FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is Megan Markle
Is Megan Markle
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? " She already has. And Harry is to give an interview which will be aired on March 7th where he's Royal Bashing 
Sad Eh ....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I think she already has, feel sorry for harry, he is completely in love with her and she just wants his titles and fame " Except she had fame before she met him and they've stepped away from the titles so this really doesn't make sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she already has between to an extent" How has she done that ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I think she already has, feel sorry for harry, he is completely in love with her and she just wants his titles and fame " How did you work out that she just wanted titles and fame ? How do you know the extent of Harry's love ? What does his deep love imply to you ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" No sorry, don't agree. The race issue is irrelevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? She already has. And Harry is to give an interview which will be aired on March 7th where he's Royal Bashing
Sad Eh .... "How did she drive a wedge ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't win can they. If they stayed, had more children etc they'd be accused of sucking the country dry and popping out sprogs for us to pay for. Now they have decided to leave the royal family she's a bitch who is only out for whatever she can get. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? " I don’t understand why anyone cares. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior ." What did she do to emasculate him ? How has he shown signs of becoming tattered ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects " But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she already has between to an extent How has she done that ?" Well to me the relationship between Harry and William has gone majorly down hill since Harry and Meghan became serious, do you think that is just coincidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public " 'Gone in there?' Do you mean fell in love ? Got married ? How did she cause trouble ? What dirty laundry is she airing ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask if anyone posting here knows her personally? Didn't think so....so your doing exactly what the British press has done and thats why there fucked off...he's not an important royal anyway..good luck to them in Los Angeles... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I think she already has, feel sorry for harry, he is completely in love with her and she just wants his titles and fame Except she had fame before she met him and they've stepped away from the titles so this really doesn't make sense. " She was a mid rated actress known for suits only, since marrying harry she has been signed by disney, Netflix and oprah interview and more. All worth millions. They also still have the titles but cant use them in their own branding but it's still prince harry duke if sussex and Meghan Duchess of sussex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? " Paris New York etc etc don’t have any problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't win can they. If they stayed, had more children etc they'd be accused of sucking the country dry and popping out sprogs for us to pay for. Now they have decided to leave the royal family she's a bitch who is only out for whatever she can get. " I think it's more to do with them moaning about every perceived slight from a position of enormous privilege. There wouldn't be such a problem if they werent such moaning Minnies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she already has between to an extent How has she done that ? Well to me the relationship between Harry and William has gone majorly down hill since Harry and Meghan became serious, do you think that is just coincidence?" Life changes, for everyone. They met. They married. If there is a rift between two men, why is that her fault ? Should they have stayed single to boost brotherly love ? I have NO idea what caused the rift ...... if there has been a rift. I am interested though why people think it's Megan ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" This is getting so very tiresome. Someone of colour comes unstuck or dosnt succeed theres always the blame the white man card . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public 'Gone in there?' Do you mean fell in love ? Got married ? How did she cause trouble ? What dirty laundry is she airing ?" Well is going on Oprah for a big pay cheque the correct way to raise concerns about how the royals operate? I personally don’t think so. But I will caveat that we will have to see what is said in the interview and how damming it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public 'Gone in there?' Do you mean fell in love ? Got married ? How did she cause trouble ? What dirty laundry is she airing ? Well is going on Oprah for a big pay cheque the correct way to raise concerns about how the royals operate? I personally don’t think so. But I will caveat that we will have to see what is said in the interview and how damming it is " Is the Oprah interview about how The Royals operate ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? This is getting so very tiresome. Someone of colour comes unstuck or dosnt succeed theres always the blame the white man card . " Which white man has been blamed ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who really gives a flying ...." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? " Absolutely love what Megan and Harry have done. Finally some people with the balls to buck the system a bit. Hopefully they call it out for the antiquated, ridiculous and rotten shambles that it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? " Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" Or ...and i am not saying this..but she could just be a bit of a shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Harry said he was isolating at home so he could fly immediately to visit Prince Phillip in an emergency, so how come he was filmed on a bus with James Corden ?" Maybe he’s bubbling him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public 'Gone in there?' Do you mean fell in love ? Got married ? How did she cause trouble ? What dirty laundry is she airing ? Well is going on Oprah for a big pay cheque the correct way to raise concerns about how the royals operate? I personally don’t think so. But I will caveat that we will have to see what is said in the interview and how damming it is " They are receiving no pay for interview....fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? " She did that 2 years ago... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior . What did she do to emasculate him ? How has he shown signs of becoming tattered ?" excommunicated and marginalised by his own family . Several allegations of bullying . Hypocrisy..flying around on private jets while spouting about climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny." I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" Ridiculous comment to make - the fact you even added race and background into this thread highlights the exact problem we find ourselves in! Has nothing at all to do with this current royal situation and to suggest it is, makes your comments far more racist.