…to suggest that it’s time the Royal family stands on its own feet and stops taking money from the public purse?

So if the issue has Nothing to do with cost as it’s been proved they bring money into the economy
Lets not use that as an argument to get rid of them

I haven’t commented on loss of income I posted that it’s not the case. That comment refers to another poster

The actual issue seems to be people living in big houses they inherited and hence…envy
I really don’t have an issue with what other people have.

In terms of paying more tax. I’m aware the issue of certain taxed eg cgtax and IHT was debunked by Govn in the past as to impose these would mean a loss of the RF over time and hence a loss in revenue.

Im not a Monarchist personally. Being an Irish Catholic easily explains that.
I am a realist and don’t believe in shooting my self in the foot because I’m jealous of others.
I didn’t agree in the tax on education, another envy policy and
I didn’t vote Brexit either, another stupid idea costing the country.

All in all
If it continuously makes money why get rid of it
If it continuously losses money then it’s worth a rethink

It's not just about tourism although that does need to be part of the discussion. Hopefully a discussion that is not generated by AI! It would be good to have clear and open parliamentary discussions about tourism, finance in general, a proper stocktake. Then with that all added up look to constitutional considerations.

We do need to do something though, clearly we can't continue as we were before the revelations.

It's also ridiculous that Monarchists use it as an argument too, given they've no evidence that tourism would decline if the Royal Family was abolished as people are just visiting the buildings.

It works both ways.

There is no proof
It’s impossible to prove a negative which is why it’s ridiculous that Republic use such an argument.

A quick Google tells me they bring in 1.8 billion so the % is hardly going to change.

And I agree about the state of the hospitals etc, but to use a phrase used earlier in this thread (or another). The amount they bring in is "pissing in the wind". I want to live in a society where things are done fairly. Where a family worth billions is not propped up by the tax payers. If you're so concerned about "loss of income", why don't you actually campaign for the Royal family to pay proper tax. The Duchies combined are worth £1.8 billion yet are exempt from corporation and capital gains tax. They are exempt from inheritance tax. Not even that they charge the NHS and schools the use of their land.

They are literally depriving the Treasury of money that could be spent on vital services.

There was also one deal where the Duchy of Lancaster will make £11.45 million over 15 years for use of a warehouse to store ambulances.

I'll never buy this argument from monarchists about how vital the royal family is in bringing in money when their own tax arrangements and businesses are as they are.

https://taxjustice.uk/blog/the-royal-family-must-be-made-to-pay-more-tax/

Why evidence do you have though? I’d live it if the French still had a RF. when we went to Sweden recently we detoured to the castle as the RF were in residence

I appreciate you don’t like the RF but lots do!

It would be good if our elected officials could push the bare minimum such as completely publicly defunding the royals without fear of them hounded out of their jobs.

The 'institution' is more like the mob.

Agree. It costs millions if not billions to change all of this. Why can't we have notable British on the coins, and notes.

As if!

Really not. What a weak come back

One trivial thing that really pisses me off is the cost of changing notes and coins to the King's image/head. It's the little things. And that dirge of a depressing sycophantic anthem needs to go too.

Off to take my calming meds now if anyone is interested.

What this bunch of German inbreds don't seem to realise is that they are where they are due to us giving them permission to be there. We don't have to have them. All of their functions could be carried out by other people or other mechanisms. The only reason to keep them is if it works for us to do so.

Until now, the general consensus seems to be that it does work.

But, things can change. By the time we've gone a bit further into the Epstein information, will that still be the general consensus? I'm not sure.

If we decide to defund them or ditch them, we can. Realistically, they'd have no comeback. I think it's time to start these conversations in earnest, time to start thinking about how we want these state offices performed.

Agree and that is another Republic argument

There is no evidence of that at all. For all we know if the French still had a RF their tourism and revenue would be even higher.

