Marc1901
Peace out.
Meh - don't like or dislike them really
This.
Meh - don't like or dislike them really
Should Britain have any unelected leaders or heads of state in the 21st Century?
They make far more than they cost raise millions for charity, without the money they bring in in tourism I wonder where this country would be
That's the usual claim, but I wonder how it can ever be calculated or proved. Say we got rid tomorrow, would any fewer people come to the country to visit ? The palaces would still be there to visit. I don't know, just musing.
.
But it wouldn't have the same effect. Would the guards still stand outside Buckingham Palace? And events like the Royal wedding last year brought a lot of tourists to London. Just think how many Americans visit London to see our Royal family (they probably don't actually see them but they can hope) because they want a royal family like ours. And the Queen does a lot of goo in the commonwealth.
this tourism thing is nonsense
A well thought-out and articulate contribution. I expect to see you on question time very soon.
This.
OK, I should have said, 'I think, this tourism thing is nonsense'.
In my opinion it is. I think it's a ridiculous idea that people visit the UK because of the Royal Family. They do a bit of promo work I'll give them that but that's about it. People go for LONDON. Not cause that lot occasionally live there.
And opinion is all those who believe they do bring in the tourists have got.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
you don't have to be a lefty to be anti-royal surely?
Thank you I'm not putting either side, so we're not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious as to how these things are worked out. Others have pointed out things that people do come to see, e.g. changing of the guard etc., but as to whether they bring in more than they cost, I really have no idea. It's not just the civil list that they cost, I presume security and travel etc. is not included in the CL and that must cost a fortune.