Green Party Wants To Put The Queen In A Council House

[loraward]

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?

 

By being the Queen.

 

 

Britain’s leading tourist attraction? The Queen

Reports made recently by Visit Britain revealed that the Queen of England and the Royal family generate close to £500 million in revenues every year for tourism. Who are the Queen’s biggest fans? Russians, Malaysians and Brazilians!

http://www.liligo.co.uk/travel-magazine/britains-most-popular-tourist-attraction-the-queen-2116.html

[mjw47]

By being the Queen.

 

 

Britain’s leading tourist attraction? The Queen

Reports made recently by Visit Britain revealed that the Queen of England and the Royal family generate close to £500 million in revenues every year for tourism. Who are the Queen’s biggest fans? Russians, Malaysians and Brazilians!

http://www.liligo.co.uk/travel-magazine/britains-most-popular-tourist-attraction-the-queen-2116.html

 

Simply don't believe it, load of nonsense dreamed up as propaganda by the freeloaders in the institution who have a vested interest in it's continuation.

 

As I pointed out in a previous post 31.2 million people visited this country as tourists in 2013, how many actually saw the Queen or a member of her family?

 

A few tens of thousands?

 

So why were the rest of them here?

 

More people visited Germany which hasn't had a monarchy since before WW2.

 

France had 84.7 million visitors in the same period.

 

Are you claiming that if we did away with the monarchy the tourist industry would collapse?

 

It might even grow, given that tourists would be able to walk around the royal palaces.

[loraward]

Simply don't believe it, load of nonsense dreamed up as propaganda by the freeloaders in the institution who have a vested interest in it's continuation.

 

As I pointed out in a previous post 31.2 million people visited this country as tourists in 2013, how many actually saw the Queen or a member of her family?

 

A few tens of thousands?

 

So why were the rest of them here?

 

More people visited Germany which hasn't had a monarchy since before WW2.

 

France had 84.7 million visitors in the same period.

 

Are you claiming that if we did away with the monarchy the tourist industry would collapse?

 

It might even grow, given that tourists would be able to walk around the royal palaces.

 

I'm not claiming anything, the claim is made by VisitBritain.

 

Britain’s Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists, new research from VisitBritain reveals.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7914479/Monarchy-attracts-500-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html

[flamingjimmy]

I'm not claiming anything, the claim is made by VisitBritain.

 

Britain’s Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists, new research from VisitBritain reveals.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7914479/Monarchy-attracts-500-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html

 

Well that's clearly nonsense. You need only read the first paragraph of that article you've posted:

 

"Russians, Brazilians and Malaysians are the most likely to visit places linked to the Royal Family.

The Tower of London – where Anne Boleyn was beheaded - is the most popular royal attraction, with 2.38 million foreign visitors last year.

St Paul’s Cathedral which held the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales, saw 1.8 million overseas visitors in 2009.

Buckingham Palace attracted 402,000 visitors even though it is only open for eight weeks a year, while Windsor Castle saw 987,000 foreign visitors.

The survey, by VisitBritain, analysed information from 50,000 people who took part in the 2009 International Passenger Survey."

 

Do a little further digging yourself if you like, a quick trip through google to VisitBritain's own website and you'll find that their headline does not at all match the actual results of their survey.

 

The £500 million figure includes (and in fact is pretty much entirely made up of) people visiting old historical buildings related to the royal family.

 

Places which could be made better for tourists by dedicating them entirely as museums and kicking out the royals.

 

Basically, anyone that went to a castle is apparently only here because we have an extant monarchy, according to their interpretation of the survey.

 

So no, the royal family doesn't bring in £500 million in tourism revenue, that's just a lie you've been told.

 

If the headline said 'Britain’s HISTORY OF Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists' then it would be close to accurate, as it is, it's incredibly misleading and has fooled you.

Edited March 30, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[loraward]

Well that's clearly nonsense. You need only read the first paragraph of that article you've posted:

 

"Russians, Brazilians and Malaysians are the most likely to visit places linked to the Royal Family.

