I've heard that many times but I've always wondered whether is is a net positive given all the tax spending that goes towards the royal family. I guess we'll never know since it's impossible to tell exactly how much tourism is in part based on the queen/king/monarchy sentiment.
It ignores the fact that the royal family owns a tremendous amount of assets that are not directly used in tourism or used by the state. And that they live off those taxes and spending.
If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
> 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets
yes
> government can magic up 150 billion
that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
> that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
It is a tremendous amount indeed, but i don't know why you think it's only pensioners and skiers who would benefit from not having to choose between food and energy.
The king is paid from earnings generated by the Crown Estate [0], which is basically a state owned property investment fund. From my understanding, taxpayer money hasn't been used to fund the monarchy since the 1700s.
