@neverfadingwood I wouldnt say its moot at all. The discussion is trying to determine if the royal family costs the country money net or not. To do that you must weigh the cost vs savings. So within that context it is equally as relevant whether it is easily replaced or not. Though if we expand the conversation beyond just cost analysis then this point can be relevant in other ways (such that an elected official is held accountable).

The argument against tourism is weak. No one is claiming that the royals make up 100% of tourism or even a significant portion. But even if they are responsible for just 2% of all tourism it is possible the income from this 2% significantly outweighs any costs.

@Surasanji