View Single Post
Old 28-06-2005, 21:07   #73
purenuman
Inactive
 
purenuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madchester
Age: 60
Services: SKY+ & NTL 2mb
Posts: 512
purenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these partspurenuman is just so famous around these parts
Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year

Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I'd stick a fiver on it that it is more than the 61p per person they cost everyone. Don't get me wrong, I really hate the monarchy, but I don't hate the ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£ÃƒÆ ’‚£Ãà¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ they bring in. They are known as "The Firm" for a good reason - they make money.
And how many of them see a royal?? Most of them come to look at the historic architecture.... Most of them head for London because it's the capital....

Blackpool pleasure beach attracts more foreign tourists that the Royal hotspots!

http://www.staruk.org.uk//default.asp?ID=388&parentid=512

Quote:
To offer an American perspective, I'd have no less desire to see the UK one day if the Royals were removed. If I were visiting and had the chance to see the Queen make a speech or something, I'd check it out, but wouldn't make it a point to.

I don't understand their purpose, or why they cost the gov't money. Isn't the Royal family wealthy? Why are they doing things on the gov't's dime (pence?) rather than pay for it themselves? Unless it's gov't business then in that case, it's gov't business.
The logic seems go something like this; Britain has a monarchy, Britain attracts a lot of tourists, therefore the monarchy attracts lots of tourists.

It doesnââ‚ÆšÂ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t take much thinking to realise the weakness of this argument. There is no reason to think that people would stay away. France has a healthy tourism trade and allows visitors to enter its palaces. As a result the Palace of Versailles attracts many more visitors than Buckingham Palace. If Britain abolished the monarchy overseas tourists could visit Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace to name a few, and could actually go inside and have a look around. This would surely attract more, not less visitors. A Times article in November 2003 quoted surveys of tourists that concluded abolishing the monarchy would not hurt our tourist industry at all.

I'm not saying we should abolish the monarchy but the tourism card is a duff one and we don't need them.

Let them stay if you must but let them pay for themselves.........
purenuman is offline   Reply With Quote