Should Queen Lizzie be the last in the Game of Royals?

[Outlaw13]

Yes.

[Cunobelin]

..... Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

An excellent point. And I will remember it as a good response when people start on about how they (very questionably) "pay for themselves" through increased tourism. It is an insult and I wonder if we spent the royal budget on theme parks, converted the palaces and castles to hotels we'd probably be even better off. Can you imagine how much some sucker would pay to sleep in the same room as <x> in Buck Pal. Nightly rates would be tremendous.

Ian

+1.
If ever there were pretenders to monachism it's the ones presiding over and of whom I and everyone else is referred to as "subjects".
Democracy,what democracy?
Demockracy more like,they're a bunch of spongers the lot of them.

Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

[Psamathe]

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

It comes down to who is doing those estimates. Royal supporters do loads of "estimates" showing how profitable the Royals are. Republicans also do estimates that show how costly they are. I see no reason to believe estimates from anybody who is doing the work to prove their point - particularly when there are so many "intangibles" and impossibilities to include or exclude.

There are countries in the world with great tourist industries that don't have a Royal Family and I suspect that a lot of those visiting the UK would visit anyway even without a Royal Family - many love the history, castles, museums, historic streets and cities, etc.

What these reports need to demonstrate is that all these tourists would not be visiting if we didn't have a Royal Family. Given that 99% of those tourists never get to see a Royal during their visit I can't see they are the driver behind that tourism.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

It comes down to who is doing those estimates. Royal supporters do loads of "estimates" showing how profitable the Royals are. Republicans also do estimates that show how costly they are. I see no reason to believe estimates from anybody who is doing the work to prove their point - particularly when there are so many "intangibles" and impossibilities to include or exclude.

There are countries in the world with great tourist industries that don't have a Royal Family and I suspect that a lot of those visiting the UK would visit anyway even without a Royal Family - many love the history, castles, museums, historic streets and cities, etc.

What these reports need to demonstrate is that all these tourists would not be visiting if we didn't have a Royal Family. Given that 99% of those tourists never get to see a Royal during their visit I can't see they are the driver behind that tourism.

Ian

But we don't actually know..... which is the point, and why it is compared to road tax, there are extremists who make all sorts of claims form not covering the basic costs of roads to subsidising each motorist by several thousand pound per year

Any claim will be right or wrong depending on how you wish to skew those figures.

Why is one biased claim that they are spongers, any more (or less) valid than one biased claims they are profitable.

[mercalia]

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

It comes down to who is doing those estimates. Royal supporters do loads of "estimates" showing how profitable the Royals are. Republicans also do estimates that show how costly they are. I see no reason to believe estimates from anybody who is doing the work to prove their point - particularly when there are so many "intangibles" and impossibilities to include or exclude.

There are countries in the world with great tourist industries that don't have a Royal Family and I suspect that a lot of those visiting the UK would visit anyway even without a Royal Family - many love the history, castles, museums, historic streets and cities, etc.

What these reports need to demonstrate is that all these tourists would not be visiting if we didn't have a Royal Family. Given that 99% of those tourists never get to see a Royal during their visit I can't see they are the driver behind that tourism.

Ian

if we were to chop off their heads as a tourist attraction maybe there is an argument of them being a tourist attraction, otherwise not.

[Psamathe]

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

It comes down to who is doing those estimates. Royal supporters do loads of "estimates" showing how profitable the Royals are. Republicans also do estimates that show how costly they are. I see no reason to believe estimates from anybody who is doing the work to prove their point - particularly when there are so many "intangibles" and impossibilities to include or exclude.

There are countries in the world with great tourist industries that don't have a Royal Family and I suspect that a lot of those visiting the UK would visit anyway even without a Royal Family - many love the history, castles, museums, historic streets and cities, etc.

What these reports need to demonstrate is that all these tourists would not be visiting if we didn't have a Royal Family. Given that 99% of those tourists never get to see a Royal during their visit I can't see they are the driver behind that tourism.

Ian

But we don't actually know..... which is the point, and why it is compared to road tax, there are extremists who make all sorts of claims form not covering the basic costs of roads to subsidising each motorist by several thousand pound per year

Any claim will be right or wrong depending on how you wish to skew those figures.

Why is one biased claim that they are spongers, any more (or less) valid than one biased claims they are profitable.

My own opinion is that the UK has a lot of historic and important attractions drawing tourists. Given that virtually none of them get to see a Royal during their visits suggests that the Royals are irrelevant to tourism. Just because somebody has a look at Windsor Castle from the outside does not mean they'd have stayed in the US if we did not have a Royal family. Something is only a tourist attraction if you get to see it - and those tourists don't get to see Royals, just Castles, Museums, National Parks, Art Galleries, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc., etc., etc. (with no Royals anywhere to be seen).

