Are the Royals worth keeping for the tourism?

[Erebus]

There's a debate over whether or not the UK should retain its monarchy. While there are multiple arguments for and against it, one of the arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that they bring in tourists.

I'd like to invite anybody with thoughts on this matter to chip in here. Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?


Here are some of my own thoughts on the matter:


The amount of tourist money they bring in vs how much they cost has a major question mark hanging over it. Some people just wouldn't visit at all if there wasn't a monarchy. Some people would still visit even if they were gone. Its certainly true that places associated with the royals such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace get a lot of visitors. Dropping the monarchy doesn't mean you have to demolish those landmarks though.

Your best bet for arguing that the royals are worth it for the tourism would be to point out that royal events certainly do attract tourists. If you go that route though, you also have to be aware that the places that benefit from tourism comprise the tiniest fraction of the UK. This is something that rarely gets brought up when people talk about the royals bringing in tourists. Most of the UK won't see the benefit and could potentially be losing tourism as the royals siphon it away into a select group of places ... usually to London. London really doesn't need help bringing in tourists.

Now you could argue that whether or not the royals siphon tourism away from places that need it is just speculation. That's certainly true. However, the tourism argument is rife with speculation anyway. If we're going to argue that tourism is the reason why we should keep the monarchy, we need a way to determine how much money they actually bring into the country.


Here is my proposal:


We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years. For those outside the UK, Oldham is a fairly impoverished town in the North of England with virtually no tourism.

Moving the royals into council houses will let us separate the amount of tourism they bring in by their own merit from the amount of tourism brought in by the landmarks associated with them. Moving them to Oldham will also eliminate any ambiguity from our findings caused by keeping them in places where there is already ample tourism. Finally, Oldham is somewhere that could certainly do with the extra money.

The reason for the five year test period is that this move will certainly create a lot of interest. We'll be able to see both the initial effect of that interest along with the effect once the buzz has died down.

Ultimately, this will give us a much better idea of whether the cost of the royals is outweighed by the money brought in by tourism. Best I can tell, it also leaves us with two possible outcomes:

1. The royals bring in more money than they cost. In this instance, I propose we keep them in Oldham so that an impoverished town can reap the benefits. Alternatively, we could periodically move them to other impoverished towns.

2. The tourism argument doesn't hold up once you remove the royals from other major sources of tourism. If this is the case then I suppose there's no reason to keep the royals after all.


Thoughts? Comments?


(Writing this has made me completely sick of the word tourism!)

 

[Altfish]

Tourism is always the argument for retaining them but I'd gladly get rid of the lot of them tomorrow.

They have too much influence and backdoor power

If you want someone to open a new road or bridge - get the engineer who designed it or the labourer who worked the most on the project.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps the royals should perform to a greater extent
than largely immobile stiffening of upper lips. They
could juggle, dance, & do stand-up comic routines.
Wrestling matches?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a debate over whether or not the UK should retain its monarchy. While there are multiple arguments for and against it, one of the arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that they bring in tourists.

I'd like to invite anybody with thoughts on this matter to chip in here. Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?


Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:


The amount of tourist money they bring in vs how much they cost has a major question mark hanging over it. Some people just wouldn't visit at all if there wasn't a monarchy. Some people would still visit even if they were gone. The majority of tourist money connected with the royals comes from visits to places like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Dropping the monarchy doesn't mean you have to demolish those landmarks too.

Your best bet for arguing that the royals are worth it for the tourism would be to point out that royal events certainly do attract tourists. If you go that route though, you also have to be aware that the places that benefit from tourism comprise the tiniest fraction of the UK. This is something that rarely gets brought up when people talk about the royals bringing in tourists. Most of the UK won't see the benefit and could potentially be losing tourism as the royals siphon it away into a select group of places ... usually to London. London really doesn't need help bringing in tourists.

Now you could argue that whether or not the royals siphon tourism away from places that need it is just speculation. That's certainly true. However, the tourism argument is rife with speculation anyway. If we're going to argue that tourism is the reason why we should keep the monarchy, we need a way to determine how much money they actually bring into the country.


Here is my proposal:


We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years. For those outside the UK, Oldham is a fairly impoverished town in the North of England with virtually no tourism.

