What's the point of constitutional monarchies? Why even keep the monarchy in place if they aren't even doing anything?
I mean, just declare a republic ffs.
The British monarchy provides quite a bit of money for the country.
The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.
They provide about 1.5 billion pounds of tourism revenue per year, far outweighing the sovereign grants they recieve from the the government.
You really think the tourists would stop looking at British castles etc. if the UK became a republic?
some if them would. Some people are just fascinated by the anachronism of having a king. A palace that once belonged to some king a few hundred years back is just far less interesting than a palace with a living, breathing monarch in it.
Versailles gets fifteen million visitors a year
I highly disagree with that. It's literally the opposite in opinion. I'm way more interested in castles where no one's living in them now because that way they're more of an historical Relic. Why do I want to see where some rich fuck head lives today? Let's see some pricks big screen TV and fancy curtains. Ooh that sounds like fun. Fuck that I go to castles to see murder holes. I go to castles to see dungeons. Not duvets.
The only time I want to see some rich fuck head living in a castle is when I see them dragged out of it to meet their just ends.
maybe you don't, but lots of people do.
Well let's test that. I mean as other people pointed out there's plenty of places with no monarchy that gets tens of millions of people going to visit their old palaces. But if you want to test it I say let's kill all the English royalty and see how many people come to visit those castles for a while. If it's way less then we'll give a fancy hat to someone new.
I'm pretty sure the people calculating the number could distinguish between tourism for castles and the monarachy.
That's one way to see it... Countries that got rid of their monarchy, got the money in a more direct way
What do you mean?
They don't have to give money to receive it back. They just keep it, while still having tourists (cf France).
What do you think happened to the wealth of the French king?
Pretty sure the French King isn't bringing in any revenue anymore.
What do you mean?
Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.
Crown Estate’s revenues
Well, dispossess them and use the property directly wouldn't hurt either, would it?
tourism, trade, media and the arts.
There might be other ways to promote your image than having an institution that symbolizes colonialism and is hated by many people. Like abolishing said institution to show the global South that you are sorry? That might make you more likable aa well
Sure that is one option. Another one is to just keep them. The Brit chose the latter.