| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy 21:22 - Jun 4 with 10623 views | STYG |
Nothing against the Queen. Wonderful woman.
But have to say I’m not feeling the way I have during previous celebrations where I haven’t minded them. I know people are in this position because of the government and not the monarchy and both the common person and monarchy should be able to thrive together.
But as someone here said a few days ago, if you conceived the idea of the monarchy now you’d be laughed out of town. We are going to give a family wealth beyond imagination, allow them to have the power if they wished to intervene in the most important of matters and they’ll continue to have children born ‘to reign over us’. It truly is absurd really.
With Covid still being rife, the thought of packed crowds of hundreds of thousands, some struggling to pay bills, all lined up together to celebrate the Queen seems madness. But in fairness as I say I do admire the woman but when she’s sadly not with us any longer I do hope there’s a massive shift in how the public feels about the monarchy. |  | | |  |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 16:57 - Jun 8 with 900 views | unbelievablue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 16:23 - Jun 8 by Tractor_Buck |
Purely anecdotally, my son works in a hotel in Victoria and was surprised by the numbers of American tourists who came here last weekend not knowing the the Jubilee stuff was happening. |
Really depends on the demographic as to whether they're weirdly obsessed by the Royals. |  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 17:14 - Jun 8 with 873 views | Cotty |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 16:33 - Jun 8 by itfcjoe |
I'm talking purely about the tourism and it is being stated as though I'm standing in front of Buck House fighting away those who want to abolish the monarchy, I haven't even given my view on the future of the royal family in this thread
This is a waste of time though as just going round in circles, but there were dozens of people across the BBC interviews at weekend who had flown in from (mainly across the Commonwealth) abroad for the celebrations. I'm sure the BBC didn't interview every one of them so there was also lots more
Now I'm sure a lot of people had family, or added other things to their trip - in the same way I have done so when i've gone abroad for a specific purpose like watching sport or visiting someone - but it was clearly a driver for tourism whether it was the sole purpose of the visit or not. |
Getting rid of the constitutional powers of the Monarchy, and their public funding, does not mean that the family will be snuffed out, or that Buckingham palace will magically disappear in a puff of smoke. This economic argument is so weak, it is laughable. |  | | |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 17:43 - Jun 8 with 849 views | brazil1982 |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 17:14 - Jun 8 by Cotty |
Getting rid of the constitutional powers of the Monarchy, and their public funding, does not mean that the family will be snuffed out, or that Buckingham palace will magically disappear in a puff of smoke. This economic argument is so weak, it is laughable. |
How would a presidency be funded? |  | | |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:12 - Jun 8 with 821 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 16:33 - Jun 8 by itfcjoe |
I'm talking purely about the tourism and it is being stated as though I'm standing in front of Buck House fighting away those who want to abolish the monarchy, I haven't even given my view on the future of the royal family in this thread
This is a waste of time though as just going round in circles, but there were dozens of people across the BBC interviews at weekend who had flown in from (mainly across the Commonwealth) abroad for the celebrations. I'm sure the BBC didn't interview every one of them so there was also lots more
Now I'm sure a lot of people had family, or added other things to their trip - in the same way I have done so when i've gone abroad for a specific purpose like watching sport or visiting someone - but it was clearly a driver for tourism whether it was the sole purpose of the visit or not. |
I think you're putting words in MY mouth now! I haven't accused you of what you've put in your first para.
You're right though, we are going round in circles. I guess it depends how you define "a driver for tourism" and how many people actually flew in for the celebrations (and whether that amount is enough justification for the monarchy).
For the record, I haven't said we should abolish the monarchy either. Just a bit baffled by people defending it when, for me, there isn't a real obvious and quantifyable benefit of having it (and a lot more reasons for why it's a bad thing). |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:16 - Jun 8 with 812 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 17:43 - Jun 8 by brazil1982 |
How would a presidency be funded? |
The same way the monarchy are - by us. |  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:22 - Jun 8 with 788 views | DanTheMan |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:16 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
The same way the monarchy are - by us. |
Also tend to be a bit cheaper, what with there only being one of them. |  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:22 - Jun 8 with 788 views | jeera |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:16 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
The same way the monarchy are - by us. |
It's always the same.
The notion that something should be kept in case the other option[s] could be worse.
And yet the one time that rule might have actually been applicable... |  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:26 - Jun 8 with 781 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:22 - Jun 8 by DanTheMan |
Also tend to be a bit cheaper, what with there only being one of them. |
I suppose it depends on whether that includes paying off victims of alleged sexual abuse! Could bump the price up a bit lol | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:32 - Jun 8 with 766 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 17:14 - Jun 8 by Cotty |
Getting rid of the constitutional powers of the Monarchy, and their public funding, does not mean that the family will be snuffed out, or that Buckingham palace will magically disappear in a puff of smoke. This economic argument is so weak, it is laughable. |
Wales generates a little bit more income from tourism than the UK average per person, and as far as I’m aware there’s no royalty based here. I think our last Welsh king Gruffudd ap Llywelyn popped his clogs a little while ago. So yep, the economic argument around tourism doesn’t seem to stack up.