Moving the royals into council houses will let us separate the amount of tourism they bring in by their own merit from the amount of tourism brought in by the landmarks associated with them. Moving them to Oldham will also eliminate any confusion by keeping them in places where there is already ample tourism. Finally, Oldham is somewhere that could certainly do with the extra money.

The reason for the five year test period is that this move will certainly create a lot of interest. We'll be able to see both the initial effect of that interest along with the effect once the buzz has died down.

Ultimately, this will give us a much better idea of whether the cost of the royals is outweighed by the money brought in by tourism. Best I can tell, it also leaves us with two possible outcomes:

1. The royals bring in more money than they cost. In this instance, I propose we keep them in Oldham so that an impoverished town can reap the benefits. Alternatively, we could periodically move them to other impoverished towns.

2. The tourism argument doesn't hold up once you remove the royals from other major sources of tourism. If this is the case then I suppose there's no reason to keep the royals after all.


Thoughts? Comments?


(Writing this has made me completely sick of the word tourism!)

You don't need actual living royals to have royal tourism. If anything, the royals just get in the way.

 

[Erebus]

Wrestling matches?

A royal rumble?


Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tourism is always the argument for retaining them but I'd gladly get rid of the lot of them tomorrow.

This is a bit strange to me as a colonial.

Monarchists here in Canada never use "tourism" as an argument for us staying a monarchy (mostly because there is no royal tourism to speak of here).

 

[Revoltingest]

A royal rumble?


Sorry.

I'm ashamed that I din't think'o that meself.
Clearly, you're running on all cylinders this lovely morn!

 

[Altfish]

This is a bit strange to me as a colonial.

Monarchists here in Canada never use "tourism" as an argument for us staying a monarchy (mostly because there is no royal tourism to speak of here).

Think it is the fact that if you go to London, outside Buck Palace, in Windsor, etc., it is all Chinese, Japanese and American tourists. Apart from the hardcore royalists and parents showing their kids for the first time; the Brits stay away.

 

[Stevicus]

There's a debate over whether or not the UK should retain its monarchy. While there are multiple arguments for and against it, one of the arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that they bring in tourists.

I'd like to invite anybody with thoughts on this matter to chip in here. Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?


Here are some of my own thoughts on the matter:


The amount of tourist money they bring in vs how much they cost has a major question mark hanging over it. Some people just wouldn't visit at all if there wasn't a monarchy. Some people would still visit even if they were gone. Its certainly true that places associated with the royals such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace get a lot of visitors. Dropping the monarchy doesn't mean you have to demolish those landmarks though.

Your best bet for arguing that the royals are worth it for the tourism would be to point out that royal events certainly do attract tourists. If you go that route though, you also have to be aware that the places that benefit from tourism comprise the tiniest fraction of the UK. This is something that rarely gets brought up when people talk about the royals bringing in tourists. Most of the UK won't see the benefit and could potentially be losing tourism as the royals siphon it away into a select group of places ... usually to London. London really doesn't need help bringing in tourists.

Now you could argue that whether or not the royals siphon tourism away from places that need it is just speculation. That's certainly true. However, the tourism argument is rife with speculation anyway. If we're going to argue that tourism is the reason why we should keep the monarchy, we need a way to determine how much money they actually bring into the country.


Here is my proposal:


We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years. For those outside the UK, Oldham is a fairly impoverished town in the North of England with virtually no tourism.

Moving the royals into council houses will let us separate the amount of tourism they bring in by their own merit from the amount of tourism brought in by the landmarks associated with them. Moving them to Oldham will also eliminate any ambiguity from our findings caused by keeping them in places where there is already ample tourism. Finally, Oldham is somewhere that could certainly do with the extra money.

The reason for the five year test period is that this move will certainly create a lot of interest. We'll be able to see both the initial effect of that interest along with the effect once the buzz has died down.

Ultimately, this will give us a much better idea of whether the cost of the royals is outweighed by the money brought in by tourism. Best I can tell, it also leaves us with two possible outcomes:

1. The royals bring in more money than they cost. In this instance, I propose we keep them in Oldham so that an impoverished town can reap the benefits. Alternatively, we could periodically move them to other impoverished towns.

2. The tourism argument doesn't hold up once you remove the royals from other major sources of tourism. If this is the case then I suppose there's no reason to keep the royals after all.


Thoughts? Comments?


