Green Party Wants To Put The Queen In A Council House

[mjw47]

The Royal Family earns millions for this country through tourists ,so i would suggest they do earn their keep.

 

That claim is often made but I'm not certain how true it is.

 

Surely if the main attraction for tourists visiting this country was the Royal family then they wouldn't visit without actually seeing them, would they?

 

In 2013 the number of tourists visiting the UK was 31.2 million. How many of those actually saw a member of the Royal family?

 

The most visited country in the world for tourists is France, and we know how they dealt with the situation.

 

Of the top ten most visited countries only three have Monarchies.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWorld_Tourism_rankings&ei=F1IYVZicEKm67gbc4YCQCA&usg=AFQjCNG5HLsq5IpksVNKpM1rbLjYGTqaFA&bvm=bv.89381419,d.ZGU

 

Wouldn't tourists interested in that kind of thing prefer to be able to visit and walk around the actual buildings as they do in France?

[ubermaus]

The queen is 88 years old. According to their stats she does around 430 different engagements each year. She has constant meetings and ceremonies to host with all sorts of heads of state and leaders. She has indirect responsibility for her two personal Estates and staff therein. She has her own official correspondence duties which although obviously she does nothing personally with in terms of preparation she still has to read and sign the bloody things. I think that's enough for an 88 year old pensioner to be getting on with don't you?

 

During the war years pre her reign she trained and work as a driver/mechanic in the forces and from 1951 has been doing her job day in day out. Might not seem very important nor hard work to you but its still a job. A job she will continue to do until she dies. Not a prospect many of us, thankfully, have to think contemplate. All of her family have done active military work and despite you very disrespectful claim they have done far more than just "learning to fly a helicopter". All princes have done active service and continuing work behind the scenes. Harry was significantly involved in the invictus games and still does significant work with the armed forces. William also did operational service and continues to work in a civilian pilot role for the air ambulance.

 

The royals are always a target and these arguments rise up every time. "they are privileged" "they have all that state funded wealth" "they don't do anything" "they never work"

 

Well, when you see millions of people around the world focused on one person -that shows what exactly they do.

 

Firstly, most of that wealth does not actually belong to the Queen. It belongs to us. The state. She can nor sell it, benefit from it nor have any real practical use out of such opulence anyway. Its a showpiece. Its like living in a Museum. She hardly nips down for breakfast each morning in her robes and crown. She hardly sits on the gold covered throne to read her parliamentary papers.

 

Her personal wealth, while indeed a fortune, is relatively much smaller than what most people think. The Crown Estate (which is actually us taxpayers) is worth around 7.3 billion in assets whereas the Queen's own personal wealth is around 300 million.

 

Yes is a fortune, but in the big world not even in the top 250 of the richest in the world.

 

The fact is that all these revolution ideas fizzle to nothing. You would not get the worlds media descending onto London and millions of worldwide viewers on television and lining the streets to witness the wedding of David and Samantha Cameron. You don't get thousands of tourists peaking through the fences of 10 Downing Street desperately hoping to get a glimpse of Ed Milliband. You certainly wouldn't get hundreds of members of the press camping outside a hospital to witness the birth of the first Clegg Child.

 

That hype, that demand is because of the Royals. Its what people associate with this country. She is host, ambassador and representative of everything we do. Even the modern Jesus H Christ himself, Obama would not attract that sort of crowd and certainly isn't in his home country.

 

Show me many other state figureheads in history who have attracted such interest as the British Royalty.

 

At just under 36 million a year out of taxpayers money they are cheap at half the price. 36 mill would be pocket change that the government would waste on some white elephant. in fact some local council can easily fritter that away in no time at all and for nothing.

 

We had a revolution 373 years ago. Remember the result - we cried for the monarchy to come back.

 

Scroungers the lot of them..

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 09:39 ----------

 

The Royal Family earns millions for this country through tourists ,so i would suggest they do earn their keep.

 

Well they can still receive tourists..at the elephant and castle housing estate.

[Frederick1]

 

The most visited country in the world for tourists is France, and we know how they dealt with the situation.

 

?

 

You mean all the ones waiting at Calais to get here lol???

 

[mjw47]

You mean all the ones waiting at Calais to get here lol???

