[erimir]

Originally Posted by Crumb

CGP Grey disagrees.

Pretty sure most republicans who want to abolish the monarchy don't think the monarchs and nobles should be allowed to keep all the lands that they obtained by state power. Unless there's a legal argument that appropriating the lands of the royals and nobility is not allowed...

And I'm also pretty sure that tourist revenues would not simply poof and disappear if the royal family did. Tourists to France might have less interest in castles (although I'm pretty sure the Palace of Versailles does fine) but it gets more than two times as many tourists per year as the UK.

AND while the "living embodiment" of royalty probably is worth something, it's worth noting that they would be able to more fully exploit certain properties for tourism if there was not the matter of certain people living in them and requiring servants and bodyguards and such.

That said, it seems plausible that the government/British people make more than £40m off the royal family as a tourist attraction. Of course, the gov't only gets revenue off the taxes on tourist dollars. But the benefits to the economy are also there - but in that case, it's worth pointing out that it's not Liverpool or Swansea or Belfast that's likely to be making tons of money off of royally-enhanced tourism but rather those tourist dollars are probably highly concentrated in London and around certain castles and such.

And of course, finally, one must not consider just whether it makes money but what effects there are on British society in having a royal family and the nobility. You could, of course, argue that the culture of celebrity in other countries (like the US) has similar effects, but I'd argue that Beyoncé and Jay-Z provide a higher quality of entertainment than Prince William and Kate Middleton, who provide similar celebrity gossip but without actually doing something like putting out quality music. But either way, it sends a societal message to have a royal family that is held above everyone else by law. On the other hand, in terms of public policy, the UK is more socialist than the US, so maybe we'd actually be better off if we had a royal family In terms of principle, I'm opposed to the notion of royalty, but if having royalty paradoxically makes socialist policy more likely, then I guess I'd be for it.

Ok, I guess one last thing is to consider the effect it has on the royals themselves. One could probably argue that the royal family is denied the possibility of a normal life. A life of luxury can probably be argued to outweigh the negative effects of lifelong (from birth, in the case of royal children), intense celebrity and the constraints of royal life, but it certainly hasn't for all of them (Diana being the most obvious example). And if I were more of a moralizing sort, it might be possible to argue that growing up royal inhibits your personal and moral development and even if they were "less happy" they'd be better people if they had more normal lives.

Anyway, certainly will be interesting when Elizabeth dies, given how much less popular Charles is. Will he abdicate in favor of William? If not, republican sentiment might increase significantly...