Anarcho Munk
New Member
As I said in my post the 200 million figure I quoted does not account for tourism revenue, even if you were of the opinion that they are of no tourism benefit to the UK they still pay for themselves 5 times over.
Whoops. I misread your original post, apologies. However (as you imply yourself) these lands owned by the Royal family can be just as productive in public hands, without being overseen by a monarchy.