And a consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
That might sound impressive – and it’s certainly more than the higher estimates of the Royal Family’s costs to the public purse – but it’s important to put those numbers in context
Overseas visitors are estimated to have spent £22.5bn in the UK in 2016. And total UK exports summed to £543bn. Viewed from that perspective, the additional royal-related revenues start to look somewhat trivial.
Moreover, we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism.
The only way to reach these numbers is to estimate the counterfactual – what would have happened to UK tourism or trade if the Royal Family didn’t exist? Or if the official Royal Family was significantly smaller and less expensive to run?
That’s not easily done. Would foreigners really be less likely to visit the UK’s historic palaces if they were no longer lived in, from time to time, by the Queen, or Prince Charles?
Would the monarchy be less of a tourist draw if the likes of lesser working royals such as Princess Alexandra and the Duchess of Kent were no longer funded by the Sovereign Grant?
@ZerotwoZero - from The Independent
The economic boost from visits and festivities related to royal celebrations should certainly be treated with caution given these can displace economic activity as well as create it
This seems to have happened around Prince William’s wedding in 2011, when many UK residents appear to have left the country