Royal Overspending - Solutions?

[Nagel]

I thought the Queen now pays income tax on her earnings from all the estates she owns?

 

I see the overspend is on the money we pay for official state duties. We'd be paying something for the head of state if we had a presidential system like many other countries, so how does the Q compare in value with elected heads of state?

 

Or do people want a state without any ceremonial head of state? It's quite possible to have a headless state and only a prime minister.

 

---------- Post added 28-01-2014 at 15:19 ----------

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25922896

 

I see Margaret Hodge MP, the author of the report (yes, her again) says: "The boiler in Buckingham Palace is 60 years old... if it doesn't get replaced, the bills go up"

 

I thought the Queen was 87.

[mjw47]

WTF? You're resorting to talking nonsense now?

 

If the land they own is stolen then the land your house on is stolen.

 

I mean that really is a stupid argument.

 

As I say, whatever stupid, made up, nonsense argument you make isn't going to change the truth. The Royal family profit the UK before tourism and if they ceased to exist your taxes would go up (That's if you've even got a job).

 

You keep using the word stupid, apparently unaware that your arguments are the ones that are demonstrably stupid.

Now that is most definitely stupid.

 

Would you care to explain how it is that of the ten countries most visited by tourists in the world only two are Monarchies?

 

The most visited country in the world is France, whose annual number of tourists in 2012 was 83 million with the UK placed at number eight with 29.3 million.

 

You are aware of the French solution to royalty aren't you?

 

Incidentally the expenditure on tourism by country is also recorded.

 

In 2012 the UK spent $52.3 billion to achieve eighth place. Meanwhile France spent $37.2 billion and are number one.

 

The amounts are shown in dollars because the research was carried out by the US who are a Republic and number two as regards visitors.

 

Doesn't quite fit in with your argument does it?

[truman]

You keep using the word stupid, apparently unaware that your arguments are the ones that are demonstrably stupid.

Now that is most definitely stupid.

 

Would you care to explain how it is that of the ten countries most visited by tourists in the world only two are Monarchies?

 

The most visited country in the world is France, whose annual number of tourists in 2012 was 83 million with the UK placed at number eight with 29.3 million.

 

You are aware of the French solution to royalty aren't you?

 

Incidentally the expenditure on tourism by country is also recorded.

 

In 2012 the UK spent $52.3 billion to achieve eighth place. Meanwhile France spent $37.2 billion and are number one.

 

The amounts are shown in dollars because the research was carried out by the US who are a Republic and number two as regards visitors.

 

Doesn't quite fit in with your argument does it?

 

Rather than compare us with France/USA I suppose the question you have to ask is what would our tourism income be without having the Royal family...France,being a larger country obviously has other attractions..as does the 'states

[Dromedary]

American do come here because we have a working Monarchy, I think the assumption is that they don't, wheres the proof?

 

The fact that the Americans, and others come and visit even when that monarchy is absent from the places and palaces they visit.

 

Just look at the fuss they made in America when Will got married, or how highly they regarded Dianna.

 

Yes, but as you have pointed out that fuss was by Americans in America.

[Mr Clowning]

Yes, but as you have pointed out that fuss was by Americans in America.

Wasn't your point that they weren't bothered if the Royalty was here or not ?

[Dromedary]

Wasn't your point that they weren't bothered if the Royalty was here or not ?

 

I originally wrote:

 

"I have already previously stated that royal tourism is not about royalty but history so removing them would make little difference."

[mjw47]

Rather than compare us with France/USA I suppose the question you have to ask is what would our tourism income be without having the Royal family...France,being a larger country obviously has other attractions..as does the 'states

 

So do we, you are selling us a little short in my opinion.

 

For instance, we are talking about the UK here, that means four separate countries each with their own attractions for the price of one!

 

The Americans in particular like to 'collect' countries, we make it easy for them.

 

I am completely unconvinced that the presence of a little old lady and her aged spouse, together with a motley collection of decidedly ugly offspring helps our tourist industry in any major way.

 

Without them cluttering up the place and making us look like Ruritania, we could do what the French do and open up the royal palaces to the tourists.

 

In all honesty how many tourists do you think actually get to see a member of the royal family?

 

Of the 29.3 million visitors in 2012 how many saw the Queen? How many gave a toss?

 

Add in London which is one of the great cities of the world, the lake district, Snowdonia, Yorkshire Dales, Highlands of Scotland, Giants causeway and much more, do you really think people would stop coming?

 

By the way, Germany is above us in the tourist stakes also.

[anywebsite]

We're not just talking about the UK either, there's the commonwealth, she's not just our Queen. Not saying she attracts tourists to Canada or anything, but some other countries are more royalist than the UK & share our royal family.

[truman]

You keep using the word stupid, apparently unaware that your arguments are the ones that are demonstrably stupid.

Now that is most definitely stupid.

 

Would you care to explain how it is that of the ten countries most visited by tourists in the world only two are Monarchies?

 

The most visited country in the world is France, whose annual number of tourists in 2012 was 83 million with the UK placed at number eight with 29.3 million.

 

You are aware of the French solution to royalty aren't you?

 

Incidentally the expenditure on tourism by country is also recorded.

 

In 2012 the UK spent $52.3 billion to achieve eighth place. Meanwhile France spent $37.2 billion and are number one.

 

The amounts are shown in dollars because the research was carried out by the US who are a Republic and number two as regards visitors.

 

Doesn't quite fit in with your argument does it?

 

DO you think there'd be no drop in tourism if we got rid of the royals? To be honest I don't care either way..I'm just trying to explore the situation..

[mjw47]

DO you think there'd be no drop in tourism if we got rid of the royals? To be honest I don't care either way..I'm just trying to explore the situation..

 

Personally I think a strong case could be made for an increase in tourism following their departure.

 

Think of the attraction of being able to receive a guided tour of all the royal palaces.

 

The private parts of these buildings have never been open to the public. Tourists would be able to return home and tell of their completely new experiences which would then encourage even more visitors.

 

We have a friend who is Viennese and we have visited Vienna on two occasions.

On the first visit we went to Schonbrunn the summer Palace of the Hapsburg Emperors.

 

The place was packed, so much so that my wife and I weren't prepared to wait for the English tour of the Palace and contented ourselves with the gardens which are magnificent.

 

The Hapsburg's were removed from power during the War and when they attempted to return a few years later they were told politely to go away by the Austrians.

 

The Austria doesn't appear to have suffered in any way, and in fact is one of the richest countries in the world.

 

So whilst I doubt that we'll ever know what the outcome would be if we got rid of the monarchy, I for one would like to find out.