FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should the queen follow the king of Spain's example
Should the queen follow the king of Spain's example
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
And abdicate her throne....
This isn't a royalist vs republican thread... More the point that she is almost 90 now..
He is 75 and sighting health issues.. Hers are only going to get worse and I'd almost she retired gracefully whilst we remember her for the great work she has done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes, I think she should, let Charles take the role and allow herself time to do official duties in her own leisure. The woman has done a fantastic job for 61 years and should be allowed time away from the public eye. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
she can't unless parliament change the law for her. after her uncle abdicated they passed a law requiring the monarchy to function in a certain way.... monarchs cannot abdicate, the throne has to pass to the next in line. as it stands, she's going to reign until she passes away and then the throne passes to Charles until he passes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"quite happy for her to drop dead on the throne Elvis style. Make her the last one and retire the idea of monarchy."
Do you often wish little old ladies would die. A very strange fantasy you have there. Ever thought about seeing someone about it ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The spanish one is only leaving because he went on a very expensive shooting trip to Botswana in a time when veryone out there is skint.
The public hate him for it
No to Maj, long may she reign over us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fooking hell makes no odds who is head of state they all take money out taxpayers.
Queenie should have abdicated long time since but i think she realises what a knobhead is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, I think she should, let Charles take the role and allow herself time to do official duties in her own leisure. The woman has done a fantastic job for 61 years and should be allowed time away from the public eye."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Abdication is _iewed slightly differently on the continent than it is in the UK.
It's quite normal for a sovereign to 'retire' for instance Queen B in the Netherlands and now Johnny C in Spain.
There is a slight stigma and drama attached to it culturally here which normally prevents UK sovereigns doing it. They prefer to pop their cloggs on the job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are fellow brits unworthy to head their country or is it the reserve for just one family....
maybe we should have a referendum..?
what do you think?"
to be honest I can't understand why one family are allowed hold a monopoly on being head of state...non of these people will ever have to prove their worth or even face election...its the 21st century and we scorn at countries where blood line rule exists. This is stuff from the bronze age where succession rule was the order...the country is awash with capable, worthy people who could do the job admirably if elected and remember they get the job cause they proved themselves not because it was given to them through privilege |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are fellow brits unworthy to head their country or is it the reserve for just one family....
maybe we should have a referendum..?
what do you think? to be honest I can't understand why one family are allowed hold a monopoly on being head of state...non of these people will ever have to prove their worth or even face election...its the 21st century and we scorn at countries where blood line rule exists. This is stuff from the bronze age where succession rule was the order...the country is awash with capable, worthy people who could do the job admirably if elected and remember they get the job cause they proved themselves not because it was given to them through privilege"
I think there are too many on the public payroll..
as to whether a process of electing folks in such a position would ever work that's another issue, not sure just whom is capable of doing the job given its a specific role..
not exactly like running a plc..?
we have succession in all families by and large, cant see the day in my lifetime when we become a republic..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much? "
Yeah, because you never get any tourists going to France or Germany or...
Stop the public funding. They can still be king or queen or whatever they want to be, she has an estimated net worth of $550 million, more than enough for a family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are fellow brits unworthy to head their country or is it the reserve for just one family....
maybe we should have a referendum..?
what do you think? to be honest I can't understand why one family are allowed hold a monopoly on being head of state...non of these people will ever have to prove their worth or even face election...its the 21st century and we scorn at countries where blood line rule exists. This is stuff from the bronze age where succession rule was the order...the country is awash with capable, worthy people who could do the job admirably if elected and remember they get the job cause they proved themselves not because it was given to them through privilege"
Mr69:Who else could do the job? Names please.
The idea of a ruling Royal Family is a little old fashioned but tourists love all of that pomp, economically alone they bring millions into the country each year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much? "
its an illusion tourists flock to see buck palace not the queen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much?
Yeah, because you never get any tourists going to France or Germany or...
Stop the public funding. They can still be king or queen or whatever they want to be, she has an estimated net worth of $550 million, more than enough for a family."
Well put. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the monarchy was dropped tomorrow there would be billions of pounds lost because tourists love the royal family to death.They can't get enough of them.You ask any army navy or R.A,F. man what he want to serve under royalty or a Republic and it would be Royalty every time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be fair, the Royal family is a massive money spinner. So may people associate it with our grandiose history and like it or not, look up to it.
Personally I find it inoffensive and I have to say, I do like Charles.
He might well put his foot in it, but generally he's saying what we are all thinking! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the monarchy was dropped tomorrow there would be billions of pounds lost because tourists love the royal family to death.They can't get enough of them.You ask any army navy or R.A,F. man what he want to serve under royalty or a Republic and it would be Royalty every time."
