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

Your first chat piece is by group Republic- known anti monarchy bias

Crown estate included as it’s ‘ in right of the crown’ ie by the Monarch at the time. Income goes to the Treasury as of mid 1990s

Third chat piece by Republic again- known bias

Fourth chatbpiece. That’s why Brand are used - it’s their specialism and these critics are Republic again

Heres Republic
I don’t trust any so called group that are clearly biased

‘ the UK group
Republic is an openly anti-monarchist campaign group that advocates for abolishing the monarchy and replacing the King with an elected head of state. They are actively biased against the institution, describing it as "corrupt, secretive, and out of step with British values".

Key Details About Republic:

• Goal: They campaign for the complete removal of the hereditary monarchy in favor of a democratic, elected, and independent head of state.
• Tactics: Republic holds protests at royal events (e.g., "Not My King" protests at the Coronation), runs billboard campaigns (e.g., "Make Elizabeth the Last"), and commissions polls to show declining support for the Royal Family.
• Stance: CEO Graham Smith argues the monarchy is a "broken institution" that acts as "tax-funded Kardashians".
• Viewpoint: They represent a segment of the UK population that opposes the hereditary system, with polling cited by the group suggesting support for the monarchy is in decline.
• BBC +5

Their only objective is to end the monarchy So a Very Clear Bias

Like a brand finance firm is ever going to shoot itself in the foot by putting out a flagship report saying the RF is hugely overvalued.

I've literally just posted above

They are not biased
but if anyone has proof to the contrary that would be interesting

I can’t find anything

Do you work for them?

Meanwhile I can also use Google AI tool for some criticism of Brand Finance (who I literally had never heard of)

Key criticisms of the Brand Finance royal report include:

• Unsupported Tourism Claims: The campaign group Republic and other critics argue that there is no solid evidence to support the claim that the Monarchy drives substantial tourism revenue. Critics, citing conversations with VisitBritain, suggest that tourists visit palaces for their history, not to see the Royal Family, and that a transition to a republic would not decrease tourist numbers.
• Misleading Property Ownership: Brand Finance includes the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and the Royal Collection in their valuations. Critics argue that these are state assets belonging to the nation, not private property of the royals, and that revenue generated by them cannot be solely attributed to the institution of the monarchy.
• "Fantasy" Valuation Metrics: Republic has branded the figures "fantasy" and "spurious," arguing that the report conflates the value of public property with the brand value of the royal family. The reports often include "intangible" asset values—such as the "halo effect" on British brands—which are difficult to verify.
• Overestimation of Net Benefits: While Brand Finance has estimated the monarchy produces a net economic benefit (around £1.7bn in 2017), critics argue this ignores significant, less visible costs, such as security (estimated by Republic to be over £100m) and costs borne by local councils for visits.
• Misinterpretation of "Value": Critics point out that the high valuations (e.g., £73 billion) are not representative of liquidatable wealth or direct annual contributions to the Treasury, but rather a theoretical "brand value" over an infinite period.
• Displacement of Economic Activity: Critics suggest that the economic boost from royal events (weddings, jubilees) is often overstated, as it may simply displace economic activity (e.g., residents leaving the country during celebrations) rather than creating new, net-new economic value.
• www.republic.org.uk +8

You can ChatGPT it yourself, just ask why is BF biased instead of why is it unbiased.

If you have non biased proof they aren’t then I’d love to see it

Meanwhile
Key Aspects of Independence & Credibility:

• Independent Status: They operate independently, which allows them to provide unbiased opinions on brand value, distinguishing them from agency-owned, internal valuation teams.
• Regulatory Compliance: They are a chartered accountancy firm regulated by ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales).
• Industry Standards: They helped develop the ISO 10668 standard for brand valuation and are certified compliant with ISO 20671 for brand evaluation.
• Third-Party Validation: Their work is often peer-reviewed by the "Big Four" accounting firms and accepted by regulatory bodies like the UK Takeover Panel.
• Audit Protocol: Their brand value rankings are certified by the Marketing Accountability Standards

Agree

I don’t follow their every move and not interested in standing in the rain to see them. Not bothered by them at all
but
if they’re bringing money into the Country then I’d rather we kept them and as they do, fine.

