Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't deny how much revenue is generated by tourists who ARE fascinated by the Royals though.
As for the EU, I think they already have too much control, especially when it comes to Human Rights.
But is it fascination or objective interest? I think true fascination is limited to a select few.
As for tourists, are they drawn specifically because we have a Queen in Buckingham Palace? I think not, it comes with the package. However, stressing this element really does serve to obscure the real benefits the Royal Family bring to this country in other ways. For instance, She has a diplomatic role and She recognises people for genuine achievements in the service of the community.
Communism has never been successful in its pure form for a reason! There seems to be a general sense that to be 'modern' i.e. to fit in with the perceived direction and level of advancement that humanity has achieved materially means to be spartan. It doesn't. Modernity is a concept. Monarchy isn't. Monarchy is a working institution that has been honed throughout the years and holds unique place within the fabric of the British consitutional machine and the emotional bonds uniting people of disparate ethic ancestry scattered over four territories with distinct but shared cultures and histories.
If there was no Monarchy, would no tourists come to Britain? Assuredly not. But then, would we claim they came because of out Prime Minister lived at No 10 and worked at the Palace of Westminster? I don't think so. The pageantry and elegance, the ceremony possess a certain quality that has an immediate and positive effect on human senses. It is attractive in itself. The Monarchy is much more than a crowd-puller.
I agree they are more than just a crowd-puller, and of course we would still get tourists.
I admitted that the Royals hold no significant fascination for me but when I visit London I still go to Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London for some history.
I also visit the Scotland Yard building, although No 10 doesn't really do it for me.
You can't deny how much revenue is generated by tourists who ARE fascinated by the Royals though.
As for the EU, I think they already have too much control, especially when it comes to Human Rights.
Windsor castle (the most visited of the crown estate) is number 17 on Britains most visited attractions. Legoland is number 7.
The tourist attraction argument is grossly exaggerated.
By admitting to thinking that 'they serve no real purpose' you've inadvertently signalled the greater likelihood that you've done no research into what their role is. So it's not so much an admission of an opinion as it is of ignorance
Oh sorry I forgot about the Queens christmas day Speech
Windsor castle (the most visited of the crown estate) is number 17 on Britains most visited attractions. Legoland is number 7.
The tourist attraction argument is grossly exaggerated.
No mention of Legoland in the "Visit Britain" org list of top 10 attractions. The Victoria and Albert comes in at number 7 with the Tower of London in 8th.
Altough The Tower is no longer a Royal abode it is still officially maintained as a Royal Palace..
When people fly into Britain how many have Legoland on their must see list compared with those wishing to see the Royal Palaces?? For that matter how many know of it`s existence? Not too many I would guess..I`m assuming they stumble across it while visiting another attraction in the same area...By the way for those who don`t know where Legoland is..it`s in WINDSOR..
Comparing the Castle with Legoland wouldn`t be the best comparison methinks,,
Last edited by LINCOLNSHIRE; 08-29-2008 at 12:39 PM..
No mention of Legoland in the "Visit Britain" org list of top 10 attractions. The Victoria and Albert comes in at number 7 with the Tower of London in 8th.
Altough The Tower is no longer a Royal abode it is still officially maintained as a Royal Palace..
When people fly into Britain how many have Legoland on their must see list compared with those wishing to see the Royal Palaces?? For that matter how many know of it`s existence? Not too many I would guess..I`m assuming they stumble across it while visiting another attraction in the same area...By the way for those who don`t know where Legoland is..it`s in WINDSOR..
Comparing the Castle with Legoland wouldn`t be the best comparison methinks,,
Madame Tussaud's, London - 2,798,801
Alton Towers, Staffordshire - 2,701,945
Tower of London - 2,615170
Natural History Museum, London - 1,793,400
Chessington World of Adventure, Surrey - 1,750,000
Canterbury Cathedral - 1,613,000
Science Museum, London- 1,537,151
Legoland, Windsor- 1,297,818
Edinburgh Castle - 1,238,140
Blackpool Tower -1,200,000
Sorry, Legoland was no.8 according to the BBC. Windsor castle doesn't even feature on the top 10. The tower maybe a royal palace, but thats the point... we don't need the royals to occupy a palace for it to be a tourist hotspot.