Do tourists come to see the Royal Family, or the buildings and regalia they're associated with? The military are paid to follow orders, no matter who sits on a throne wearing a silly hat, so their opinions regarding royalty or republic are inconsequential. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes Hants2 they do come to see the royal family.As regards to obeying in the forces a soldier is willing to fight for royalty where as a republic the majority of the armed forces are conscripts AND DON'T want to fight.Look at Argentina when they invaded the Falklands 98% were conscripts and surrendered at the earliest opportunity,it was also the same for the Iraq army. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the monarchy was dropped tomorrow there would be billions of pounds lost because tourists love the royal family to death.They can't get enough of them.You ask any army navy or R.A,F. man what he want to serve under royalty or a Republic and it would be Royalty every time.
Do tourists come to see the Royal Family, or the buildings and regalia they're associated with? The military are paid to follow orders, no matter who sits on a throne wearing a silly hat, so their opinions regarding royalty or republic are inconsequential."
If there were no royal family I don't believe tourists would still flock to buck house in their thousands. It's a rather unspectacular building and it's not as grand as other European palaces and you also don't get access to the grounds. They come to see where the royals live, they won't come to see where they used to live. I haven't had a working day in fifteen years where I haven't gone past the palace and it is always very busy outside with tourists. These tourists are spending money in hotels, cafés, restaurants, pubs etc and are very important for the economy of our country (and more importantly me) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In north Korea title is handed on no election... No contest no elections... Ordinary folk don't get a look in.... That's bull about republics and conscripts"
But we have elections here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In north Korea title is handed on no election... No contest no elections... Ordinary folk don't get a look in.... That's bull about republics and conscripts
But we have elections here. "
not to choose head of state that's exclusively held for one family |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In north Korea title is handed on no election... No contest no elections... Ordinary folk don't get a look in.... That's bull about republics and conscripts
But we have elections here. not to choose head of state that's exclusively held for one family"
Norway and Sweden both have monarchs as their heads of state and these two countries are often cited as the most democratic in Europe and are held as an example of how democracy works.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think all the tourists come to see the queen is a big red herring.
How many countries without a queen of their own do very well out of tourism. Lots.
How many tourists get to see the queen?
Not very many.
How many tourists actually arrive believing they will see the queen?
Only the stupid ones.
As for the armed forces suddenly becoming conscripts because there is no queen, how rediculous. The USA doesn't seem to struggle. Argentina lost the Falklands conflict because they didn't have a king or queen... 
Conscription is national service, where people are legally obliged to serve, people who don't want to serve being forced to, which can lead to low moral.
Like I said previously I have no problem with the royal family carrying on doing what they do but it really shouldn't be funded out of the public purse in this day and age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think all the tourists come to see the queen is a big red herring.
How many countries without a queen of their own do very well out of tourism. Lots.
How many tourists get to see the queen?
Not very many.
How many tourists actually arrive believing they will see the queen?
Only the stupid ones.
As for the armed forces suddenly becoming conscripts because there is no queen, how rediculous. The USA doesn't seem to struggle. Argentina lost the Falklands conflict because they didn't have a king or queen...
Conscription is national service, where people are legally obliged to serve, people who don't want to serve being forced to, which can lead to low moral.
Like I said previously I have no problem with the royal family carrying on doing what they do but it really shouldn't be funded out of the public purse in this day and age."
As far as I'm aware, Liz and Phil don't do autograph signing sessions, or advertise live performances, but I do understand Phil's kebab shop chain is doing well. The UK still gets 10s of thousands of tourists when the Queen is away on state visits - are they stupid tourists, or do they visit because the UK is a great place to holiday? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think all the tourists come to see the queen is a big red herring.
How many countries without a queen of their own do very well out of tourism. Lots.
How many tourists get to see the queen?
Not very many.
How many tourists actually arrive believing they will see the queen?
Only the stupid ones.
As for the armed forces suddenly becoming conscripts because there is no queen, how rediculous. The USA doesn't seem to struggle. Argentina lost the Falklands conflict because they didn't have a king or queen...
Conscription is national service, where people are legally obliged to serve, people who don't want to serve being forced to, which can lead to low moral.
Like I said previously I have no problem with the royal family carrying on doing what they do but it really shouldn't be funded out of the public purse in this day and age.