 

 

EH? What is that supposed to mean?

 

If you are referring to non EU emigrants trying to reach a country that has lax rules and better benefits than France is prepared to hand out, then what the hell has that got to do with the subject at hand?

 

We were talking about the effect of having a monarchy on the tourist trade.

 

I think is far less than some claim. 2013 numbers of tourists UK 31.2 million France 84.7 million.

 

Any comment on that?

[Frederick1]

EH? What is that supposed to mean?

 

If you are referring to non EU emigrants trying to reach a country that has lax rules and better benefits than France is prepared to hand out, then what the hell has that got to do with the subject at hand?

 

We were talking about the effect of having a monarchy on the tourist trade.

 

I think is far less than some claim. 2013 numbers of tourists UK 31.2 million France 84.7 million.

 

Any comment on that?

 

No sense of humour mjw47???

 

I agree with your tourist numbers and we are numbered amongst the French visitors!

I am also a Royalist and they do a lot more than just tourism.

 

:)

[petcharlie]

No, they are being cut because Labour spent too much money expanding the public sector during their time in government.

 

So we can't afford the royals then?and what about all the hangers on do we have to keep those parasite to?or are we skint or are we not.By the way are you sure it was the labour parties fault?U.S.A.Japan.Spain.Greece.Portugal.Germany.France.Italy.all suffered at the same time as us as their economy's nose dived was that Gordon Browns fault also?I did not realized what effect globally Brown had.Talking of the public sector expanding the royals are good at expanding them selfs are they not.That poor lass Diana (The only one in my opinion who was any good)served her purpose knowing that her husband did not really care much for her she supplied the goods and then she was given the cold shoulder.Lovely family.

Edited March 30, 2015 by petcharlie
extra point.

[mjw47]

No sense of humour mjw47???

 

I agree with your tourist numbers and we are numbered amongst the French visitors!

I am also a Royalist and they do a lot more than just tourism.

 

:)

 

Not a question of having a sense of humour, I simply did not understand the point you were trying to make.

 

What have the numbers of non EU emigrants queuing at Calais got to do with the effect of having a monarchy on the tourist trade?

 

Still don't see any humour in the remark, it wasn't applicable to the context.

 

I am not a royalist for a number of reasons, the cost to the country is not one of them.

 

We waste billions every year on sheer incompetence, the cost of the monarchy is buttons by comparison.

 

I would like to see them abolished or at the very least reduced to only the main family.

 

The reason being that I believe they are divisive as opposed to uniting as is claimed by royalists.

 

A huge amount of the population have little time or interest in them.

 

Having to take an oath to the crown rather than the country in this day and age is ridiculously anachronistic.

 

Under no circumstances will I take such an oath, whereas I would have no problem taking an oath to the country.

 

I am no man woman or child's 'subject', we are all equals in any intrinsic sense.

[loraward]

So we can't afford the royals then?and what about all the hangers on do we have to keep those parasite to?or are we skint or are we not.By the way are you sure it was the labour parties fault?U.S.A.Japan.Spain.Greece.Portugal.Germany.France.Italy.all suffered at the same time as us as their economy's nose dived was that Gordon Browns fault also?I did not realized what effect globally Brown had.Talking of the public sector expanding the royals are good at expanding them selfs are they not.That poor lass Diana (The only one in my opinion who was any good)served her purpose knowing that her husband did not really care much for her she supplied the goods and then she was given the cold shoulder.Lovely family.

 

The Queen generates more wealth for the UK than she costs.

U.S.A.Japan.Spain.Greece.Portugal.Germany.France.Italy didn't spend the UK's money and didn't create the UK's debt.

[mjw47]

The Queen generates more wealth for the UK than she costs.

 

How? As I said in my previous post the cost of the monarchy doesn't particularly bother me but I'm intrigued to know how this money is generated.

 

Baring in mind that various countries without monarchies do considerably better than us in the tourist stakes, in what way does their presence generate money?

[petcharlie]

The Queen generates more wealth for the UK than she costs.

U.S.A.Japan.Spain.Greece.Portugal.Germany.France.Italy didn't spend the UK's money and didn't create the UK's debt.

 

Correction the Bankers did.