[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, that used to be my thought process as well/that they were beneficial because of tourism but I'm not so sure anymore because I think the history of the monarchy is preserved anyway and tourists would still come to see that...I'm not sure that the current monarchy itself is really necessary, their homes etc are all partially open to the public and that's probably what they come to see/it would just be 'where the monarchy used to live/how they lived' rather than, they live here/spend time here...

...the weddings etc do attract much interest from all over the world and therefore visitors..but when they're often made into public holidays, they also lose a lot of revenue....


..I'm not 'anti-monarchy' as such, I'm just not convinced that we need them so much anymore...thay often seem more 'celebrity-ish..'....

The fact that we still have our monarchy though means that the landmarks aren't just relics of a bygone era like they would be in other countries, but they represent a lot more strongly the identity and the history of our country. It means they hold a great deal more relevance imo, and that they stand as a testament to the continuity of monarchy and its continued role in the UK and the world as a whole. Without the monarch you also lose all the ongoing traditions that still surround them, like the changing of the guard still gets watched by hundreds of people every time even though it happens so frequently.

And even with the losses taken into account I believe the royal wedding still boosted London's economy by £100m, I expect the jubilee was of similar benefit as well and there will have been a lot more jobs created to accommodate the tourism increase.