Are the Royals worth keeping for the tourism?

[Erebus]

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

If polls are to be believed then it's roughly 1 in 5 people in the UK who actively want them gone. This is one of the main arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy: it seems that republicans are in the minority.

(It's perhaps worth mentioning that, as was pointed out earlier, the monarchy extends beyond the UK. If we take the opinions of those in countries like Canada and Australia into consideration, that may or may not alter the current 1 in 5 statistic)

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.

This is another argument that often gets brought up and there's certainly some validity to it. As you pointed out though, the impact a royal visit has can very much depend on a country's general opinion of the visitor.


I appreciate you both bringing up these arguments as whether or not we should keep the monarchy is definitely a multifaceted issue. Just to bring things back to tourism specifically though; what are your thoughts on the argument that increased tourism is an important factor (or potentially the most important factor depending on who you ask) in deciding to keep the monarchy?

 

[PureX]

I appreciate you both bringing up these arguments as whether or not we should keep the monarchy is definitely a multifaceted issue. Just to bring things back to tourism specifically though; what are your thoughts on the argument that increased tourism is an important factor (or potentially the most important factor depending on who you ask) in deciding to keep the monarchy?

To be honest, I think people will want to visit your country, regardless. However, I also think the long and very interesting history you have on offer is a big part of the interest, especially for Americans who do not have much of that at home. And the monarchy is a big part of that history. Even if the royals were gone, the trappings of their reign would still be a huge tourist draw, I would think.

I, personally, like the 'quirkiness' of the whole royal monarchy thing. And the 'quirkiness' of Brits, in general. But then I don't have to pay for it all, either. I get to just enjoy it from afar. I will say, though, that I think that overall it's probably a net positive. Americans like Brits, and except for that 'rocky start' a few centuries back, we always have. And I think a part of that has to do with the fact that you have such a long and storied history, including your monarchy. And that you didn't abandon it. Weird and outdated as it might be, it's yours, and you hold it high. We respect that quite a lot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If polls are to be believed then it's roughly 1 in 5 people in the UK who actively want them gone. This is one of the main arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy: it seems that republicans are in the minority.

I always find it funny when monarchists try to use polls and the like to support their arguments.

If someone argues that the monarchy should be kept because popular support shows that it has a mandate from the people, then they've already conceded the point.

If legitimacy of a form of government is derived from the will of the people, then any system that disregards the will of the people - e.g. hereditary monarchy - is necessarily illegitimate.

The issue isn't about any particular monarch. I mean, if Elizabeth won a legitimate election (and adhered to reasonable standards for a Canadian head of state... e.g. Canadian residency and a pledge of loyalty to Canada above all other nations), I'd see her position as my head of state as legitimate.

The monarchists say the Queen has popular support? Great!

... But let's check that assumption with an election. And then check again with elections every few years to make sure that this support is still there.

(It's perhaps worth mentioning that, as was pointed out earlier, the monarchy extends beyond the UK. If we take the opinions of those in countries like Canada and Australia into consideration, that may or may not alter the current 1 in 5 statistic)

In Canada as of the most recent poll, republicans outnumber monarchists 2 to 1 (edit: though "undecided" and "don't care" together are as large as the republicans), and only 22% of Canadians want to see Charles as our head of state:

Canadians' desire to drop monarchy reaches 'historic level': poll