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? This is getting so very tiresome. Someone of colour comes unstuck or dosnt succeed theres always the blame the white man card . All of them by definition . Which white man has been blamed ?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? Or ...and i am not saying this..but she could just be a bit of a shit." Certainly a possibility.... should only matter to the two of them if she is really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? This is getting so very tiresome. Someone of colour comes unstuck or dosnt succeed theres always the blame the white man card . All of them by definition . Which white man has been blamed ?" What definition ? The definition of a white man ? Who is blaming white men for divisions in the royal family ? I need to know this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? " Republican France gets more tourists than us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha" So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" Spot on 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" Pretty much this.. There's previous with the 'firm'.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior . What did she do to emasculate him ? How has he shown signs of becoming tattered ? excommunicated and marginalised by his own family . Several allegations of bullying . Hypocrisy..flying around on private jets while spouting about climate change. " His own family hasn't excommunicated him but if they had how is that Megan's fault ? Bullying of who by who...... ? Climate change hypocrisy doesn't drive a wedge between Harry and his family ? Or am I missing something ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that?" A Nuremberg rally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that?" Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one talking about Price Andrew? He's protected and Harry is scorned, funny values.." Don't even say Andrew. He makes my flesh crawl. Harry is still a family member. He is not scorned. He just doesn't work there anymore ...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us" Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. " I wish them both happiness. I'm still not a royalist tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. " We are paying them back their own hereditary money. We keep some of it ourselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. " I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I wish them both happiness. I'm still not a royalist tho " I'm not a royalist either but I don't wish for the monarchy to be abolished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background?" So people who don't like something she or Harry has done are racist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. " To me that says they want control over who knows what about their lives. Just like we want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. Versailles? Colloseum? Etc etc " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. Would live to see some totally independent stats on that. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one talking about Price Andrew? He's protected and Harry is scorned, funny values.. Don't even say Andrew. He makes my flesh crawl. Harry is still a family member. He is not scorned. He just doesn't work there anymore ...... " Agree on Andrew, tend to disagree about Harry.. Perhaps scorned is a tad strong and whilst not applicable to all there's definitely been a campaign against the relationship by the establishment, whether that's got a central origin we will never know .. The comparisons of how certain media reflect the two brothers wives is starkly different.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. To me that says they want control over who knows what about their lives. Just like we want. " This for me too I'm sure many of us saw the interview with Diana where she said the family didn't like her and drove a massive wedge, but it's also to do with the newspapers too in both cases | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just find it sad whatever has happened behind the scenes that a family seems divided...I also find it cringeworthy all the dirty washing being aired." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. To me that says they want control over who knows what about their lives. Just like we want. " They probably had more protection as part of the Royal family though. Just think it seems they want their cake and eat it. Harry is a bit different because he was born into it but I do think Megan knew what she was getting involved in and certainly didn't help the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. Would live to see some totally independent stats on that. " How is visit Britain or a finance consultancy firm not independent???? I get your viewpoint, but I would suggest that 2m + visitors each year shows that there are benefits of keeping the royal family. (And yes there are negatives too) I would personally keep the royal family, but limit their benefits/duties to the core family, not some distant cousin, 45th in line to the throne etc... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? Absolutely love what Megan and Harry have done. Finally some people with the balls to buck the system a bit. Hopefully they call it out for the antiquated, ridiculous and rotten shambles that it is. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. " To a certain extent yes... but let’s face it, he has been able to (and certainly has done) pretty much whatever he wanted! It’s only been the last decade when he’s grown out of the partying and pot that he decided to forge a life. Hence the Invictus games. William has had his whole life groomed to be a king, I bet he wishes he could have been Harry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? Or ...and i am not saying this..but she could just be a bit of a shit. Certainly a possibility.... should only matter to the two of them if she is really." Yes and no. For someone who lived and cultivated and thrived in the spotlight of her self created media persona its a bit naive to think that nobody would pay them any attention. The issue I believe came when the attention she was getting turned away from the glitter she had got used to. That's the toxicity of the social media world many people inhabit at work. Great when it pays the bills, crap when it turns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior . What did she do to emasculate him ? How has he shown signs of becoming tattered ? excommunicated and marginalised by his own family . Several allegations of bullying . Hypocrisy..flying around on private jets while spouting about climate change. His own family hasn't excommunicated him but if they had how is that Megan's fault ? Bullying of who by who...... ? Climate change hypocrisy doesn't drive a wedge between Harry and his family ? Or am I missing something ? " There have been complaints that Megan bullied staff in 2018 and that she had one of the highest staff turnovers of any member of the Royal family. An investigation was launched into her bullying and apparently several members of staff complained, She's not happy that the Royal family investigated because she said they were perpetuating their negative image. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. Would live to see some totally independent stats on that. " It’s sick that people want to go into these palaces that were built directly from the profits of sl_ve labour. Britain and others incarcerated and traded the lives of 12.5 million Africans. Remember that when you pay your national trust subscription. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tabloids love to have someone to shit on. If it's a woman that's extra brownie points. If it's a strong woman who refuses to play by their rules then that's Press gold. Don't buy into that nasty shite. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I wish them both happiness. I'm still not a royalist tho " Aren't you a royalist then granny? Not heard that before | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. " He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. " I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. " Exactly and he didn't want to be part of it. I get choices you get choices why shouldn't he? I just don't think they've gone about it in the best way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which ones Ringo?" The one with the biggest tits!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. " Speculating here but I don't think he wanted out of the Royal family; I think he wanted to be in control of his life. The Queen decides what colour nail varnish female members of the Royal family can wear, and the shoes they put on their feet. It must be a very stifling company to work for 24/7. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. " Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. Exactly and he didn't want to be part of it. I get choices you get choices why shouldn't he? I just don't think they've gone about it in the best way." What do you think would have been a better way? How would they earn money or explain why he left his job role? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. " Hatred is deep for them. People will see bad in everything they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. Exactly and he didn't want to be part of it. I get choices you get choices why shouldn't he? I just don't think they've gone about it in the best way." Why don't they? Because it's the royal family. They are born into duty. That's it. Agree having a hissy fit and then poncing off a mate in a mansion in Canada doesn't present the right image of trying to escape the media and limelight she craves. Now there's a choice they can control... Stay off the TV for a bit, shut down insta for a bit.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Harry and Megan were skint they wouldn’t have stood away from the royal family Harry inherited £40 million when queen mum died, that money came from the annual sovereign grant that increased every year through austerity. Anyone can live off £40 million. They’ve made their choice from a wealthy position - money they didn’t earn. " Which is the Queens own money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything that hastens the demise of monarchy is surely progress...we’re citizens not subjects But the royal family brings in more money into the country than it costs to keep, so isn’t that a positive and worth keeping? Exactly, the treasury makes a profit before the first tourist steps foot in the country. The current Civil List (sorry can't remember what it is called) is smaller than the income from the Crown Estates (even with the extra added this last year) so the monarchy doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny. I hear this argument about tourism all the time. Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Haha So the masses of tourists who turn up outside Buckingham palace. The 10,000s who line the streets for royal events. May I ask what you call that? Just thought best to add this: According to VisitBritain, tourism in the UK linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy. Would live to see some totally independent stats on that. How is visit Britain or a finance consultancy firm not independent???? I get your viewpoint, but I would suggest that 2m + visitors each year shows that there are benefits of keeping the royal family. (And yes there are negatives too) I would personally keep the royal family, but limit their benefits/duties to the core family, not some distant cousin, 45th in line to the throne etc..." I’m not sure that visit Britain is 100% independent. The clue is in the title. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which is the Queens own money. " Indeed. All £8 bn of it paid by the taxpayer and invested tax free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? No sorry, don't agree. The race issue is irrelevant " Really? I've seen some horrendous things attributed to her that reference her ethnic background and inability to be accepted because of it. Ps I'm no particular fan of hers btw. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyone can live off £40 million. They’ve made their choice from a wealthy position - money they didn’t earn. " She was earning her own money long before she met Harry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. Hatred is deep for them. People will see bad in everything they do. " But that's the point. Why do we need to see anything they do anymore.? They can very easily step out of the limelight but choose not to. Then choose to moan about it when it doesn't get managed to their desired outcome. I'd never heard of her until she married a royal and started doing the celeb circuit. If you want autonomous control of your life... Probably best not to marry a family and instituion steeped in centuries of customs and which comes laden with obligation and duty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyone can live off £40 million. They’ve made their choice from a wealthy position - money they didn’t earn. She was earning her own money long before she met Harry." Well she certainly got a pay rise after she met him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. Hatred is deep for them. People will see bad in everything they do. But that's the point. Why do we need to see anything they do anymore.? They can very easily step out of the limelight but choose not to. Then choose to moan about it when it doesn't get managed to their desired outcome. I'd never heard of her until she married a royal and started doing the celeb circuit. If you want autonomous control of your life... Probably best not to marry a family and instituion steeped in centuries of customs and which comes laden with obligation and duty. " The tabloids write about them voluntarily regardless of what they do. They always will since they’re public figures. At the same time, if people don’t want to hear about them in the tabloids they are free to read something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior . What did she do to emasculate him ? How has he shown signs of becoming tattered ? excommunicated and marginalised by his own family . Several allegations of bullying . Hypocrisy..flying around on private jets while spouting about climate change. His own family hasn't excommunicated him but if they had how is that Megan's fault ? Bullying of who by who...... ? Climate change hypocrisy doesn't drive a wedge between Harry and his family ? Or am I missing something ? " You obviously don't read the papers ..three people in the Royal household accuse Harry and megxit of bullying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think she gave him the strength to do what he always wanted to do. I totally agree with this I think he always wanted out and she was his way out. I do think though that they have to be a bit careful because they are on one hand saying they have a right to privacy and on the other signing Netflix deals and doing interviews so I think it can come across as hypocritical. He wanted out of what? Its the royal family you don't just choose your own rules.... There are centuries of custom... Now if they don't like it... Tough. Some of them take their role well. Some of them clearly struggle with the obligation. Exactly and he didn't want to be part of it. I get choices you get choices why shouldn't he? I just don't think they've gone about it in the best way. What do you think would have been a better way? How would they earn money or explain why he left his job role? " She is an actress no? He could earn money, Many royals have jobs outside of the family. They could have done it in a better way by just having a bit of dignity and I don't think they always have. On one hand they want to step away from being Royal but they didn't want to give up their titles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. Hatred is deep for them. People will see bad in everything they do. But that's the point. Why do we need to see anything they do anymore.? They can very easily step out of the limelight but choose not to. Then choose to moan about it when it doesn't get managed to their desired outcome. I'd never heard of her until she married a royal and started doing the celeb circuit. If you want autonomous control of your life... Probably best not to marry a family and instituion steeped in centuries of customs and which comes laden with obligation and duty. The tabloids write about them voluntarily regardless of what they do. They always will since they’re public figures. At the same time, if people don’t want to hear about them in the tabloids they are free to read something else. " To an extent... But they also run their own media circus. The tabloids have anattention span of a goldfish... After a few days they move onto the next celeb... After a month we wouldn't hear anything about them if they didn't keep feeding the beast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It amazes me how many people are so invested and manage to drum up stories about their relationship without even knowing them. Personally I have nothing against either of them, I think the press and some of the public especially on social media have been vile towards the both of them. I think they’re well within their rights to tell their side of the story especially with the tabloids printing what they feel. I agree. So much of what people say is not based on facts, just speculation. Absolutely. It’s actually quite alarming how people can come to such strong conclusions without solid evidence, not just with Meghan or Harry, but with celebrities in general. Some people believe they are entitled to say whatever they like no matter how harsh, just because someone is in the public eye. When she opened up about her miscarriage I read many tweets practically celebrating the fact that she had lost a child claiming it was her fault and others saying she was lying for sympathy and attention, and that they want proof. Crazy. Hatred is deep for them. People will see bad in everything they do. But that's the point. Why do we need to see anything they do anymore.? They can very easily step out of the limelight but choose not to. Then choose to moan about it when it doesn't get managed to their desired outcome. I'd never heard of her until she married a royal and started doing the celeb circuit. If you want autonomous control of your life... Probably best not to marry a family and instituion steeped in centuries of customs and which comes laden with obligation and duty. The tabloids write about them voluntarily regardless of what they do. They always will since they’re public figures. At the same time, if people don’t want to hear about them in the tabloids they are free to read something else. To an extent... But they also run their own media circus. The tabloids have anattention span of a goldfish... After a few days they move onto the next celeb... After a month we wouldn't hear anything about them if they didn't keep feeding the beast. " I disagree. Especially when it comes to the Royals. The tabloids print what they know will get them clicks and views and anything to do with the Royals does just that. Even if they didn’t speak publicly for a month you can guarantee the Daily Mail or a similar rag would print something to keep tongues wagging. Probably something along the lines of “A source has said Harry & Meghan are having relationship troubles”. That’s the media for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior ." so standing by your wife makes you a bully, a simp and invalidates any of the good work you did ... your wife or wife to be must be one lucky lady | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always going to be monstered whatever she does, because she shows some spirit and independence and isn't white and from the 'right' background? No sorry, don't agree. The race issue is irrelevant " its irrelevant for me and you perhaps but there are many others who will mask their racism as “traditional” and object to her not being the traditional princess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t say I am a fan. She seems to have gone in there, caused trouble and is now airing her dirty washing in public 'Gone in there?' Do you mean fell in love ? Got married ? How did she cause trouble ? What dirty laundry is she airing ?" in all fairness i think this interview is expected to air quite alot of dirty laundry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy! "maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just find it sad whatever has happened behind the scenes that a family seems divided...I also find it cringeworthy all the dirty washing being aired." They have a pr army behind them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy! "The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument."Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year. We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument."No it doesn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
