. During the royal wedding last year, all the major American networks, as well as hundreds of others from all over the world, decamped to London for at least a week leading up to the wedding. The UK got hundreds of hours of essentially free publicity, hundreds of millions watched Westminster Abbey and the Mall and Buckingham Palace and Hyde Park etc. etc. We got an opportunity to show London and the UK at its best. That simply would not happen if we were a republic. Without the Monarchy, we just become another declining European republic, basically indistinguishable from any other.

[Iluvbertie]

If the inauguration was done with the pomp and circumstance that the British put on they would go. Just because people don't go to others relates more to the way they are inaugurated rather than who the person is.

Lots of horses and carriages and a public swearing in from the balcony of BP would see the crowds come - done in private in the House of Lords no they wouldn't.

Afterall the reason the people go is the free entertainment - the spectacle not the event itself.

[Artemisia]

I have to disagree.
One of the attractions of royal weddings, coronations and even state funerals is that there are so rare, once in a life opportunity; if Presidents were inaugurated every four years, no matter what ceremonies accompanied those inauguration, it would be just another mildly interesting event on the calendar. Oh, and Brits probably would be laughing stock of the world for putting all the pomp and peasantry into an event that the rest of the world manages with rather less cost and same result.

[EIIR]

I agree Artemisia. In addition, I personally don't see that the British people would accept a major ceremony with carriages etc. for a politician who most people would see as 'on the make', a liar and probably corrupt. That's how just about all politicians are seen in the UK.

We're happy for the Queen, who has dedicated her entire life to serving our nation, to use the carriages and the State Trumpeters and so on. Some politician, whose strings are being pulled either by big business or the big unions? Not so much.

[tommy100]

As others have said the Royal Family brings in massive rewards (in terms of positive coverage but more importantly in terms of revenue) from overseas. I think one of the problems is that the British public don't always see that. Would the wedding of a political president or someone in his family bring in the extra revenue and coverage the Royal Wedding last year did? Absolutely not!
In addition I think that actually the number of visitors who would come and visit the Royal Palaces if we were a republic would probably decrease, how many of those visitors are from overseas? I bet a vast majority come because they love the idea or our monarchy and love the idea of "exploring their homes". Yes there may be more visitors at first but after a while people would start to ask they bother going all the way to the UK to see the place the Queen or William and Kate use to live, the Royal Family are constantly creating interest and desire to come and visit whereas once they are gone that would die off.

[EIIR]

I agree Tommy. Of course, it's not just weddings. It's birthdays and Jubilees, and the birth of royal children and Trooping the Colour for the Queen's birthday and even funerals. All of these things earn extremely valuable international press coverage for the UK.

I remember when William went to Australia and was being shown around Sydney Harbour on a boat in magnificent sunshine. The local officials involved, who are probably at best indifferent to monarchy, said they knew the TV pictures would be beamed around the world giving Sydney the kind of positive press attention that would be very, very expensive to buy. You can't put a figure on those kinds of benefits, which is why when people see that the Monarchy costs £36m or whatever it is per year they grumble about it.