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

[HappyGalentines]

The Royal family owns and has access to lots of money, land and property. So is it right that they should to take any more money away from us?

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Brand Finance has defended its methodology, stating that it uses independent and unbiased analysis compliant with international standards to assess the brand's impact on tourism, trade, and media.

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

I can’t find anything

I've literally just posted above

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.

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

While they are not part of a specific political party, they are firmly, officially, and passionately anti-monarchy in their advocacy’

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

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.

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

The British Royal Family is not a commercial brand or business but a constitutional institution with complex roles in governance, culture, and society. Attempting to assign a monetary "brand value" to such an entity oversimplifies its multifaceted nature.

1. Reliance on Indirect Financial Proxies

Brand Finance uses proxies like tourism revenue, merchandise sales, media presence, and public perception to estimate value. These proxies can be misleading because:

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

The valuation often focuses on benefits (like tourism impact) but tends to underrepresent or exclude the significant public costs of maintaining the monarchy (security, upkeep, public funding). This imbalance can skew the "net value" picture.

1. Subjectivity in Reputation and Brand Strength Metrics

Reputation scores are partly subjective and can be influenced by current events, media bias, or political sentiment, which can change rapidly and do not reflect long-term institutional value.

1. Lack of Transparency in Methodology Specific to Royal Families

While Brand Finance publishes general valuation methods, the exact formulas and weightings used for royal families are less transparent. This opacity raises questions about consistency and replicability.

1. Ignoring Broader Social and Political Context

The monarchy’s value to the UK is deeply tied to historical, constitutional, and social factors that cannot be easily quantified in financial terms. The report’s focus on economic impact misses these critical dimensions.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

While some academic debate exists regarding the precise calculation of intangible assets, Brand Finance's approach is recognized as a robust, standardized framework for assessing the financial value of brands. www.emerald.com +3

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

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!

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.

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 🤯

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.

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.