"You mention the buildings etc - yes. The history of the royal family - yes. Do we still need them? Not so sure. I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family. It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't "Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021. "An hereditary monarch is an anachronism. But saying that if we had a referendum on them,I think they would probslly be kept on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021. "errrrr this is awkward but edinburgh castle is one of the largest tourism draws in scotland , where they have these things called crown jewels which belong to the royal family an if you scrap the royal family , over time the draw of the history and buildings goes with them - it absolutely wouldn’t be immediate, but in future generations who cares about visiting buildings or hearing about a family that don’t even exist any more - they become nothing more than some pretty or even some run down old buildings i know people hate that they are elusive and elitist but actually thats part of the draw for the people that do come | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists"People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they? They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy. It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyone can live off £40 million. They’ve made their choice from a wealthy position - money they didn’t earn. She was earning her own money long before she met Harry. Well she certainly got a pay rise after she met him." Did she? She gave up her career to marry as carrying on would have been unacceptable. She also became subjected to quite vicious abuse, which prior to had not been a consideration. Besides which I guess she was doing ok, 'getting a pay rise' through marriage might not feature highly on her reasons for marrying Harry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism. "i don’t think they would, or certainly not to the same level they do now and it would just continue to decline as time goes on what other countries that used to have a monarchy have people visiting their palaces at a rate of 2.7million a year? people dont come to see a pretty building, they come because their country doesn’t have a monarchy and that makes the fact that ours does interesting and people want to see some if it for themselves, sure we don’t expect to actually see the queen but isnt it a little exciting to know that she might be inside just behind one if those windows  ( i know thats not how you think but it will be for alot of the tourists )
i do think the sentiment might change though when the queen dies - shes a sweet old lady who has dedicated her life and always been seen to do the right thing (by the royal rules even if its not something you politically agree with) - she is also kind if from a time gone by which in itself is interesting - i am not sure if either charles or even william stir the same emotions in people or if they will draw the same appeal - only time will tell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shes cut Harry's balls off . My interpretation of him as one of the very few likeable royals is in tatters . A bully a simp and a fraudulent faux social warrior . so standing by your wife makes you a bully, a simp and invalidates any of the good work you did ... your wife or wife to be must be one lucky lady " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism. "So when you go to a football match do you say hello to all the players??? No didn’t think so. If you read the full thread, it was a previous comment that royals are a financial burden. This just isn’t the case as they bring in more money than they take out. Tourism being just one way of how money is brought in. The comment about the royal family being outdated is valid, but as has been said in the thread, for everyone in favour of removing the royal family, there is the same number who wishes for them to remain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism.
So when you go to a football match do you say hello to all the players??? No didn’t think so.
If you read the full thread, it was a previous comment that royals are a financial burden. This just isn’t the case as they bring in more money than they take out. Tourism being just one way of how money is brought in.
The comment about the royal family being outdated is valid, but as has been said in the thread, for everyone in favour of removing the royal family, there is the same number who wishes for them to remain."The football analogy is absurd. You pay to watch a team play and that's what you do. As stated people come to this country to see a whole loads of attractions..tower bridge etc.The argument that they solely being in tourism Is flawed to say the least. And like I said its seems a rather ridiculous argument to have a family of untold wealth and privilege just because they being in a debatable amount of tourism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"heres another thought- every one of these threads gets high numbers or maxes out love them or hate them and anything in between people love to talk about them - that drama is also part of the what keeps people interested , that drama is also part of the tourist draw in the same way that you hear celebs saying no press is bad press because it keeps you relevant scrap the family and i see us talking about bricks and mortar way less " Its chicken and egg with the press Are people interested in their day to day lives (I personally couldnt care less)or is it because the papers are obsessed with them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An anachronistic institution is already wedged up, as it exists within an ever impoverished majority, with a minority who have acted with impunity, to keep them poorer. Megan is somewhat different, as is Harry, to the former lot. I'd swap Harry any day for Andrew. They represent much that is wrong with the country and world at large - friends of the murderous Saudi lot, speaks volumes. It's natural that away from the core heirs, people will become more detached. Who wants to revere Beatrice and Eugenie as higher mortals? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?"Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism. "Not sure people have used that argument. I certainly don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?
Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic. "They can be but the argument that they bring in tourism could perhaps only be measured against the tourism that countries like France for example get? And even then it's still not clear as people visit countries for a variety of reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021.
errrrr this is awkward but edinburgh castle is one of the largest tourism draws in scotland , where they have these things called crown jewels which belong to the royal family
an if you scrap the royal family , over time the draw of the history and buildings goes with them - it absolutely wouldn’t be immediate, but in future generations who cares about visiting buildings or hearing about a family that don’t even exist any more - they become nothing more than some pretty or even some run down old buildings
i know people hate that they are elusive and elitist but actually thats part of the draw for the people that do come "They’re actually called the honours of Scotland, not the “crown jewels”. You’ve kind of proved my point, because Scotland hasn’t had an exclusive Scottish monarchy since the 1600’s, yet you are telling me 400 years later people are still coming to look at them? Despite the fact, they know there is no chance of sneaking a peak at the queen/king/prince/princess behind the castle curtains? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism.
