Creative interpretation of visitor numbers
What are they even for? One minute we’re told “head of state” and the next it’s “bringing in the tourist cash.” Are they any real use at either of those, or anything else? Are they enough use to justify the enormous amount of tax-free money they keep having more of?
A common argument in defence of the royal family is the benefit they bring to the UK economy through tourism. But despite widespread claims of their tourist value, firm evidence that the Windsors are what bring visitors to Britain is hard to come by, with most assertions anecdotal or speculative. The storm-tossed tourist industry may be desperately hoping for a coronation bump, but the benefit the event will bring is not clear.
Tourists visit France, Italy, Switzerland – I don’t think it’s in hopes of seeing royalty. Why would it be in the case of Britain?
Numerical claims about the value of the monarchy frequently rely on creative interpretation of visitor numbers to sites with any royal connection, however tangential, says Graham Smith, of Republic, which campaigns to abolish the monarchy.
“If you look at the Tower of London, where the royals haven’t lived for hundreds of years, it’s far, far more popular than Buckingham Palace,” says Smith. (Annual visits to the tower are more than 2m, compared with 121,000 to the palace). “So it’s clearly not the living history that people are interested in, it’s the history – and history never goes away. There just isn’t any evidence to suggest that people would not visit if [the royals] were not there.”
Perhaps even more popular is Kensington Palace, and you know why? Because it’s at one end of Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens, that’s why – a massive green space in the heart of London. London itself is quite a tourist draw, so if the number-crunches are interpreting tourism in London as caused by the monarchy…that’s pretty hilarious. No, dalling, it’s the theaters, the museums, the galleries, the bookshops, the river, the parks, Shakespeare, Keats, Highgate Cemetery – it’s a thousand things.
Also Choss is pretty obviously a horror, so there’s that.
They’re very good at marketing themselves, though. No one really knows anything about the remaining European royal families on the continent. We know some of their names, yes, but for the most part those are not splashed on the tabloids every day. All the scandals serve the purpose of bad press – it’s press.
I suspect the palace would draw vastly more tourist visits per year if the royals were chucked out – no need for it to be guarded so closely then. The buildings become government owned and possibly used government stuff, but also become museums or art galleries or whatever, with probably loads of space for functions to be booked as well. Kicking the royals out turns these places into civic centres and money earners.
We were in England on vacation last fall. We had 2 days in London–my wife was hoping to do some shopping.
Then some old lady died and they shut down the whole freakin’ city. No shopping, no museums, no nothing. Decidedly not tourist-friendly.
I’d like to visit the British Tank Museum… Buckingham Palace should be burned to the ground.
No it should be turned into inexpensive flats.
The garden on the other hand should simply be handed over to the public, making St James Park and Green Park and Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens and Buck House Gardens one giant green space for everyone.