For queen and country?

[turienzo's lovechild]

"president cameron"

 

[Doc Lynam]

The money they bring in through tourism is why we should keep them

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 10 tourist attractions in the UK not one royal residence makes it! Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Flamingo land and theme park, in at number 5). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. The success of the Tower of London (number 1 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were left by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is already healthy castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy. Other attractions, such as the London Eye, the west end, Brighton, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside etc, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even created stats on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. Keep the people quiet and the privileged few secure.

 

[Washie]

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 10 tourist attractions in the UK not one royal residence makes it! Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Flamingo land and theme park, in at number 5). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. The success of the Tower of London (number 1 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were left by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is already healthy castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy. Other attractions, such as the London Eye, the west end, Brighton, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside etc, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even created stats on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues.

The wedding brought in alot.

 

[W.C.]

It's 2013, Kings? Queens? Princes? Princesses? Dukes? Lords? Ladies?

get rid.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Flamingo land (North Yorkshire) can be visited during Middlesborough away if anyone was wondering!

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Flamingo land (North Yorkshire) can be visited during Middlesborough away if anyone was wondering!

do they have real life flamingos? to be honest they're fairly low down on my list of "must see" animals, but i guess it's one of those things that you simply won't know how good it is until you're there

 

[Bulldog]

something that often gets overlooked...and i'm not sure i fully understand it so would be interested to know why it is often overlooked is that the crown gives the profits of its property portfolio (crown estate) to the treasury...the vastly exceeds the amount that we give them (for example 2007-8 they gave 200m and took 40m). "Republic" an anti-royalist pressure group estimate the total expenditure (after security costs etc.) is at most 184m....so even then we're in profit surely?

unless i'm greatly confused

They don't "give" anything. They are a very greedy bunch of people.

The Crown estates were part of the monarchs income but they were expected to pay most of the expenses of state from it. The diplomatic service, army, navy, government, almost everything.
They got themselves in a bit of financial trouble and did a deal with the tax payers along the lines of, you take all the expenses off us and you can ave the Crown estate money to help pay for it, all we want is an allowance to live on.
So the deal was done and we, the tax payers have been picking up the billions above this income that governments spend ever since.We basicly took it off their hands in a deal that they were only too happy to agree to, now, the greedy feckers want it back without accepting any of the expenses it is supossed to pay for.
Therefore the Crown estates income belongs to the treasury, not the royals. If they had renamed it the National estates back in 1760 all this confusion could have been avoided.

Well that is my understanding of it anyway.

 

[albion534]

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 10 tourist attractions in the UK not one royal residence makes it! Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Flamingo land and theme park, in at number 5). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. The success of the Tower of London (number 1 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were left by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is already healthy castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy. Other attractions, such as the London Eye, the west end, Brighton, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside etc, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even created stats on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. Keep the people quiet and the privileged few secure.

You can hardly say flamingo park is more popular than Windsor castle....because most British people would take kids to that than Windsor castle, they hardly have a notebook and jot down who's a tourist and who's not! So what your saying is crappy evidence I'm afraid. It works out around £1 per person per year, I'm ok with that

 

[W.C.]

She does a great job though doesn't she?

Like at the Olympics. Britain's most important event in, how many years? You know, when she came on, said 'I declare these games open' and then SCOWLED. Even the BBC commentator didn't know what to say. Embarrassing.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

Flamingo land (North Yorkshire) can be visited during Middlesborough away if anyone was wondering!

I was literally wondering!

 

[Pavilionaire]

So getting rid of the Royal Family will make us a more classless society? Bollocks will it. A globally less significant country certainly.

 

[W.C.]

So getting rid of the Royal Family will make us a more classless society? Bollocks will it. A globally less significant country certainly.

How on earth do the Royal Family make us globally significant?

 

[W.C.]

"president cameron"

Can not STAND David Cameron.


I would much rather have him as president than kings and queens though.

 

[Pavilionaire]

How on earth do the Royal Family make us globally significant?

Er, for starters our Queen is the most famous woman in the world, and probably the most respected woman in the world and rightly so.

 

[W.C.]

Er, for starters our Queen is the most famous woman in the world, and probably the most respected woman in the world and rightly so.

Famous? Yes. So? Kim Kardashian is famous.

Respected? Really, by who? Gossips and people who like to talk about hats and things? I'd say most people in the world with more important things to worry about than flipping through a magazine like Hello! or watching people in daft outfits on the telly, don't give her a moment's thought.

 

[beorhthelm]

Let's face it,the crown estates are only parcels of land that they nicked a few centuries ago anyway !

aye, but if you apply that argument then you have to apply to everyone elses land. some do, and want to be communist. others dont and want to respect long established property rights, overlooking ancient historcial origins.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. Keep the people quiet and the privileged few secure.

true, but then the same can be said for old "royals are scroungers" argument against. see Crown estate issue. few anti-royals get on to the constitution questions, like recognising the fact that the monarch is head of state by an act of parliament.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This has probably been asked in one form or another, but I'll give it another airing. Are you pro or anti monarchy?
Had a very lively debate at work today, mainly with the welsh contingent, who was of the opinion that the whole royal family should disappear and hand back all the money that is given to them by the British tax payer. I'm not particularly a royalist but wouldn't want to see them gone, their history is British history.

The British tax payer contributes towards the civil list which is only paid to the Queen & Duke of Edinburgh. This is in lieu of money from the Crown lands which is given to the government. The tax payer would be worse off if the arrangement ceased.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How on earth do the Royal Family make us globally significant?

She isn't just Queen of the UK but of 16 countries, and heads up the Commonwealth which is made up of 43 countries.

 

[BuddyBoy]

I don't think I've seen a single penny of this money they're supposed to "bring us" in tourism, however I've a sneaky feeling they've seen some of my money.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Can not STAND David Cameron.


I would much rather have him as president than kings and queens though.

I couldn't disagree more - the idea of President Cameron or President Blair is a horrific one. The politicians have wrecked this country - I'd rather our head of state ( and it is virtually only a figurehead ) was above politics.