£65 billion it seems. I generally am supportively of them. Andrew is a horrible horrible vile human being

Yes they sound wholly impartial and not at all likely to suck up to the establishment that pays them

Absolutely agree it’s very hard to quantify that’s why
Brand Finance do it
Its their specialism

It's impossible to actually verify how much money the Royal family bring in. And there is no evidence that tourism would revenues would fall if the monarchy was abolished because as seen in other countries, people come to see the buildings. Not the people inside it .

The UK tourism industry is worth £147 billion annually. So even if the £40 million figure is accurate. Its something like 0.33% of the actual amount of the tourism industry.

And even if they brought in a £1 billion towards tourism. Its still something like 1% of the total industry worth.

Hardly worth shouting about it now is it?

and This is a standard anti monarchy argument
They do not concider the financial benefits to businesses and the country as a whole of the entire ‘monarchy industry ‘
but so far no ones posted the stats on here

I Don’t see the point in picking and choosing the bits that suit and prefer to see the whole picture

as it currently stands
anti monarchy info choose to ignore certain incomes
Independent group Brand Finance do not

Exactly. Unless Charles and Camilla are personally giving tours of Buckingham Palace with William working the tills of the gift shop, then there's no need for them physically.

Plenty other countries have booming tourism industries for historic Royal sites.

But it has nothing to do with the royal family anymore.

They're not needed for gifts shops and the rest. They are not relevant at all nowadays.

Article from
Breaking Travel News
‘ .How much does the Royal Family contribute to UK tourism
19 September 2022

The royal hotspots are an enormous source of wealth for UK tourism and have only increased over the years (except during the pandemic, obviously).

In the fiscal year 2019-20, the income from ticket admission to the royal estate rose over the previous year, according to Statista.

The admission income sat at £49.9 million ($84.8 million) in 2019-20, increasing from £48.4 million ($82.3 million) in the 2018-19 fiscal year.

This is an enormous rise over the past decade, with the royal estate bringing in £23.3 million ($39.6 million) in the 2009-10 financial year, less than half the 2019-20 income.

But this is only part of the royal family’s contribution. In a year, sales made at the gift shops from the royal collection made £19.98 million ($33.95 million). These landmarks sell souvenirs, trinkets, hampers and other royal-related knick-knacks.

The House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion and earns hundreds of millions for the British economy every year, with Frogmore House and Windsor Castle selling approximately 426,000 tickets between April 2021 and March 2022. ‘

Brand Finance
is the world’s leading independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy, founded in 1996 and headquartered in London. It bridges the gap between marketing and finance by quantifying the financial value of brands and assessing brand strength. They produce over 100 annual reports

Whichever of them got married in Windsor a few years ago got police protection for her carriage ride, at vast expense to the public purse.

Edit: Eugenie, cost estimated at 2 million quid

The monarchy has already been.slimmed down considerably. Only working royals get money from the state. The hangers-on get nothing

I would like to see the monarchy scaled back considerably to a Scandi style. No more coronations or state opening of parliament and all that pallaver. Just a simple declaration before parliament on accession. No one needs all those palaces. They should be sold off and re-developed. Same with all the crown lands and estates.Only the head of state and drect heirs should get any money from the taxpayer. The rest can get up off their asses and find a job.

I don’t expect individual statements. There’s nothing to say bar what the King has already said. Do you hold all female relatives of criminals responsible for the criminal’s actions?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15567619/Epstein-web-influence-famous-figures-emails.html

I do understand many might not want to open a Daily Mail link but this is actually really interesting about how many mentions people had in the EF and how they link together.

Honestly - The Princess of Wales is at the rugby today, acting like nothing has happened. Still no real public statement from any of them. It's shameful.

Very odd pastime !

hardly the same thing- other countries do perfectly well without a royal family.

There are many other ways they get money which is supposed or originated from public funds. And their voluntary tax arrangements mean they pay a lot less than most of us as a percentage. Because of their secrecy and lobbying to keep the extent of their finances secret, we do not have a full picture but even the little we do see does not look good.