But evidence from France suggests binning the RF and taking the palaces into public ownership and opening them up would increase visitor numbers and therefore revenue substantially. So you should be agreeing with us, even from your own POV.

No idea on today’s figure the 1.47 was 2017 from that abc report.
U.K. economy worth less then
% therefore higher

Given The state of everything from health to education etc etc etc I personally don’t think we can afford any loss in income.

Known anti monarch bias 😂😂😂😂😂

They literally campaign for an elected head of state - of course they’re “biased”. But why are your arguments that this Brand Finance group are independent any more valid than Republic’s argument that they’re totally biased towards the RF and use figures that are inaccurate?

Your stance is utter nonsense 🤯

Yes they have made me think. And I've still come the same conclusion as before that without a Royal Family, we'll manage just fine.

I hardly think the tourism industry or our economy is going to collapse without their paltry contributions towards it.

And if its in relation to the tourism industry then the 1 billion figure is only about 1% of this. They're hardly propping up the industry.

Hardly a significant contribution that some people on here seem to be making it out to be. And without the royal family people will still come visit the buildings!

Here’s another Google for you

Not like Republic at all then

• ISO Certification: Brand Finance was the first company in the world to be certified by auditors to hold the standards for ISO 10668 (brand valuation) and ISO 20671 (brand evaluation).
• Predictive Validity: Studies have shown that their brand strength metrics, such as BrandBeta, are highly effective at predicting market share.
• Market Performance Correlation:Evidence indicates that brands with higher valuations, as determined by their methods, tend to show better resilience during economic downturns and achieve higher growth.
• Independent Research Support:Their methods align with academic and industry research highlighting that brand familiarity, consideration, and preference are critical drivers of brand growth.
• The Marketing Society +4

Theres little point in proving their credibility here because clearly any credible independent statistics that blow the anti Monarchy argument out of the water will be
branded by anti monarchists
as biased, not worthy or / and ‘a puff piece to curry favour’

I prefer facts.

and no I don’t work for them 😆, good one.

Ps
Hopefully the facts have made people think

Let's say the 1.47 billion figure is correct.

Google tells me the UK economy is worth £2.8 trillion.

So the Royals contribution is worth 0.05%of this.

I'm pretty sure the economy will survive just fine without them.

Versailles gets 8 million visitors a year, so by binning the RF we could probably up visitors and their tourist spend tenfold

Again, ignoring that people come to see historical sites not people hence why Versailles gets a fuckton more visitors than Buckingham Palace. That immediately undermines the whole shebang.

reports by biased Anti monarchy groups causes an issue when proving reality

I can also see relying on one group is an issue
There are, however, so many finance groups and Uni analysts that clearly state the facts based on stats and well regarded analytical techniques

Here’s another but I’m sure snyone looking into this can research their own in a non biased way of course

So heres ABC
ABC Finance Ltd. takes a neutral, analytical approach to the monarchy's economic impact rather than a biased one. Their analysis highlights both the significant costs to taxpayers (£292.6 million) and the economic benefits, including tourism (£4.5 billion) and the brand value of the Royal Family

The Royal Family’s wealth is a contentious topic in the UK. Many people love the traditions and ceremony that go hand in hand with it while others believe the whole thing to be a drain on taxpayer money.
Whichever side of the fence you’re on, there’s something undoubtedly fascinating with the Royals’ finances – how they make and spend their wealth.

From hidden assets and lavish weddings to their beneficial impact on everything from tourism to trade, the Royal Economy has its pros and cons which we’ll be exploring below.

