• @Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -261 month ago

    Because it makes money and is entertaining.

    Without the celebrity status and novelty there would be a lot less tourism in Britain. It’s not like people go there for the food or the weather.

    • @otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      441 month 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
        -14
        edit-2
        1 month 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.

        • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє
          link
          English
          191 month 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
          111 month 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…

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          91 month 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
          71 month 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.

        • @GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          1 month 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.

    • Cruxifux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      431 month ago

      Why do British people think King Charles is the reason people go to Britain to visit? Nobody gives a shit about your existing monarchy outside of your country. We go there to see castles n shit.

      • @Naryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 month ago

        ^Nobody gives a shit about your existing monarchy outside of your country

        Patently false.

        30m Americans watched Harry and Megans wedding, that’s 3x the viewership of the NBA finals