I believe tourists would come anyway.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

It comes down to who is doing those estimates. Royal supporters do loads of "estimates" showing how profitable the Royals are. Republicans also do estimates that show how costly they are. I see no reason to believe estimates from anybody who is doing the work to prove their point - particularly when there are so many "intangibles" and impossibilities to include or exclude.

There are countries in the world with great tourist industries that don't have a Royal Family and I suspect that a lot of those visiting the UK would visit anyway even without a Royal Family - many love the history, castles, museums, historic streets and cities, etc.

What these reports need to demonstrate is that all these tourists would not be visiting if we didn't have a Royal Family. Given that 99% of those tourists never get to see a Royal during their visit I can't see they are the driver behind that tourism.

Ian

But we don't actually know..... which is the point, and why it is compared to road tax, there are extremists who make all sorts of claims form not covering the basic costs of roads to subsidising each motorist by several thousand pound per year

Any claim will be right or wrong depending on how you wish to skew those figures.

Why is one biased claim that they are spongers, any more (or less) valid than one biased claims they are profitable.

My own opinion is that the UK has a lot of historic and important attractions drawing tourists. Given that virtually none of them get to see a Royal during their visits suggests that the Royals are irrelevant to tourism. Just because somebody has a look at Windsor Castle from the outside does not mean they'd have stayed in the US if we did not have a Royal family. Something is only a tourist attraction if you get to see it - and those tourists don't get to see Royals, just Castles, Museums, National Parks, Art Galleries, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc., etc., etc. (with no Royals anywhere to be seen).

I believe tourists would come anyway.

Ian

Yet each occasion sees massive increases in Tourism........

It is not simply whether they see a royal, it is if they see Windsor and think it a nice place to visit, the person who has never thought of Britain as a destination, but after an event does so because they watched an event on TV.

I have never ever burned anyone alive, but I still spent a week touring in Galloway to see the sites the original film was made. I have based whole cycle tours on something that I have seen in aTV programme

[Cunobelin]

A Royal or someone like Blair as a President...... God forbid

There are sixty odd million people in these islands. Why on earth would we choose Blair? Many more worthy candidates.

It would end up like Brexit..... total chaos as a load of self serving, corrupt and selfish politicians vied for the role

[Psamathe]

But we don't actually know..... which is the point, and why it is compared to road tax, there are extremists who make all sorts of claims form not covering the basic costs of roads to subsidising each motorist by several thousand pound per year

Any claim will be right or wrong depending on how you wish to skew those figures.

Why is one biased claim that they are spongers, any more (or less) valid than one biased claims they are profitable.

My own opinion is that the UK has a lot of historic and important attractions drawing tourists. Given that virtually none of them get to see a Royal during their visits suggests that the Royals are irrelevant to tourism. Just because somebody has a look at Windsor Castle from the outside does not mean they'd have stayed in the US if we did not have a Royal family. Something is only a tourist attraction if you get to see it - and those tourists don't get to see Royals, just Castles, Museums, National Parks, Art Galleries, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc., etc., etc. (with no Royals anywhere to be seen).

I believe tourists would come anyway.

Ian

Yet each occasion sees massive increases in Tourism........

It is not simply whether they see a royal, it is if they see Windsor and think it a nice place to visit, the person who has never thought of Britain as a destination, but after an event does so because they watched an event on TV.

I have never ever burned anyone alive, but I still spent a week touring in Galloway to see the sites the original film was made. I have based whole cycle tours on something that I have seen in aTV programme

My thought is that the attraction is not the Royals but the history e.g. France has a great tourist industry and they have not had to put up with Royals (and the taggers on) for many years. People still find the place has enough to encourage them to visit. In the UK I believe it is not the people (Elizabeth, Charles, etc.) who draw people but the places, buildings, culture.

Quite possible to publicise a location without having to spend millions on a Royal Wedding once in a blue moon (carting off all the homeless for convenience of the Royals). In fact an ongoing advertising plan is probably far more effective.

Ian

[mercalia]

My own opinion is that the UK has a lot of historic and important attractions drawing tourists. Given that virtually none of them get to see a Royal during their visits suggests that the Royals are irrelevant to tourism. Just because somebody has a look at Windsor Castle from the outside does not mean they'd have stayed in the US if we did not have a Royal family. Something is only a tourist attraction if you get to see it - and those tourists don't get to see Royals, just Castles, Museums, National Parks, Art Galleries, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc., etc., etc. (with no Royals anywhere to be seen).

I believe tourists would come anyway.

Ian

Yet each occasion sees massive increases in Tourism........

It is not simply whether they see a royal, it is if they see Windsor and think it a nice place to visit, the person who has never thought of Britain as a destination, but after an event does so because they watched an event on TV.

I have never ever burned anyone alive, but I still spent a week touring in Galloway to see the sites the original film was made. I have based whole cycle tours on something that I have seen in aTV programme

My thought is that the attraction is not the Royals but the history e.g. France has a great tourist industry and they have not had to put up with Royals (and the taggers on) for many years. People still find the place has enough to encourage them to visit. In the UK I believe it is not the people (Elizabeth, Charles, etc.) who draw people but the places, buildings, culture.

