The Royals bring in tourists

The argument

Many people are attracted to the UK for its history, and the Royal Family is an important part of what they come for. The attraction is not to the institution in the abstract: many visitors want to see the places where the family actually lives, which turns a constitutional arrangement into a set of destinations that can be visited, ticketed and built around. What distinguishes the British case is that the history has not ended. There is a special appeal in a Royal Family that is not just historical but still functioning today, because the palaces are not preserved buildings alone but working residences occupied by the people who hold the roles. Other countries have former palaces; the UK has occupied ones, and no amount of restoration elsewhere supplies that difference. The British monarchy in particular is famous as being one of the most longstanding, and is famous the world over, so the audience is not domestic but an international one that already knows what it is coming to see. The economic consequence follows from those visitor numbers. Many people come to the UK and spend money because of the Royal Family, and the spending does not stay at the palace gates: it reaches hotels, transport, restaurants and the businesses clustered around every site associated with the family. The tourism the monarchy generates employs people and contributes to the economy significantly. That is what would be at stake in abolition. Abolishing the Royal Family would mean a large drop in tourism, as one of the country's most unique and interesting attractions would be gone — and whatever remained could be historic but could not be living, which is the quality the appeal rests on. On those grounds the monarchy should be kept.

Context

Tourism is a large industry in the UK, and Royal destinations are some of the most significant tourist sights, e.g. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle

Premises

Counter-arguments

Many of the things people come to see could exist without the Monarchy, such as Buckingham Palace (which only opened its doors to tourists relatively recently in the wake of public opinion turning against royalty) and the changing of the guard. Chester zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman baths in Bath are equally as successful tourist attractions without a royal theme according to UK national tourist agency. The Palace of Versailles continues to generate revenue in France without a monarchy . If the Royals were no longer in residence, these could be opened more and generate more revenue.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Economic benefit alone is not a reason to keep something if it causes other problems. Additionally, there is no evidence that the monarchy generates more income than the annual 300 million pounds it costs per annum.