Not sure people have used that argument. I certainly don't. "But when the argument is mooted about retaining the monarchy.. the pro argument is largely framed around the tourism angle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021.
errrrr this is awkward but edinburgh castle is one of the largest tourism draws in scotland , where they have these things called crown jewels which belong to the royal family
an if you scrap the royal family , over time the draw of the history and buildings goes with them - it absolutely wouldn’t be immediate, but in future generations who cares about visiting buildings or hearing about a family that don’t even exist any more - they become nothing more than some pretty or even some run down old buildings
i know people hate that they are elusive and elitist but actually thats part of the draw for the people that do come
They’re actually called the honours of Scotland, not the “crown jewels”. You’ve kind of proved my point, because Scotland hasn’t had an exclusive Scottish monarchy since the 1600’s, yet you are telling me 400 years later people are still coming to look at them? Despite the fact, they know there is no chance of sneaking a peak at the queen/king/prince/princess behind the castle curtains? "Also to add to this - the royal family don’t own them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway once the revolution is complete, where are all the royals and their road crew going to go? Big corporations would buy up the estates. Sheep would freely graze where once corgies panted about. The Mall could be completely pedestrianised with car boot sales of a Sunday." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?
Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic.
They can be but the argument that they bring in tourism could perhaps only be measured against the tourism that countries like France for example get?
And even then it's still not clear as people visit countries for a variety of reasons. "Yes they do. And like it or not. The research by the tourist board indicate year upon year that the Royal Family bring tourists here and generate revenue. The Americans and Germans (god knows why) love our royals. In the same way as the French tourist board say that Disney land attracts 16m visits. Its just one aspect of the Royal Family debate. This is about meghan who is no longer part of the Royal household... Big woop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?
Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic.
They can be but the argument that they bring in tourism could perhaps only be measured against the tourism that countries like France for example get?
And even then it's still not clear as people visit countries for a variety of reasons.
Yes they do. And like it or not. The research by the tourist board indicate year upon year that the Royal Family bring tourists here and generate revenue. The Americans and Germans (god knows why) love our royals. In the same way as the French tourist board say that Disney land attracts 16m visits. Its just one aspect of the Royal Family debate. This is about meghan who is no longer part of the Royal household... Big woop.
"If an American family visit here they will see a load of sights..one of them may be Buckingham palace. Would they still come if we didnt have a monarchy? Most likely..yes. So like I keep saying it's a flawed argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?
Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic.
They can be but the argument that they bring in tourism could perhaps only be measured against the tourism that countries like France for example get?
And even then it's still not clear as people visit countries for a variety of reasons.
Yes they do. And like it or not. The research by the tourist board indicate year upon year that the Royal Family bring tourists here and generate revenue. The Americans and Germans (god knows why) love our royals. In the same way as the French tourist board say that Disney land attracts 16m visits. Its just one aspect of the Royal Family debate. This is about meghan who is no longer part of the Royal household... Big woop.
"You are forgetting that John from Liverpool & Paul from Glasgow don’t believe the figures from visit Britain. (Sorry don’t know actual names) Their personal views have much more credit than an organisation who have carried out research! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. " The Crown Estate announces £345.0 million net revenue profit for 2019/20. Not a bad profit so they actually cost the tax payer nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just think how many poor people could be housed in Buckingham Palace. Or it could be knocked down and social housing flats built. Or, the Government can use it as HQ, seeing as the old building is dilapidated. I would hate for it to be bought up by overseas property investors though. " But it wouldn't be it would be luxury apartments that most people can't afford. We can't just turn every historical building into somewhere for people to live this country has a rich heritage and something we should be proud of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. The Crown Estate announces £345.0 million net revenue profit for 2019/20. Not a bad profit so they actually cost the tax payer nothing" Who owns the crown estate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
No it doesn't
Would people not visit here of we didnt have a monarchy?
Quite a few negatives in there. People would still visit the UK if we didn't have a monarchy. That wasn't the point that was being made though. Which is that people are drawn to visit here to visit our royal family and their paraphernalia and that generates revenue. Other countries have royal families and also have tourists. They can be symbiotic.
They can be but the argument that they bring in tourism could perhaps only be measured against the tourism that countries like France for example get?
And even then it's still not clear as people visit countries for a variety of reasons.
Yes they do. And like it or not. The research by the tourist board indicate year upon year that the Royal Family bring tourists here and generate revenue. The Americans and Germans (god knows why) love our royals. In the same way as the French tourist board say that Disney land attracts 16m visits. Its just one aspect of the Royal Family debate. This is about meghan who is no longer part of the Royal household... Big woop.