THE COST & BENEFITS OF MODERN ROYAL WEDDINGS
Whenever a wedding occurs in the Royal Family, it captures attention on a global scale. This often leads to a boost in money spent in the UK by both its residents and people visiting from abroad to catch a glimpse of the ceremony.
However, the costs involved in organising these occasions are often immense. While much of the funding does come from the pockets of the Royals themselves there will always be some of the bill footed by the taxpayer.
Here is a comparison of the marriage of William and Kate in 2011 and the upcoming nuptials of Harry and Meghan to examine whether the benefits justify the investment.
THE COST

THE BENEFITS
While the costs may seem extravagant – there are many benefits to the UK from Royal Weddings.
When William and Kate tied the knot in 2011, an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend – 60% from UK, 40% from overseas. While there they spent upwards of £107m. The added value to Britain’s ‘brand’ due to global media coverage worth approximately £1bn and more than 2bn people watched the ceremony globally

It wasn’t just visitors to London, the ONS reported that an extra 350,000 visitors travelled to the UK compared to the year before.
Tourism also flourished on the island of Anglesey in Wales, where the royal couple lived after the wedding. It’s estimated that it prompted a 20% increase in business in 2011.

In total, Harry and Meghan’s nuptials are projected to generate an amount in the region of £500m with £200m expected to come from tourism, travel and hotels
£150m will be spent by people having parties and celebrating and commemorative merchandise is projected to generate £50m
The wedding will provide the UK with around £100m in free marketing.

Airbnb has announced a projected total host income of almost £12m over the May weekend, with around 42,000 guests visiting the capital and surrounding areas to see the festivities.

THE COST & BENEFITS OF ROYAL BABIES
The arrival of a new member of the Royal Family is always greeted with fanfare across the globe. Cameras line up as hours often turn to days, waiting for the all-important first glimpse of the next little prince or princess.
This excitement translates into financial benefits for the UK as you’ll see with this look at the three most recent additions to the Royal line-up – George, Charlotte and Louis.
THE BIRTH
To give birth in the Lindo Wing on a standard one-night delivery package costs £5,900 with each additional night costing £1,175. If you opt for a deluxe room, you’ll be paying £6,275 up front and £1,550 for subsequent days. If you require a caesarean the price rises again to £7,435 for the first night.
The cost of all three of William & Kate’s Royal babies being born in the Lindo Wing is thought to be…

CLOTHING, FEEDING & BABY ESSENTIALS
It’s crucial that, even as small children, the Royals are dressed to impress. So, it goes without saying that the three Royal siblings are no exception.

EDUCATION & CHILDCARE
The schools attended by William and Kate’s children are elite and highly sought after. This, of course, comes with a hefty price attached.

TOTAL COSTS
Understandably, it’s not cheap to raise a Royal baby. From birth onwards, they’re afforded the best of the best. So how much does it cost to raise a Royal to adulthood? Based on numerous sources – this is the average figure:

VALUE TO THE ECONOMY
While the Royal children may cost a bundle to bring up – they also attract a lot of money into the UK. Here’s how much value they add to our economy…

• Prince Louis has already added £50m to the UK economy simply by being born through souvenirs, memorabilia and baby clothes.
• Prince George is currently estimated to be worth £2.4bn and his birth brought £75m into the economy.
• Princess Charlotte is the frontrunner with a net worth of £3bn (this higher net worth is through to be a result of the fashion influence she already wields) and brought in £100m when she was born.

THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE QUEEN’S DEATH
The passing of the queen will cost the UK economy something in the region of £2.6bn. These costs are the result of funeral expenses, coronation costs, a bank holiday, business closures, changes to passports, military and police uniforms, plus other minor changes.
It’s expected that the increased tourism due to the funeral will have gone some way to mitigate the cost, but estimates are hard to come by. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence around the event of hotel demand being so high that room rates were doubled in most cases.
HOW MUCH ARE THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY WORTH?
The annual cost of the British Monarchy was £4.50 per capita in 2017, the equivalent of just over 1p per day. However, this is only one of the many ways they amass their substantial funds. What makes up the total net worth of the Royal Family? A lot of it is a mystery but here is what we know…

THE ROYAL FAMILY’S EFFECT ON THE UK ECONOMY
It’s an unavoidable fact that the Royal Family costs the taxpayer money – that’s just the way the system works. The question is whether these costs are outweighed by the amount brought in through everything from tourism to ‘brand Britain’.

