I said ignoring that, largely because I didn't want to cause an argument about the value of it.

That said, it seems silly to argue it brings no tourism whatsoever, and indeed the page you linked doesn't - it claims £500M, which it (fairly enough) goes on to say is negligible in the scheme of UK total tourism revenue and economy.

But that's not the point is it - when people make the claim it says is wrong, or certainly for the point I was making (again which I think tourism can be ignored for anyway) it's about expense vs. revenue from the royal family, i.e. whether there's net income - because if there is then it seems a futile argument for republicans to say they 'cost too much' - not whether or not that income is large enough to put a meaningful dent in GDP.

The linked page says Visit Britain claimed £500M, but couldn't justify those figures, and has internal documents showing tourism reduced for previous large royal events.

I don't much care about the costs, but it is a good demonstration of how opaque this part of government is.