The Tower of London – where Anne Boleyn was beheaded - is the most popular royal attraction, with 2.38 million foreign visitors last year.

St Paul’s Cathedral which held the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales, saw 1.8 million overseas visitors in 2009.

Buckingham Palace attracted 402,000 visitors even though it is only open for eight weeks a year, while Windsor Castle saw 987,000 foreign visitors.

The survey, by VisitBritain, analysed information from 50,000 people who took part in the 2009 International Passenger Survey."

 

Do a little further digging yourself if you like, a quick trip through google to VisitBritain's own website and you'll find that their headline does not at all match the actual results of their survey.

 

The £500 million figure includes (and in fact is pretty much entirely made up of) people visiting old historical buildings related to the royal family.

 

Places which could be made better for tourists by dedicating them entirely as museums and kicking out the royals.

 

Basically, anyone that went to a castle is apparently only here because we have an extant monarchy, according to their interpretation of the survey.

 

So no, the royal family doesn't bring in £500 million in tourism revenue, that's just a lie you've been told.

 

If the headline said 'Britain’s HISTORY OF Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists' then it would be close to accurate, as it is, it's incredibly misleading and has fooled you.

 

Unless they come to visit these places because we still have an active Monarch. How many people visit France just because they used to have a Monarchy.

[flamingjimmy]

Unless they come to visit these places because we still have an active Monarch.

According to their representation of the survey results that is the only reason they come at all. Do you agree with that?

 

Do you really think no-one would want to see The Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral and Buckingham Palace if the Queen was just Lizzy Windsor?

[loraward]

According to their representation of the survey results that is the only reason they come at all. Do you agree with that?

 

Do you really think no-one would want to see The Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral and Buckingham Palace if the Queen was just Lizzy Windsor?

 

I am sure some people would still want to see those places, but I have no idea if the number would fall or rise, the tax payer will still have to foot the bill to keep them in good order though, much of the money we give her goes on maintenance and staff and that will still need to be spent if we want tourist to visit.

[skinz]

According to their representation of the survey results that is the only reason they come at all. Do you agree with that?

 

Do you really think no-one would want to see The Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral and Buckingham Palace if the Queen was just Lizzy Windsor?

 

 

Or..how many tourists actually get to see the Queen? other than a dummy at Tussaud's or trooping the colour.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 18:18 ----------

 

I am sure some people would still want to see those places, but I have no idea if the number would fall or rise, the tax payer will still have to foot the bill to keep them in good order though, much of the money we give her goes on maintenance and staff and that will still need to be spent if we want tourist to visit.

 

If the money we spend on the Queen is used to finance the Royal household and its assets, then how come she is one of the wealthiest women on the planet?

[loraward]

Or..how many tourists actually get to see the Queen? other than a dummy at Tussaud's or trooping the colour.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 18:18 ----------

 

 

If the money we spend on the Queen is used to finance the Royal household and its assets, then how come she is one of the wealthiest women on the planet?

 

Because she personally owns an investment portfolio and property.

 

She has three main sources of income.

 

Private income

The Privy Purse/Duchy of Lancaster

The Sovereign Grant

[mjw47]

Because she personally owns an investment portfolio and property.

 

She has three main sources of income.

 

Private income

The Privy Purse/Duchy of Lancaster

The Sovereign Grant

 

I assume that you are fully aware as to how royalty became rich and privileged?

 

At one time they used to try to convince - con - people into believing that it was by the grace of God.

 

But as I'm sure you are aware that wasn't how it happened.

 

They did it by a combination of theft, murder, torture, slavery and judicious interbreeding.

 

What we have therefore is a family - and numerous relatives - living a life of luxury and unearned privilege as a direct result of ill gotten gains.

 

Now I don't believe in holding people responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

 

Because that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

 

Just because someone is descended from thugs and thieves shouldn't mean that they be vilified for something which they had no control over, should it?

 

So how come it doesn't work both ways?

 

They shouldn't have their ancestors actions held against them but neither should they benefit from them to the extent that they do.

 

You seem happy with the arrangement, some of us aren't.