(Writing this has made me completely sick of the word tourism!)

Tourism is also a major industry here in Arizona. We have the Grand Canyon, some wonderful scenery, and a warm climate to attract winter visitors. We even have the London Bridge here in Lake Havasu, and this also attracts some tourists as well. You don't need a royal family to attract tourists.

I've only been to the UK once, and that was only to change planes at Heathrow Airport. But if I did ever go there as a tourist, then seeing the royals wouldn't be the main attraction. However, I would like to see the Gorge of Eternal Peril, the Bridge of Death, the Cave of Caerbannog, and of course, a relaxing visit to the Castle Anthrax. I'd also like to see Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, and the location where The Who recorded "Live at Leeds."

 

[Erebus]

This is a bit strange to me as a colonial.

Monarchists here in Canada never use "tourism" as an argument for us staying a monarchy (mostly because there is no royal tourism to speak of here).

This is an excellent point. I've focused on tourism in the UK (and England in particular) but the monarchy extends far beyond its borders.

 

[Eddi]

Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?

No, it's not

Democracy is more important than tourism

 

[ChristineM]

The royal tourism argument seems odd to me. Most of the tourists you see outside buck house are in the uk only for a day or two as they indulge in the "see europe in 2 weeks" tour. The income from them isn't going to pay the upkeep of the royal time wasters family and property

The UK has its beauty and tourist attractions without the royals.

Sure some few tourists come specifically to see the pageantry, it doesn't happen often enough to make a profit from tourism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thoughts? Comments?

I think you must plan for the other details that matter, such as what 'The crown' will mean in laws, whether people will still be knighted and if the prime minister will still be called prime minister etc. Will there still be noble titles? No? Yes?

I don't think tourism is the reason you still have royals. It think its inertia keeping things the way they are. You are looking for a reason to get rid of the nobility, but you already have several.

 

[Stevicus]

The royal tourism argument seems odd to me. Most of the tourists you see outside buck house are in the uk only for a day or two as they indulge in the "see europe in 2 weeks" tour. The income from them isn't going to pay the upkeep of the royal time wasters family and property

The UK has its beauty and tourist attractions without the royals.

Sure some few tourists come specifically to see the pageantry, it doesn't happen often enough to make a profit from tourism.

Maybe they could turn the royal property into a theme park like Disneyland. Or maybe a miniature golf course.

 

[metis]

There's a debate over whether or not the UK should retain its monarchy. While there are multiple arguments for and against it, one of the arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that they bring in tourists.

I'd like to invite anybody with thoughts on this matter to chip in here. Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?


Here are some of my own thoughts on the matter:


The amount of tourist money they bring in vs how much they cost has a major question mark hanging over it. Some people just wouldn't visit at all if there wasn't a monarchy. Some people would still visit even if they were gone. Its certainly true that places associated with the royals such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace get a lot of visitors. Dropping the monarchy doesn't mean you have to demolish those landmarks though.

Your best bet for arguing that the royals are worth it for the tourism would be to point out that royal events certainly do attract tourists. If you go that route though, you also have to be aware that the places that benefit from tourism comprise the tiniest fraction of the UK. This is something that rarely gets brought up when people talk about the royals bringing in tourists. Most of the UK won't see the benefit and could potentially be losing tourism as the royals siphon it away into a select group of places ... usually to London. London really doesn't need help bringing in tourists.

Now you could argue that whether or not the royals siphon tourism away from places that need it is just speculation. That's certainly true. However, the tourism argument is rife with speculation anyway. If we're going to argue that tourism is the reason why we should keep the monarchy, we need a way to determine how much money they actually bring into the country.


Here is my proposal:


We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years. For those outside the UK, Oldham is a fairly impoverished town in the North of England with virtually no tourism.

Moving the royals into council houses will let us separate the amount of tourism they bring in by their own merit from the amount of tourism brought in by the landmarks associated with them. Moving them to Oldham will also eliminate any ambiguity from our findings caused by keeping them in places where there is already ample tourism. Finally, Oldham is somewhere that could certainly do with the extra money.

The reason for the five year test period is that this move will certainly create a lot of interest. We'll be able to see both the initial effect of that interest along with the effect once the buzz has died down.