The chart above shows the costs as of the end of 2017. During the 2017/2018 budget year, the sovereign grant will rise first to £76.1m and then to £82.2m. The grant is calculated as a percentage of Crown Estate profits.
There is an ever-present debate about how much the Royals benefit the UK financially, with some seeing them more as a hindrance than a help. So, how much does the Royal Family of Great Britain bring into the UK economy annually?

EFIT BREAKDOWN

• Coats of Arms
• The prestige associated with coats of arms does have its financial benefits but only makes up a small fraction of the Royals’ economic value.
• Media Industry & Arts
• The Royals’ contribution to the media industry and the arts allows Britain to thrive as a leading creative force on the world stage.
• Global Press Coverage
• Global media organisations are always looking for an angle on the Royal Family, meaning that the UK gets a lot of press coverage and a brand boost as a direct result.
• Trade
• While it may be costly to send our Royals out on diplomatic missions, these trips do tend to increase trade and benefit the UK economy.
• Royal Patronage
• Organisations such as Royal Ascot and the Royal Opera House are supported by the crown and generate substantial income.
• Royal Warrants
• This income stream is down to brands who carry Royal Warrants such as Aston Martin, Prestat chocolates and Fortnum & Mason.
• Informal Endorsements
• The most recent example of this is the ‘Kate Effect’, with people rushing out to emulate her fashion choices to the tune of £152m in 2015.
• Crown Estate Surplus
• Any surplus revenue from the Crown Estate is placed straight into the UK’s treasury, and with the amount of property the Royals own, this has a significant impact.
• Tourism
• The Royals are intrinsically linked the UK’s international image with many tourists planning their trips around visits to their iconic properties.

Unsurprisingly, the largest benefit provided by the Royals, at least in a fiscal sense, is the tourism they attract from around the world.
Visitors to the UK who are drawn in by British culture and heritage spend in the region of £4.5bn annually, out of a total overseas visitor spend of £17bn.
Approximately £550m of that amount is attributed to attractions and events connected to the Royal Family, past and present.
More than 60% of overseas visitors who come to Britain are likely to visit places associated with the Royal Family.
Top Three Royal Residences by Annual Visitors (2016/17)

• Windsor Castle: 1.5m visitors
• Buckingham Palace: 600,000 visitors
• Holyrood Palace: 400,000 visitors

Related articles – Administration Britain & Collectible Investments
HOW MUCH IS THE ROYAL ECONOMY WORTH?
If you subtract the official annual cost to taxpayers (£292.6m) from their contribution to the British economy (£1.766bn)

£1.47billion

About ( article dated 2017 )

Love them or hate them we can’t ignore the financial benefit to the UK and as a pp stated let’s not do a Brexit on the country again.

Brand Finance’s valuation of the British Royal Family is often considered unreliable or problematic for several key reasons:

1. Inherent Difficulty in Valuing a Non-Commercial Entity

1. Reliance on Indirect Financial Proxies

Tourism may be influenced by many factors beyond the Royal Family.
Media coverage fluctuates with news cycles and scandals.
Merchandise and commercial activities are limited and not fully representative of the Royal Family’s societal role

1. Exclusion of Public Funding and Costs

1. Subjectivity in Reputation and Brand Strength Metrics

1. Lack of Transparency in Methodology Specific to Royal Families

1. Ignoring Broader Social and Political Context

Summary
The British Royal Family’s "brand valuation" by Brand Finance is more a symbolic estimate than a precise financial figure. It can be useful for sparking discussions about the monarchy’s economic and cultural influence but should not be taken as a definitive or comprehensive measure of their worth or impact.

Are BF being paid by the RF? Probably not. It's a puff piece designed to curry favour with other brands, not a rigorous piece of peer-reviewed scholarship. It's just as biased as Republic, just less open about it.