You are forgetting that John from Liverpool & Paul from Glasgow don’t believe the figures from visit Britain. (Sorry don’t know actual names)
Their personal views have much more credit than an organisation who have carried out research! "Did the people who visited here just visit royal residencies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just think how many poor people could be housed in Buckingham Palace. Or it could be knocked down and social housing flats built. Or, the Government can use it as HQ, seeing as the old building is dilapidated. I would hate for it to be bought up by overseas property investors though. But it wouldn't be it would be luxury apartments that most people can't afford. We can't just turn every historical building into somewhere for people to live this country has a rich heritage and something we should be proud of. " Genuine question Lorna, no barbs, what do you mean by rich heritage in this sense? For me I always think Shakespeare, Austen, The Beatles, Turner, but you seem to be implying a royal heritage. I'm intrigued, in what way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism.
So when you go to a football match do you say hello to all the players??? No didn’t think so.
If you read the full thread, it was a previous comment that royals are a financial burden. This just isn’t the case as they bring in more money than they take out. Tourism being just one way of how money is brought in.
The comment about the royal family being outdated is valid, but as has been said in the thread, for everyone in favour of removing the royal family, there is the same number who wishes for them to remain.
The football analogy is absurd.
You pay to watch a team play and that's what you do.
As stated people come to this country to see a whole loads of attractions..tower bridge etc.The argument that they solely being in tourism Is flawed to say the least.
And like I said its seems a rather ridiculous argument to have a family of untold wealth and privilege just because they being in a debatable amount of tourism."i havent seen one person argue that the SOLELY bring tourism to the country mbut your argument that they dont bring tourists at all is just as absurd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Yoko Ono of the Royal Family?? Is she going to drive a wedge through them?? " If you have just compared The Beatles to the royals. Which one is Ringo? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021.
errrrr this is awkward but edinburgh castle is one of the largest tourism draws in scotland , where they have these things called crown jewels which belong to the royal family
an if you scrap the royal family , over time the draw of the history and buildings goes with them - it absolutely wouldn’t be immediate, but in future generations who cares about visiting buildings or hearing about a family that don’t even exist any more - they become nothing more than some pretty or even some run down old buildings
i know people hate that they are elusive and elitist but actually thats part of the draw for the people that do come
They’re actually called the honours of Scotland, not the “crown jewels”. You’ve kind of proved my point, because Scotland hasn’t had an exclusive Scottish monarchy since the 1600’s, yet you are telling me 400 years later people are still coming to look at them? Despite the fact, they know there is no chance of sneaking a peak at the queen/king/prince/princess behind the castle curtains?
Also to add to this - the royal family don’t own them. "okay out your tourist hat on for a minute and try not to be so blinkered in your view do you think american tourists care who the legal owner is? do you think they care that the queen is not an exclusive scottish monarch? do you think they go home and tell their friends and family i went and saw the honours of scotland? of course they don’t they say i went to the UK and i saw the queens crown jewels (if we are lucky - chances are the actually say they went to england  )
you might not like it and they night bot be connecting it to the appropriate history in your eyes or geography in anybodys, but thats the reality of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. The Crown Estate announces £345.0 million net revenue profit for 2019/20. Not a bad profit so they actually cost the tax payer nothing" Don't bring your facts in here... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism.
So when you go to a football match do you say hello to all the players??? No didn’t think so.
If you read the full thread, it was a previous comment that royals are a financial burden. This just isn’t the case as they bring in more money than they take out. Tourism being just one way of how money is brought in.
The comment about the royal family being outdated is valid, but as has been said in the thread, for everyone in favour of removing the royal family, there is the same number who wishes for them to remain.
The football analogy is absurd.
You pay to watch a team play and that's what you do.
As stated people come to this country to see a whole loads of attractions..tower bridge etc.The argument that they solely being in tourism Is flawed to say the least.
And like I said its seems a rather ridiculous argument to have a family of untold wealth and privilege just because they being in a debatable amount of tourism.
i havent seen one person argue that the SOLELY bring tourism to the country
mbut your argument that they dont bring tourists at all is just as absurd "I didn't say they bring in no tourism I said people visit this country to see a variety of sights. Royalty palaces are just 1 of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. The Crown Estate announces £345.0 million net revenue profit for 2019/20. Not a bad profit so they actually cost the tax payer nothing Don't bring your facts in here... " It's a fact that we dont have any say over them whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
maybe those countries have other things people want to visit - probably disney land , and the vatican, maybe the technological wonders of japan , the tallest hotel in the world, the historical elements of germany through the war and communism, the weather of some gorgeous islands
the point is each is different and has its own draw , like it or not, the royal family, buildings and history is one of the draws for the uk and one of the things that makes us different from the others
You mention the buildings etc - yes.
The history of the royal family - yes.
Do we still need them? Not so sure.
I live in Scotland and tourism is one of our biggest earners. No one comes here as a result of a royal family.