Ultimately, this will give us a much better idea of whether the cost of the royals is outweighed by the money brought in by tourism. Best I can tell, it also leaves us with two possible outcomes:

1. The royals bring in more money than they cost. In this instance, I propose we keep them in Oldham so that an impoverished town can reap the benefits. Alternatively, we could periodically move them to other impoverished towns.

2. The tourism argument doesn't hold up once you remove the royals from other major sources of tourism. If this is the case then I suppose there's no reason to keep the royals after all.


Thoughts? Comments?


(Writing this has made me completely sick of the word tourism!)

IMO, it's their choice in the UK, thus they could eliminate it if they voted to do so.

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe they could turn the royal property into a theme park like Disneyland. Or maybe a miniature golf course.

Hotels for the rich and shameless.

 

[Secret Chief]

However, I would like to see the Gorge of Eternal Peril, the Bridge of Death, the Cave of Caerbannog, and of course, a relaxing visit to the Castle Anthrax. I'd also like to see Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, and the location where The Who recorded "Live at Leeds."

Not forgetting The Curtain of Doom.

 

[Secret Chief]

We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years.

What have you got against the people of Oldham?

 

[PureX]

I am not a Brit, so this is not my call. But it seems to me they could and probably are providing a valuable service as international representatives; not just for Britain as a whole, but for important global humanitarian causes. I remember that when Princess Dianna came to the U.S., and went to visit dying AIDS patients in Chicago it was a big deal, here. And I believe it really helped at least some of us to get past our idiotic bigotry and be supportive of those who were suffering,

A big part of that, though, had to do with the fact that Dianna was so universally respected, here. Prince Charles would not have had nearly the same impact. In fact, he has always been seen to be a bit of a heel. So, unfortunately, I think personal popularity has a lot to do with the value of having royals around.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's a debate over whether or not the UK should retain its monarchy. While there are multiple arguments for and against it, one of the arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that they bring in tourists.

I'd like to invite anybody with thoughts on this matter to chip in here. Is tourism enough to justify keeping the royal family?


Here are some of my own thoughts on the matter:


The amount of tourist money they bring in vs how much they cost has a major question mark hanging over it. Some people just wouldn't visit at all if there wasn't a monarchy. Some people would still visit even if they were gone. Its certainly true that places associated with the royals such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace get a lot of visitors. Dropping the monarchy doesn't mean you have to demolish those landmarks though.

Your best bet for arguing that the royals are worth it for the tourism would be to point out that royal events certainly do attract tourists. If you go that route though, you also have to be aware that the places that benefit from tourism comprise the tiniest fraction of the UK. This is something that rarely gets brought up when people talk about the royals bringing in tourists. Most of the UK won't see the benefit and could potentially be losing tourism as the royals siphon it away into a select group of places ... usually to London. London really doesn't need help bringing in tourists.

Now you could argue that whether or not the royals siphon tourism away from places that need it is just speculation. That's certainly true. However, the tourism argument is rife with speculation anyway. If we're going to argue that tourism is the reason why we should keep the monarchy, we need a way to determine how much money they actually bring into the country.


Here is my proposal:


We move the royal family and their household staff into council houses in Oldham for five years. For those outside the UK, Oldham is a fairly impoverished town in the North of England with virtually no tourism.

Moving the royals into council houses will let us separate the amount of tourism they bring in by their own merit from the amount of tourism brought in by the landmarks associated with them. Moving them to Oldham will also eliminate any ambiguity from our findings caused by keeping them in places where there is already ample tourism. Finally, Oldham is somewhere that could certainly do with the extra money.

The reason for the five year test period is that this move will certainly create a lot of interest. We'll be able to see both the initial effect of that interest along with the effect once the buzz has died down.

Ultimately, this will give us a much better idea of whether the cost of the royals is outweighed by the money brought in by tourism. Best I can tell, it also leaves us with two possible outcomes:

1. The royals bring in more money than they cost. In this instance, I propose we keep them in Oldham so that an impoverished town can reap the benefits. Alternatively, we could periodically move them to other impoverished towns.

2. The tourism argument doesn't hold up once you remove the royals from other major sources of tourism. If this is the case then I suppose there's no reason to keep the royals after all.


Thoughts? Comments?


(Writing this has made me completely sick of the word tourism!)

As cheesy as it can be, I think people would miss them if they ever left the scene.