As far as I'm aware, Liz and Phil don't do autograph signing sessions, or advertise live performances, but I do understand Phil's kebab shop chain is doing well. The UK still gets 10s of thousands of tourists when the Queen is away on state visits - are they stupid tourists, or do they visit because the UK is a great place to holiday? "
Aye they bring in millions, no billions...
And that's just the stamps  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think all the tourists come to see the queen is a big red herring.
How many countries without a queen of their own do very well out of tourism. Lots.
."
They are not coming to actually see the queen , they are coming to see where they royals live and all the pomp that surrounds it. The changing of the guard is watched by hundreds everyday. Tourists are queuing up to have their photos taken next to the guards and in the sentry boxes. The trooping of the colour is attended by thousands.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As far as I'm aware, Liz and Phil don't do autograph signing sessions, or advertise live performances, but I do understand Phil's kebab shop chain is doing well. The UK still gets 10s of thousands of tourists when the Queen is away on state visits - are they stupid tourists, or do they visit because the UK is a great place to holiday? "
As far as I'm aware Phil doesn't own a chain of kebab shops. Is your racially stereotyping an attempt at humour or do you object to the royal family because you don't see them as true Brits ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As far as I'm aware, Liz and Phil don't do autograph signing sessions, or advertise live performances, but I do understand Phil's kebab shop chain is doing well. The UK still gets 10s of thousands of tourists when the Queen is away on state visits - are they stupid tourists, or do they visit because the UK is a great place to holiday?
As far as I'm aware Phil doesn't own a chain of kebab shops. Is your racially stereotyping an attempt at humour or do you object to the royal family because you don't see them as true Brits ?"
Kebabs were created by the Turkish, and kebab shops are typically owned and run by Turks. Get your facts right if you're going to allude to racial stereotyping. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think all the tourists come to see the queen is a big red herring.
How many countries without a queen of their own do very well out of tourism. Lots.
.
They are not coming to actually see the queen , they are coming to see where they royals live and all the pomp that surrounds it. The changing of the guard is watched by hundreds everyday. Tourists are queuing up to have their photos taken next to the guards and in the sentry boxes. The trooping of the colour is attended by thousands.
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As far as I'm aware, Liz and Phil don't do autograph signing sessions, or advertise live performances, but I do understand Phil's kebab shop chain is doing well. The UK still gets 10s of thousands of tourists when the Queen is away on state visits - are they stupid tourists, or do they visit because the UK is a great place to holiday?
As far as I'm aware Phil doesn't own a chain of kebab shops. Is your racially stereotyping an attempt at humour or do you object to the royal family because you don't see them as true Brits ?
Kebabs were created by the Turkish, and kebab shops are typically owned and run by Turks. Get your facts right if you're going to allude to racial stereotyping."
So which facts have I got wrong ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere."
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
"
The British Tourism Agency - owned and operated by Her Majesty's Government, so hardly likely to be at all biased |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
The British Tourism Agency - owned and operated by Her Majesty's Government, so hardly likely to be at all biased "
But if the government thought they would gain by getting rid of the royals don't you think they would have done so by now ?
I've been past buck house half a dozen times today and it's packed outside there. Not bad for a normal working Monday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Go republic.. And let a mortal head the state"
you mean like you guys do over there?
yeah, thats worked well for ireland hasnt it lol.
wasnt your last president a cross dresser?
not that its a problem to me, but trying to keep secrets very rarely works in big office, especially when you have such a big church culture to contend with.
i feel she would have left the throne by now had she not seen how her father had been marginalised when he abdicated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
"
And my guess is that 99% of those tourists would visit those historical sites anyhow. The £500 million is guesswork at best. Castles? Most of which have no connection to royalty whatsoever, certainly not modern royalty, maybe a king slept there once... On his travels to lord it over the oiks.
Maybe the tourist board should start paying for the royals, I certainly don't think the average person should be paying for the upkeep of a family whose head is worth 100's of millions...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
The British Tourism Agency - owned and operated by Her Majesty's Government, so hardly likely to be at all biased
But if the government thought they would gain by getting rid of the royals don't you think they would have done so by now ?
I've been past buck house half a dozen times today and it's packed outside there. Not bad for a normal working Monday. "
The individuals in the government would lose a hell of a lot if the Royals went - peerages alone are worth millions, not to mention Royal Appointed businesses. I've been past McDonalds a few times today, and there are long queues at the drive-through, and in the restaurant, but no sign of any Royals scoffing a Big Mac to draw in the crowds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
And my guess is that 99% of those tourists would visit those historical sites anyhow. The £500 million is guesswork at best. Castles? Most of which have no connection to royalty whatsoever, certainly not modern royalty, maybe a king slept there once... On his travels to lord it over the oiks.
