It’s just a ceremonial thing, they don’t have any actual power. Plus it makes money for the country. There’s not really any reason to get rid of them and King Charles is always pushing anti-climate change stuff so he’s actually using his influence to try and help.
Then congrats on not knowing how all of it works. Buckingham is just one castle that runs tours. They also sell tours of Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery. Their events (coronations, funerals, weddings) also bring in tourist dollars. Windsor Castle alone brings in $50M/year, while the Louvre by itself is $100M/year.
But that is ONLY the ticketing revenue they bring in. They also sell shitloads of trinkets, memorabilia, gifts, etc. People buy sets of collectible dishes! More than that, though, is the media money they generate. They are basically influencers. News agencies and tabloids sell TONS of adspace on websites and newspapers from info about the royals. Their Christmas specials bring in tons of TV viewers.
In the end, they only cost the UK taxpayer 1.29 pounds per year per person (89M pounds total per year) and have an estimated yearly input to the UK economy of close to 1B pounds.
You do realize that tickets to the castles, memorabilia etc. would sell without them, right? And there’s no shortage of celebrities. If they don’t exist, something else will take their place in those tabloids.
A) But they would sell far far fewer tickets and less memorabilia. I’ve been to really nice castles that are nowhere near as many visitors and have tiny gift areas. The most famous castle in Germany (Neushwanstein), also one of the most famous in the world, only makes about $6M/year while Windsor makes $45M/year on its own. A castle I went to just outside London was really beautiful and cool, and I could freely walk around it with almost no tourists and an entrance fee about half what Windsor was… because it wasn’t connected to anyone famous. It was just a castle. I went to the main palace in Vienna, and it was basically empty.
B) Fame isn’t a zero sum game, and some things aren’t so easily replaced. It’s like saying if Jordan hadn’t been in the NBA there would have been another player of his caliber. Or if Michael Jackson hadn’t been around in the 80s there would have been another King of Pop as big as him. To be clear: I’m not saying the people in the royal family are special like Michael or Michael, but the royal family as an entity is something the world doesn’t have any more. How many people know the royal family of Spain or Denmark or Saudi Arabia outside of the people in those countries? Now how many people know the name Queen Elizabeth? Not only that, but the people who buy tabloids fucking love reading about royalty. Yeah, there will always be famous people, but the things they are famous for aren’t easily replaced.
I’m no fan of the royal family. I think they are fucking disgusting and shouldn’t exist as an entity. But there isn’t another entity out there like them, so the UK has made the financial decision to give them a stipend in exchange for the income they provide.
They’re actually given full legal immunity to anything, meaning they’re allowed to commit crimes if they so choose (which we wouldn’t know anything about as there is no transparency concerning these types of things). There have also been cases of violent repression against unarmed dissidents who were protesting against the monarchy (mostly when the queen had died), with disproportionate punishments handed out.
Is this really necessary, having one family be pretty much above the law and having their lifestyle be funded via public funds? Sure, there’s an argument to be made that it drives the tourism, but it’s unknown how much does the royal family contribute to it, as there’s definitely tourists who would still visit the monuments and buy merch without the family.
We dont know how much power they have, it’s illegal to know:
| Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.
“relate to” is so broad and it means we have no idea what is going on.
| But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy. In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain. The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes. Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials
It’s just a ceremonial thing, they don’t have any actual power. Plus it makes money for the country. There’s not really any reason to get rid of them and King Charles is always pushing anti-climate change stuff so he’s actually using his influence to try and help.
I call bullshit. The Louvre makes more tourism money than Buckingham Palace even without some rich assholes living there.
Then congrats on not knowing how all of it works. Buckingham is just one castle that runs tours. They also sell tours of Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery. Their events (coronations, funerals, weddings) also bring in tourist dollars. Windsor Castle alone brings in $50M/year, while the Louvre by itself is $100M/year.
But that is ONLY the ticketing revenue they bring in. They also sell shitloads of trinkets, memorabilia, gifts, etc. People buy sets of collectible dishes! More than that, though, is the media money they generate. They are basically influencers. News agencies and tabloids sell TONS of adspace on websites and newspapers from info about the royals. Their Christmas specials bring in tons of TV viewers.
In the end, they only cost the UK taxpayer 1.29 pounds per year per person (89M pounds total per year) and have an estimated yearly input to the UK economy of close to 1B pounds.
You do realize that tickets to the castles, memorabilia etc. would sell without them, right? And there’s no shortage of celebrities. If they don’t exist, something else will take their place in those tabloids.
A) But they would sell far far fewer tickets and less memorabilia. I’ve been to really nice castles that are nowhere near as many visitors and have tiny gift areas. The most famous castle in Germany (Neushwanstein), also one of the most famous in the world, only makes about $6M/year while Windsor makes $45M/year on its own. A castle I went to just outside London was really beautiful and cool, and I could freely walk around it with almost no tourists and an entrance fee about half what Windsor was… because it wasn’t connected to anyone famous. It was just a castle. I went to the main palace in Vienna, and it was basically empty.
B) Fame isn’t a zero sum game, and some things aren’t so easily replaced. It’s like saying if Jordan hadn’t been in the NBA there would have been another player of his caliber. Or if Michael Jackson hadn’t been around in the 80s there would have been another King of Pop as big as him. To be clear: I’m not saying the people in the royal family are special like Michael or Michael, but the royal family as an entity is something the world doesn’t have any more. How many people know the royal family of Spain or Denmark or Saudi Arabia outside of the people in those countries? Now how many people know the name Queen Elizabeth? Not only that, but the people who buy tabloids fucking love reading about royalty. Yeah, there will always be famous people, but the things they are famous for aren’t easily replaced.
I’m no fan of the royal family. I think they are fucking disgusting and shouldn’t exist as an entity. But there isn’t another entity out there like them, so the UK has made the financial decision to give them a stipend in exchange for the income they provide.
How much money do I need to bring your country before I can be called royalty and collect taxes from each person?
The only reason it still exists is because the only people who can give away that power is the royal family at the moment.
They’re actually given full legal immunity to anything, meaning they’re allowed to commit crimes if they so choose (which we wouldn’t know anything about as there is no transparency concerning these types of things). There have also been cases of violent repression against unarmed dissidents who were protesting against the monarchy (mostly when the queen had died), with disproportionate punishments handed out.
Is this really necessary, having one family be pretty much above the law and having their lifestyle be funded via public funds? Sure, there’s an argument to be made that it drives the tourism, but it’s unknown how much does the royal family contribute to it, as there’s definitely tourists who would still visit the monuments and buy merch without the family.
We dont know how much power they have, it’s illegal to know:
| Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.
| But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy. In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain. The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes. Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials
https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818