• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they got rid of the royal family, that wouldn’t mean they’d need to get rid of all the castles and other historically relevant places and architecture, too…

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Do you know how much money paid to the “monarchy” goes to the upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the properties that attract tourism?

      Have you seen the revenue those properties make, and how 88% go to the treasury ministry?

      edit: downvotes because nobody wants to actually figure out anything about the situation. I’m not even british, i’m fucking American but even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day. So much bullshit infests the news cycle from them, if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news - because the stuff in the news is what sells.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        People are fucking ignorant and think they know how that shit works. You are 100% correct.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day

        Based on what? France is literally right next door and it’s the biggest tourist destination in the entire world, bar none. Nobody is going to Versailles and complaining that it’s just not the same without the state waifu living there anymore.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do you have any idea how much the royal family owns? If their possessions were transferred to the state and invested, the RoI would probably be higher than whatever they bring in through tourism.

      • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Similar properties in other countries also make a ton of money. Why do you think it’s the “royal family” that brings in the money? It’s not like tourists can even meet them. What exactly do you think is the draw for normal people? Outside of some lunatics, who gives a fuck?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Probably a decent chunk of it.

        How much extra is paid to support the lavish lives of royalty? And how much is paid to make those properties liveable rather than as tourist attractions?

        Plus empty buildings don’t need quite as much security as kings and queens and their families…

      • GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        We don’t need a royal family to attract tourism to the buildings. Tax money can still go to upkeep historical sites, the guards, and all the touristy stuff. More of the revenue goes back towards infrastructure.

        if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news

        Look up “propaganda” in the dictionary.