In relation to the royal wedding

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I want to arm myself with better evidence for arguments with monarchists.

It is quite easy to theoretically and intellectual disarm such people, but the point of disagreement often comes up when they say something like:

'The royal family bring in a lot of money directly and indirectly via tourist revenue'.

What I want to know is, have there been any efforts to tabulate, to a roundabout figure, the amount of money that the royal family do bring in via tourism?

What I want to be able to say is that, if the indirect amount is somewhere in the hundreds of millions or 1billion or so, that it is an absolutely unfair payoff for the obscenity and anti-democratic element of actually having a royal family, and doesn't justify the inherent unjustness of their existence.

[Cencus]

It's not something you can actually nail down easily. Theres a load of folks say they come here because of the royals but how many of them would come even if we didn't have the monarchy to visit former royal residences etc..

Theres also the "the royal estates bring in XXXX pounds to the economy" posse. If you come up against them point out the estates were given to the state in return for shifting the cost of the army away from royal pocket and onto parliament.

[Qayin]

Why argue with someone that argues for a class that should have been liquidated 200 years ago?

[Tommy4ever]

People still visit Versailles, even though there is no King of France.

There are still tourists at the Hofburg, a century since the last Habsburg fucked off.

People still go to St Petersburg - no Tsar there.

The Forbidden City is a very popular destination. Not seen many Chinese Emperors lately.

....

[Sword and Shield]

Why argue with someone that argues for a class that should have been liquidated 200 years ago?

That's great coming from a guy who supports the rebels in Libya.

[caramelpence]

There are good arguments to be made about the actual economic benefits of the royal family - it's not only true that those benefits would be likely to endure once the monarchy had been abolished, but, on a more prosaic level, it's also not the case that all or most tourism is that intimately bound up with the monarchy. A significant part of Britain's tourist income consists of the spending of wealthy tourists from developing or newly-industrialized countries (above all China) on high-value products in major shopping areas and at boutique retail outlets such as Harrods - if the concern is with sustaining income, then those tourists would be completely unaffected.

Personally, though, I think the focus on economic benefits and costs speaks to a very impoverished mode of political discourse, and one that is widespread in the sense that purely technocratic and financial criteria are increasingly applied to a range of areas and issues, especially higher education funding, where a large part of the debate was centered around issues like social mobility. To utilize criteria solely of this kind means to obscure the much more fundamental concerns that should be at the centre of the debate - issues like the meaning of a democratic society and the moral dimensions of citizenship. A much more philosophically effective response to arguments around economic benefits, in my view, is that even if the abolition of the monarchy meant reduced tourist income (or whatever) it would still be absolutely justified and imperative, because a significant step towards a truly democratic society is not something that can be weighed in monetary terms.

In simple terms, the moral and civic costs of a monarchy far exceed any economic benefits. Republicans need to be brave and confident enough to argue for abolition even when economic costs are likely to arise as a consequence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem, caramelpence, is that whilst I can see the merits of your argument, I find that the typical person I speak to cannot. Most people are simply apathetic to the moral and civic issue of having a monarchical class paid for by the taxpayer. Thus, I really want to be able to tell them that their precious royal family brings in just £x per year and that it's a pathetic income that doesn't go 0.1% of the way to justifying the disgusting nature of monarchy in general.

[StoneFrog]

Some royals don't get payed by the government for being royals, like the dude who got married im pretty sure he gains a lot of his income from a royal estate. The profit from the royal estate goes to him, though he does not own the estate and cannot sell it; he just gets the profit.

But those who do get paid earn over 140k per year, most over 200k. the royal family costs about 37m last i heard. But sadly the government also get alot of profits from the royal families estates+lane, which get handed over to the government.

Argueing on principle of they cost more than they bring in isn't a good one.. i will say, i was hoping it was the other way around.

[Ocean Seal]

I want to arm myself with better evidence for arguments with monarchists.

It is quite easy to theoretically and intellectual disarm such people, but the point of disagreement often comes up when they say something like:

'The royal family bring in a lot of money directly and indirectly via tourist revenue'.

What I want to know is, have there been any efforts to tabulate, to a roundabout figure, the amount of money that the royal family do bring in via tourism?

What I want to be able to say is that, if the indirect amount is somewhere in the hundreds of millions or 1billion or so, that it is an absolutely unfair payoff for the obscenity and anti-democratic element of actually having a royal family, and doesn't justify the inherent unjustness of their existence.
Here's the thing. I think that from tourism they actually do manage to pull a profit after spending 80 mil on the wedding. But its effectively working class and petite bourgeois people buying crap which they probably won't use such that other petit bourgeois can make a profit and the ruling class can collect the taxes. So they're just channeling the money around and at the same time the Monarchs are pulling an unfair amount of money from that supply and lets not forget that they just had an 80 mil dollar wedding. There is no one that I know that has had 80 mil spent on them in one day. What if someone else were given 80 mil for their wedding. Undoubtedly, it would attract tourists but would the government give 80 mil to any individual who claimed that their wedding would pull a profit.

[graymouser]

So, you know, these tourists: do they actually interact with the monarchs? I mean, do 99.999% of tourists actually see in person a member of the House of Windsor? I mean, really, if you're going to have a monarchy for the tourists, have them fucking earn it. If not, there's no reason to have physical monarchs, get rid of them and just keep up the castles. Ousting the monarchy also means you can rent out the royal castles as hotels and suchlike. All money to be given to the poor, of course.

Also: why does the reigning monarch have any political powers if it's mainly for show? It's still a fall-back plan if the people were to elect the wrong government - which would probably mean a revolutionary one.

[Means to a end]

You have to crack the nut off British patriotism and in places nationalism before the Royal family can be taken apart.

One can not live without the other.

Sadly I think many people enjoy the Royal family as it is ''''tradition'''' and ''''its been like it for 1000s of years so why change it''''''''''. (I have heard both of them).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've stumbled across a great find, comrades:

http://media.visitbritain.com/News-Releases/Monarchy-brings-in-500-million-a-year-from-foreign-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx

So they bring in around £500m per year (directly and indirectly). Pretty much as I expected. But it is not exactly 'them', bringing in the money, it is mainly monarchy-related buildings, museums etc.

For instance, in the table at the bottom of the article, the Victoria and Albert museum ranks as the 3rd most visited tourist spot in Britain, related to 'culture and heritage'. This despite the fact that Victoria and Albert have been dead for well over a century. So, really, there is little need for an actually existing royal family, as tourists will mainly come for the buildings and other heritage sites, much as they do in somewhere like France, where there is no actually existing royal family any more.