It’s dated, and quite frankly ridiculous that we still have this system in the year 2021.
errrrr this is awkward but edinburgh castle is one of the largest tourism draws in scotland , where they have these things called crown jewels which belong to the royal family
an if you scrap the royal family , over time the draw of the history and buildings goes with them - it absolutely wouldn’t be immediate, but in future generations who cares about visiting buildings or hearing about a family that don’t even exist any more - they become nothing more than some pretty or even some run down old buildings
i know people hate that they are elusive and elitist but actually thats part of the draw for the people that do come
They’re actually called the honours of Scotland, not the “crown jewels”. You’ve kind of proved my point, because Scotland hasn’t had an exclusive Scottish monarchy since the 1600’s, yet you are telling me 400 years later people are still coming to look at them? Despite the fact, they know there is no chance of sneaking a peak at the queen/king/prince/princess behind the castle curtains?
Also to add to this - the royal family don’t own them.
okay out your tourist hat on for a minute and try not to be so blinkered in your view
do you think american tourists care who the legal owner is? do you think they care that the queen is not an exclusive scottish monarch? do you think they go home and tell their friends and family i went and saw the honours of scotland?
of course they don’t they say i went to the UK and i saw the queens crown jewels (if we are lucky - chances are the actually say they went to england )
you might not like it and they night bot be connecting it to the appropriate history in your eyes or geography in anybodys, but thats the reality of it "Most couldn't find Scotland on a map let alone distinguish nuances of Royal accoutrements. But they do love the history. What's not to like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fact that we dont have any say over them whatsoever." You don’t have a say over anything. Every 4 years you gamble upon which shower of corrupt self-serving twats will do best for the country, and you hope they deliver upon what they promised. Beyond that, suck it up buttercup. Unless you have enough personal wealth to start your own nation, that’s as good as it gets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you really think that tourists come to the UK for the royal family? Republican France gets more tourists than us Out of the 10 most visited countries in the world, one has a royal family, and they’re very different to ours. I don’t get the tourism argument at all. It’s like people think that tourists come to actually sit down and have afternoon tea with Lizzy!
The fact that millions of people visit countries which dont have monarchies completely destroys that argument.
Not really, as no one said the royal family is the PRINCIPAL reason tourists come the uk. The comment is that SOME tourists do come for this reason and that it is estimated at 2.7 million a year.
We aren’t comparing countries here, merely stating that the royals do draw in some tourists
People don't come to say hello to the queen though do they?
They would still visit the buildings even if we didnt have a monarchy.
It also seems a strange argument to retain a feudal and outdated system because of tourism.
So when you go to a football match do you say hello to all the players??? No didn’t think so.
If you read the full thread, it was a previous comment that royals are a financial burden. This just isn’t the case as they bring in more money than they take out. Tourism being just one way of how money is brought in.
The comment about the royal family being outdated is valid, but as has been said in the thread, for everyone in favour of removing the royal family, there is the same number who wishes for them to remain.
The football analogy is absurd.
You pay to watch a team play and that's what you do.
As stated people come to this country to see a whole loads of attractions..tower bridge etc.The argument that they solely being in tourism Is flawed to say the least.
And like I said its seems a rather ridiculous argument to have a family of untold wealth and privilege just because they being in a debatable amount of tourism.
i havent seen one person argue that the SOLELY bring tourism to the country
mbut your argument that they dont bring tourists at all is just as absurd
I didn't say they bring in no tourism
I said people visit this country to see a variety of sights.
Royalty palaces are just 1 of them."well then why cant you comprehend that people saying the royals generate tourism is not the same as them saying tourism would die if we got rid? why trump out arguments like france is a republic and still gets tourists if you know thats not the point being made | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family of leaches. Sovereign grant £84 million this year TAX FREE paid by us. The Crown Estate announces £345.0 million net revenue profit for 2019/20. Not a bad profit so they actually cost the tax payer nothing" I might be a bit basic but from the above, we give them money, they make money from the money we give them and they keep it all. ie they cost us 84 million in 2019/20. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fact that we dont have any say over them whatsoever. You don’t have a say over anything. Every 4 years you gamble upon which shower of corrupt self-serving twats will do best for the country, and you hope they deliver upon what they promised. Beyond that, suck it up buttercup. Unless you have enough personal wealth to start your own nation, that’s as good as it gets. " At least with elections you have a minuscule voice. The fact that we are 'ruled'by a hereditary monarch who we are meant to serve with no say in the matter is ridiculous . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that we are 'ruled'by a hereditary monarch who we are meant to serve with no say in the matter is ridiculous ." Then vote to get rid. Or relocate to a republic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that we are 'ruled'by a hereditary monarch who we are meant to serve with no say in the matter is ridiculous . Then vote to get rid. Or relocate to a republic. " How do you vote to get rid exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask if anyone posting here knows her personally? Didn't think so....so your doing exactly what the British press has done and thats why there fucked off...he's not an important royal anyway..good luck to them in Los Angeles... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