I think we were at cross purposes mate. I thought the point of the exercise was attractions for foreign tourists and outside money. I think you`ll agree very few fly in with the intention to visit numbers 2,,5,,8,,and especially 10 ..In fact Blackpool if taken as a whole has consistantly topped the list year after year..
The numbers going to those, I`m pretty sure, are made up of tourists of the Home Grown variety...
I think we were at cross purposes mate. I thought the point of the exercise was attractions for foreign tourists and outside money. I think you`ll agree very few fly in with the intention to visit numbers 2,,5,,8,,and especially 10 ..In fact Blackpool if taken as a whole has consistantly topped the list year after year..
The numbers going to those, I`m pretty sure, are made up of tourists of the Home Grown variety...
True. And I would also say that 90% of the people visiting Windsor castle don't actually pay to go inside, and so are not taken into account on our tourist stats.
But, IMO footfall at Heathrow would remain the same should the country become a republic... there is no evidence, or very little, to suggest otherwise.
True. And I would also say that 90% of the people visiting Windsor castle don't actually pay to go inside, and so are not taken into account on our tourist stats.
But, IMO footfall at Heathrow would remain the same should the country become a republic... there is no evidence, or very little, to suggest otherwise.
Indeed. But what is the purpose of expending all those resources on becoming a republic? What additional benefits does it offer Britain?
I think simply stating 'democracy' demonstrates a lack of engagement with the topic and also confidence in the idea. Democracies are all tragically flawed, our present constitutional system offers the opportunity to balance democracy out. The only way to do that is to embrace what we have and give the Sovereign more independence and political control to benefit this nation more palpably.
For example, the governing party shouldn't choose when the election date is - currently it's based on opportunism, when the date fits the ruling parties perspective of the best time to launch a campaign, while opposition parties have to go with the flow. The period of government should be in the statute books and the time/announcement by privy Councillors under The Queen's direction. Variances could be made for internal emergencies, eg. a comet falling on the Aldi in Soho
Returning control and profits of the Crown lands to the Crown. So you can keep your pathetic 60m and the Queen would have over £1bn at her disposal, something that currently falls into public coffers but which anti-Monarchists always seem to be unaware of when playing the 'they cost me 66p a year' card, 'I could've bought a picture of myself with that!'
Then we could assign the care of the existing Royal residences to the Monarch and any investments She made would become those delightful things 'property of the nation.' Those two Titians for instance.
Indeed. But what is the purpose of expending all those resources on becoming a republic? What additional benefits does it offer Britain?
I think simply stating 'democracy' demonstrates a lack of engagement with the topic and also confidence in the idea. Democracies are all tragically flawed, our present constitutional system offers the opportunity to balance democracy out. The only way to do that is to embrace what we have and give the Sovereign more independence and political control to benefit this nation more palpably.
For example, the governing party shouldn't choose when the election date is - currently it's based on opportunism, when the date fits the ruling parties perspective of the best time to launch a campaign, while opposition parties have to go with the flow. The period of government should be in the statute books and the time/announcement by privy Councillors under The Queen's direction. Variances could be made for internal emergencies, eg. a comet falling on the Aldi in Soho
Returning control and profits of the Crown lands to the Crown. So you can keep your pathetic 60m and the Queen would have over £1bn at her disposal, something that currently falls into public coffers but which anti-Monarchists always seem to be unaware of when playing the 'they cost me 66p a year' card, 'I could've bought a picture of myself with that!'
Then we could assign the care of the existing Royal residences to the Monarch and any investments She made would become those delightful things 'property of the nation.' Those two Titians for instance.
Who said anything about returning the crown estate over to the queen?? Ownership of the estate is a huge grey area, but the royal claim to it would be shaky at best.
The money argument is redundent to me either way. I have put forward my arguments against the monarchy many times, but to answer your highlighted paragraph (that actually has something to do with the OP question).. I agree with you on having a set period of governing time.. but 'under the Queen's direction'.. disagree with that part!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..In fact Blackpool if taken as a whole has consistantly topped the list year after year..