Maybe the tourist board should start paying for the royals, I certainly don't think the average person should be paying for the upkeep of a family whose head is worth 100's of millions...
"
As your opening line says your guessing. The tourist board can not guess as tourism accounts for one in twelve jobs in this country and if they resorted to guesswork the implications for the economy could be disastrous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
The British Tourism Agency - owned and operated by Her Majesty's Government, so hardly likely to be at all biased
But if the government thought they would gain by getting rid of the royals don't you think they would have done so by now ?
I've been past buck house half a dozen times today and it's packed outside there. Not bad for a normal working Monday.
The individuals in the government would lose a hell of a lot if the Royals went - peerages alone are worth millions, not to mention Royal Appointed businesses. I've been past McDonalds a few times today, and there are long queues at the drive-through, and in the restaurant, but no sign of any Royals scoffing a Big Mac to draw in the crowds."
Are the Big macites spending money in hotels, bars , taxis or just having lunch ? Is anyone calling for an end to Maccy D's because they are not good for tourism ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
And my guess is that 99% of those tourists would visit those historical sites anyhow. The £500 million is guesswork at best. Castles? Most of which have no connection to royalty whatsoever, certainly not modern royalty, maybe a king slept there once... On his travels to lord it over the oiks.
Maybe the tourist board should start paying for the royals, I certainly don't think the average person should be paying for the upkeep of a family whose head is worth 100's of millions...
As your opening line says your guessing. The tourist board can not guess as tourism accounts for one in twelve jobs in this country and if they resorted to guesswork the implications for the economy could be disastrous. "
And the tourist board is guessing the £500 million figure, and probably accounting every penny a tourist spends in the UK because they went to the tower of London for a few hours.
Frances Germany Ireland etc etc etc all do very well out of tourism. Without a royal family.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
UK tourism last year was approximately 32.8 million averaging a 7.5 day stay.
and hundreds turn up to see the changing of the guard. Says it all really. Queenie is immaterial to tourism. Historical buildings are though.
Stop paying them out of the public purse, they have a personal wealth in the 100's of millions of pounds and the public money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
And my guess is that 99% of those tourists would visit those historical sites anyhow. The £500 million is guesswork at best. Castles? Most of which have no connection to royalty whatsoever, certainly not modern royalty, maybe a king slept there once... On his travels to lord it over the oiks.
Maybe the tourist board should start paying for the royals, I certainly don't think the average person should be paying for the upkeep of a family whose head is worth 100's of millions...
As your opening line says your guessing. The tourist board can not guess as tourism accounts for one in twelve jobs in this country and if they resorted to guesswork the implications for the economy could be disastrous.
And the tourist board is guessing the £500 million figure, and probably accounting every penny a tourist spends in the UK because they went to the tower of London for a few hours.
Frances Germany Ireland etc etc etc all do very well out of tourism. Without a royal family.
"
Yes lots of countries do extremely well out of tourism that don't have a royal family and millions of people visit British with no interest in the royals what so ever. But there is a significant amount of people who do visit because of the royals. Visitor numbers rose significantly after events like the jubilee and royal wedding, even the royal birth drew in the crowds. All this money is very important for the economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle ."
Which means that 24.2 million did not visit any castle. That is 81% of tourists who did not visit castles and by implication 81% of tourists did not come because of the Royal family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
Which means that 24.2 million did not visit any castle. That is 81% of tourists who did not visit castles and by implication 81% of tourists did not come because of the Royal family."
So we should just discount 20% of visitors to the country ? Is their money less significant because it was spent in a way you deem unnecessary ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
Which means that 24.2 million did not visit any castle. That is 81% of tourists who did not visit castles and by implication 81% of tourists did not come because of the Royal family.
So we should just discount 20% of visitors to the country ? Is their money less significant because it was spent in a way you deem unnecessary ?
"
No but you cannot say how many of those 19% would still have visited with no royal family, just to look at the historical buildings. I'm not in favour of kicking them out by the way, I just want them to fund their own activities, which they are more than capable of doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
Which means that 24.2 million did not visit any castle. That is 81% of tourists who did not visit castles and by implication 81% of tourists did not come because of the Royal family.
So we should just discount 20% of visitors to the country ? Is their money less significant because it was spent in a way you deem unnecessary ?
"
No that is not the point. For me it is not about how the money was spent. You gave the impression that without the Royal family, no tourist will come to Britain. But your findings says that is not through because 80% of tourists will come and spend their money with or without the royal family. It means that that the suggestion often banded about that without the Royals, tourism will suffer is at best a red herring. It is not true.
