Sorry Annie
It doesn’t wash with me .
Incorrect. Not that I care.
Did you read this bit :
“While having a royal family gets us an enormous amount of global coverage and free advertising for Britain across the world - which is invaluable - it’s not something we can give give an exact economic figure for,” said Patricia Yates, director of strategy and communications at VisitBritain."
I’ve looked at the figures and they are “light touch”, They also exclude charity endorsements. That’s not the same as brand endorsement and the definition of value is not all “economic”. As Patricia Yates says, you can’t really quantify, but what is clear is that if you took the Royal family away there would be a loss of billions to businesses around the country. Because it’s not just tourism related to visiting royal family estates. Brand is a bit more complex. Tourists simply coming to London go there because it has that association with Royalty but that isn’t at the forefront on their minds. It’s a whole package.
It’s very difficult to accurately calculate intangible benefit. You would have to determine the market value of the Royal family were it to be disposed off as a sale. How much do you think someone would pay for owning them, say the Chinese or Americans?
2 Likes
god I love the cut of ya jib woman!!!
1 Like
Nothing they each had a royal family and ditched them
The Americans dont seem too impressed by Prince Harry and we all know what happened to the Chinese Royal Family .
The cost of their security negates and all their hangers on makes the lie of any any worth they bring .
There is
Is a reason while royal finances are kept secret .
As I said earlier, it cost every person living in the UK £5.50 to keep the royal family living in the standard they have been accustomed to.
it’s estimated the monarchy earns the equivalent of £8.50 per citizen . ….If the monarchy was to be abolished the country would financially better off . H
France got rid of their Royalty years ago , has it stopped them being number one tourist destination.
£5.50 is a big investment errr loss to make £3.50 
1 Like
It really costs more because the figure for security are never figured in .
You can’t net this off. The impact of “getting rid” of the royals would not be felt by the royals but by ordinary people.
1 Like
It was a hypothetical question, based on the US or China having the added value of a premium brand for their country. It shouldn’t be a discussion about cash but of value. You have to be objective when measuring value.
1 Like
Errrr of course it’s possible and without much angst….it’s doubtful the younger generations can name Queen Elizabeth’s children let alone Kate & Williams and their children.
Only three in 10 Britons think the monarchy is very important, the lowest proportion on record.
A survey by the National Centre for Social Research NatCen shows public support for the monarchy has fallen to a historic low. A total of 45% of respondents said either it should be abolished, was not at all important or not very important.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage grows as the older generations slowly fade away.
2 Likes
The premium brand ( if there is such a thing ) and value of a country depends on its people not a mediocre but immensely rich family trumped up to something special by sycophants .
2 Likes
Is it possible to still considered HRH as premium brand when many of the family have been proven not to be a full shilling because of their unhealthy cloistered over privileged lifestyle
1 Like
In terms of determining value you can’t net off because it’s not comparing like with like. Benefits are indirect but removal would impact ordinary people. One side can be quantified to an extent but there are many “unknowns” as to removing an institution. We all saw the crowds queuing to pay homage to the Queen.
To be honest I can’t see any politician or party being brave enough to change the system. This will be a kicking the can down the road issue until there is a major incident such as a world war or natural disaster or coup. Given current events any or all of these could happen in the future but Britain is generally insulated from such extreme situations. There will be a gradual erosion of royal influence & scope over the next 30-40 years.
It will In my opinion eventually happen by public demand
If our current government is a symbol of that citizenship value then we are done for Muddy 
William will be the last king of England the rediculous farce cannot go on much longer .
2 Likes
I agree , can’t be the way forward in todays world to continue on on with an outdated feudal system .
1 Like
He may never be king, who knows Charles could live a very long time on his organic diet.
True nothing like a life without stress for a long life .
As the cosseted royals demonstrate .
2 Likes
I think you need to check your historical facts! 
In the later medieval period, feudalism began to diminish in England with the eventual centralization of government that began around the first quarter of the fourteenth century,[6] and it remained in decline until its eventual abolition in England with the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.