Quite possible to publicise a location without having to spend millions on a Royal Wedding once in a blue moon (carting off all the homeless for convenience of the Royals). In fact an ongoing advertising plan is probably far more effective.

Ian

if we got rid of the royals we could use Buck Palace to house the mps while their place is being done up?

or turn it into a hotel - I bet we could make a load of dosh to let the gulible sorry punters sleep in the queens bedroom

[Cunobelin]

Yet each occasion sees massive increases in Tourism........

It is not simply whether they see a royal, it is if they see Windsor and think it a nice place to visit, the person who has never thought of Britain as a destination, but after an event does so because they watched an event on TV.

I have never ever burned anyone alive, but I still spent a week touring in Galloway to see the sites the original film was made. I have based whole cycle tours on something that I have seen in aTV programme

My thought is that the attraction is not the Royals but the history e.g. France has a great tourist industry and they have not had to put up with Royals (and the taggers on) for many years. People still find the place has enough to encourage them to visit. In the UK I believe it is not the people (Elizabeth, Charles, etc.) who draw people but the places, buildings, culture.

Quite possible to publicise a location without having to spend millions on a Royal Wedding once in a blue moon (carting off all the homeless for convenience of the Royals). In fact an ongoing advertising plan is probably far more effective.

Ian

if we got rid of the royals we could use Buck Palace to house the mps while their place is being done up?

or turn it into a hotel - I bet we could make a load of dosh to let the gulible sorry punters sleep in the queens bedroom

Possible, but factually?

Please show some evidence to support the case that events such as the royal wedding have absolutely no effect on Tourism, and that here was no benefit to local tourism ... it would help to support your claim

[pete75]

Yet each occasion sees massive increases in Tourism........

It is not simply whether they see a royal, it is if they see Windsor and think it a nice place to visit, the person who has never thought of Britain as a destination, but after an event does so because they watched an event on TV.

I have never ever burned anyone alive, but I still spent a week touring in Galloway to see the sites the original film was made. I have based whole cycle tours on something that I have seen in aTV programme

My thought is that the attraction is not the Royals but the history e.g. France has a great tourist industry and they have not had to put up with Royals (and the taggers on) for many years. People still find the place has enough to encourage them to visit. In the UK I believe it is not the people (Elizabeth, Charles, etc.) who draw people but the places, buildings, culture.

Quite possible to publicise a location without having to spend millions on a Royal Wedding once in a blue moon (carting off all the homeless for convenience of the Royals). In fact an ongoing advertising plan is probably far more effective.

Ian

if we got rid of the royals we could use Buck Palace to house the mps while their place is being done up?

or turn it into a hotel - I bet we could make a load of dosh to let the gulible sorry punters sleep in the queens bedroom

Yep that would work. We could also arrange a Yekaterinburg for them. LIve on TV. The publicity from that would attract loads of tourists.

[Cunobelin]

An excellent point. And I will remember it as a good response when people start on about how they (very questionably) "pay for themselves" through increased tourism. It is an insult and I wonder if we spent the royal budget on theme parks, converted the palaces and castles to hotels we'd probably be even better off. Can you imagine how much some sucker would pay to sleep in the same room as <x> in Buck Pal. Nightly rates would be tremendous.

Ian

+1.
If ever there were pretenders to monachism it's the ones presiding over and of whom I and everyone else is referred to as "subjects".
Democracy,what democracy?
Demockracy more like,they're a bunch of spongers the lot of them.

Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

there seems to be a lot of concern about this post of mine and it is being partially quoted, out of context in another thread.

It is a very simplest....


There is the typically unevidenced rant that the royal family are sspongers. As there is no evidence to support this claim it is just that a personal rant.

I then compared this to road tax because:

Road Tax is a discussion which ranges where drivers claim it should only be used to build roads, and so they pay far more in road tax and Vat than is spent on motoring. Therefore cyclists are a bunch of spongers - the lot of them

The other side of the Road Tax argument is that road tax should be used to cover things like lost work hours, pollution, Policing, road traffic accidents and such like. In this case the motorist os heavily subsidised and paid for by the non- road users and it is the motorist that are a bunch of spongers - the lot of them

Both sides will fight their corner, and neither is totally correct or wrong.. but at least both sides have coherent arguments

I then quoted an example that gave an example where if one accepted that view there was a profit, disproving the personal rant


The point is that unevidenced personal hatred is not really an evidenced statement

[Psamathe]

......
6. The point is that unevidenced personal hatred is not really an evidenced statement

Unevidenced personal admiration is also not really an evidenced statement.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

......
6. The point is that unevidenced personal hatred is not really an evidenced statement

Unevidenced personal admiration is also not really an evidenced statement.

Ian

I see the evidence was outside your comfort zone, and you seem unable to reply to the evidence given