Tourist come here for the simple reason that London especially for 100s of years has been a great city and the capital of a stable democracy. Which explains why many non resident foreigners buy their holiday homes in London. So in effect, the royal family though part of the mix, is not a critical factor in that equation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
Which means that 24.2 million did not visit any castle. That is 81% of tourists who did not visit castles and by implication 81% of tourists did not come because of the Royal family.
So we should just discount 20% of visitors to the country ? Is their money less significant because it was spent in a way you deem unnecessary ?
No but you cannot say how many of those 19% would still have visited with no royal family, just to look at the historical buildings. I'm not in favour of kicking them out by the way, I just want them to fund their own activities, which they are more than capable of doing."
By the same token nor can you.
But depending on what figures we care to read/believe they do fund themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can picture the Scene.
Here Ye Here Ye Hear Ye.
With the power invested in me by the Civil Service i hereby declare that henceforth all Royals shall be thrown on the scrapheap, From this day forward everyone shall be required to swear allegiance to the right dishonourable Presidento Tony Blair.
Furthermore all fit and able persons shall immediately be conscripted into the Blair personal army and await instructions regarding which Country refuses to hand over future Oil/Mineral rights to this Great Republic of Britain and its good Friend the US of CIA.
any persons not agreeing with this decision shall be sent to guantanamo Bay to be debriefed and shot.
Pol Pot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Go republic.. And let a mortal head the state
you mean like you guys do over there?
yeah, thats worked well for ireland hasnt it lol.
wasnt your last president a cross dresser?
not that its a problem to me, but trying to keep secrets very rarely works in big office, especially when you have such a big church culture to contend with.
i feel she would have left the throne by now had she not seen how her father had been marginalised when he abdicated."
we've had some great presidents... Previous president was a woman... No cross dressers... Current president was the first to visit UK in official capacity...if they don't do a good job they don't get relected.... The job is open for anyone... Regardless of religion or creed... If you cant convince the electorate your not in... The election campaigns are tough... Unlike monarchy which is only open to one family regardless of their appeal or ability and the job is open to re_iew |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Go republic.. And let a mortal head the state
you mean like you guys do over there?
yeah, thats worked well for ireland hasnt it lol.
wasnt your last president a cross dresser?
not that its a problem to me, but trying to keep secrets very rarely works in big office, especially when you have such a big church culture to contend with.
i feel she would have left the throne by now had she not seen how her father had been marginalised when he abdicated."
we've had some great presidents... Previous president was a woman... No cross dressers... Current president was the first to visit UK in official capacity...if they don't do a good job they don't get relected.... The job is open for anyone... Regardless of religion or creed... If you cant convince the electorate your not in... The election campaigns are tough... Unlike monarchy which is only open to one family regardless of their appeal or ability and the job is open to re_iew |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much?
Yeah, because you never get any tourists going to France or Germany or...
Stop the public funding. They can still be king or queen or whatever they want to be, she has an estimated net worth of $550 million, more than enough for a family."
what public funding ? the government pay them rent for land which they sub let for more than they pay if we get rid then we (that work) will need to pay more tax  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems too many people are still stuck in fairy tale land."
I know , imagine people actually thinking a president would work in Britain. Who would we choose Blair , Mandelson , David Ike. It doesn't bare thinking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can picture the Scene.
Here Ye Here Ye Hear Ye.
With the power invested in me by the Civil Service i hereby declare that henceforth all Royals shall be thrown on the scrapheap, From this day forward everyone shall be required to swear allegiance to the right dishonourable Presidento Tony Blair.
Furthermore all fit and able persons shall immediately be conscripted into the Blair personal army and await instructions regarding which Country refuses to hand over future Oil/Mineral rights to this Great Republic of Britain and its good Friend the US of CIA.
any persons not agreeing with this decision shall be sent to guantanamo Bay to be debriefed and shot.
Pol Pot"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Liz abdicates in favour of Charles, think of all that "tourist money" being lost that she apparently generates in argument to the Royal Families' massive expenditure. Would Charles and Camilla pull in the crowds as much?
Yeah, because you never get any tourists going to France or Germany or...
Stop the public funding. They can still be king or queen or whatever they want to be, she has an estimated net worth of $550 million, more than enough for a family.
what public funding ? the government pay them rent for land which they sub let for more than they pay if we get rid then we (that work) will need to pay more tax "
Never heard of the civil list or the sovereign grant then obviously.
Don't worry they're scraping by on £37.9 million this year, of course that doesn't include the 21.3 million profit from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
