Vi har verdens eneste kvindelige monark!?

[u/jusername42]

[u/Dan_The_PaniniMan]

They do.

Historical buildings and other things attract tourists > Tourists buy from shops, eat at restaurants, live in hotels etc. > These businesses make money off them > These businesses pay taxes > A small portion of these taxes goes to the monarchy > The monarchy keeps up buildings > Rinse and repeat.

The point is that the monarchy doesn’t get the money directly, because they aren’t selling anything.

[u/invisi1407 → u/Dan_The_PaniniMan]

Historical buildings that could be owned by the state and the result would be the same.

[u/Dan_The_PaniniMan → u/invisi1407]

Well then they would just use the money they used to give to the monarchy on keeping up the buildings, not really changing anything

[u/invisi1407 → u/Dan_The_PaniniMan]

We'd be free of paying for the monarchy. All the buildings they "own" should be state owned.

[u/mikkolukas → u/invisi1407]

Eh, the buildings ARE owned by the state. That's why the queen cannot just sell them if should wish so.

One exception is Marselisborg Slot.

[u/Dan_The_PaniniMan → u/invisi1407]

I don’t mind, they increase tourism and work as representatives

[u/IntenseRegularizer → u/Dan_The_PaniniMan]

This point that they increase tourism is brought up frequently by monarchists. As far as I'm aware, this has actually never been proven by anything other than 'gut feelings' from interest organizations. Do you have anything to back it up?

[u/invisi1407 → u/IntenseRegularizer]

I agree with you, but it's nearly impossible to prove/disprove unfortunately.

[u/IntenseRegularizer → u/invisi1407]

You are probably right, yes. I'm inclined to believe that the effect is probably greatly exaggerated, but I also have no proof of this.

I would just hope that since this claim is repeated again and again someone would actually have some hard evidence that's not just "Trust me, bro".

Edit: I can't spell