But then without the various monarchs over the years we wouldn’t have the buildings that now attract a lot of tourists I suppose. Not that we’re building many castles these days. | |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:35 - Jun 8 with 760 views | unbelievablue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:32 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
Wales generates a little bit more income from tourism than the UK average per person, and as far as I’m aware there’s no royalty based here. I think our last Welsh king Gruffudd ap Llywelyn popped his clogs a little while ago. So yep, the economic argument around tourism doesn’t seem to stack up.
But then without the various monarchs over the years we wouldn’t have the buildings that now attract a lot of tourists I suppose. Not that we’re building many castles these days. |
We'd have a lot more monasteries though. | |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 21:54 - Jun 8 with 721 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 12:51 - Jun 8 by leitrimblue |
It's weird enough that people would try to justify the taxpayer subsidising one of the worlds wealthiest family's to the tune of £80+ million a year cause they may possibly bring a few extra tourists to the country. Even worse when you consider that some of that money was used to pay off victims of her child abusing son |
I read online the other day it equates to £1.55 per person to find the royal family. If that's correct isn't that OK in the grand scheme of things if it is indeed someone thing that drives tourism to the country. |  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:01 - Jun 8 with 719 views | jeera |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 21:54 - Jun 8 by FrimleyBlue |
I read online the other day it equates to £1.55 per person to find the royal family. If that's correct isn't that OK in the grand scheme of things if it is indeed someone thing that drives tourism to the country. |
For the billionth time there is no evidence that their existence provides more income than it costs.
I thought it was more like 50 odd pence but either way.
Let's all put in that trivial amount instead to help eradicate homelessness.
Or just give it to me. It's only pennies per person per year so why not just put it straight into my account each year and not question it? I suggest we do that. [Post edited 8 Jun 2022 22:03]
| |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:06 - Jun 8 with 705 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 21:54 - Jun 8 by FrimleyBlue |
I read online the other day it equates to £1.55 per person to find the royal family. If that's correct isn't that OK in the grand scheme of things if it is indeed someone thing that drives tourism to the country. |
That’s the thing though isn’t it. It’s not clear that living royalty does drive tourism - as I mentioned above, Wales generates more per head than the Uk average and we’ve no monarchs living here. The buildings still attract people. There’s no way Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle would stop attracting people. Possibly quite the opposite - with no monarchy to protect, you could properly open them up and you may get more visitors. Weekend breaks in a castle or on sandringham estate, etc. Loads of opportunities to increase revenue. As it is many of these spaces are largely inaccessible to mere mortals?
And then I’m sure you could save £80m or so by not finding a bloated royal family. An elected HoS would cost a fraction.
I’ve no view really, so just playing devils advocate and highlighting what seems like a very thin argument around tourism. | |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:15 - Jun 8 with 692 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:06 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
That’s the thing though isn’t it. It’s not clear that living royalty does drive tourism - as I mentioned above, Wales generates more per head than the Uk average and we’ve no monarchs living here. The buildings still attract people. There’s no way Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle would stop attracting people. Possibly quite the opposite - with no monarchy to protect, you could properly open them up and you may get more visitors. Weekend breaks in a castle or on sandringham estate, etc. Loads of opportunities to increase revenue. As it is many of these spaces are largely inaccessible to mere mortals?
And then I’m sure you could save £80m or so by not finding a bloated royal family. An elected HoS would cost a fraction.
I’ve no view really, so just playing devils advocate and highlighting what seems like a very thin argument around tourism. |
Excellent point regarding opening those buildings up. Would be amazing and think you're spot on tbh with it creating more financially. | |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:17 - Jun 8 with 690 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:01 - Jun 8 by jeera |
For the billionth time there is no evidence that their existence provides more income than it costs.
I thought it was more like 50 odd pence but either way.
Let's all put in that trivial amount instead to help eradicate homelessness.
Or just give it to me. It's only pennies per person per year so why not just put it straight into my account each year and not question it? I suggest we do that. [Post edited 8 Jun 2022 22:03]
|
" For the billionth time there is no evidence that their existence provides more income than it costs"
I know. That's why I said 'IF' indeed it did. | |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:32 - Jun 8 with 671 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 19:22 - Jun 8 by DanTheMan |
Also tend to be a bit cheaper, what with there only being one of them. |
|  |
| |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 23:12 - Jun 8 with 630 views | HARRY10 |
| Three days in and I’ve finally turned on the monarchy on 22:17 - Jun 8 by FrimleyBlue |
" For the billionth time there is no evidence that their existence provides more income than it costs"
I know. That's why I said 'IF' indeed it did. |
What an absurd post.
You acknowledge there is no evidence, but post up something in defence of it.
Perhaps we should have public hangings, which would cost next to nothing - and if they drove tourism that would be good.
Though I know they don't | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
