Green Party Wants To Put The Queen In A Council House

[flamingjimmy]

I didn't get the impression that they think a monarch is the only draw for people visiting St Paul's Cathedral, and I'm of the opinion that their figures could be right because I have met lots of people from around the world that think the sun shines out of the Queens ass. If you have evidence which contradicts their findings I would be happy to take a look.

 

Here:

"Our ‘’culture and heritage’’ in the widest sense - extending from theatres, galleries, to pubs, Premiership Football, castles and stately homes - generated £4.6 billion in total spending by overseas tourists in 2009, and supported 100,000 jobs, the report said.

 

But within that total one-in-eight of those sites – ranging from the Tower of London to The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and Ruthin Castle in Wales – are associated with Monarchy. The report reveals that foreign tourists who visited them generated £500 million of spending, directly and indirectly."

 

Source: http://www.visitbritain.org/mediaroom/archive/archive2010/monarchy500million.aspx

 

It makes it quite clear that the 500 million figure they keep throwing about is from tourists visiting sites such as the ones mentioned.

 

Anyone who visits windsor castle, anyone who visits Buckingham palace, anyone who visits any of the castles dotted about this isle, etc. all the money they spend and the impact they have on our economy, all of that added up, that's the £500 million, and they claim every single penny of it as being because of the monarchy.

 

So, as I've demonstrated by linking to the very source that the telegraph article you linked to used, the claim that 'Britain’s Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists' is likely bogus, and a gross misrepresentation of the results of the survey, do you agree?

Edited March 30, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[I1L2T3]

The Royal Family could be worth more to us if we disestablish them.

 

The Chinese government make an absolute mint from tourism off people who travel from all over the world to see the ancient palaces, the Forbidden City etc...

[loraward]

The bit of my post that you detached at the end, I assumed was meant for me personally.

 

Don't quite see why you'd do it like that if not.

 

Not a problem by the way, I have a very thick skin.

 

Just looked at that again and have managed to figure out what you meant, this whiskey is going down too well.

 

Just goes to show, they should have a breathalyzer attached to computers to allow you to post.

 

No it wasn't meant for you but after another look I can see why you might have thought so.

[Frederick1]

Every few years or so we get this debate about our Royal Family.

Reading through these pages I didn't realise (or understand) there was so much "anti" feeling.

 

:confused:

[The Joker]

Every few years or so we get this debate about our Royal Family.

Reading through these pages I didn't realise (or understand) there was so much "anti" feeling.

 

:confused:

 

They're just another bunch of foreign freeloaders, happy to live off our country's hard-working taxpayers.

 

I'm not sure why the ConDemNation coalition haven't sanctioned their benefits yet.

[skinz]

Every few years or so we get this debate about our Royal Family.

Reading through these pages I didn't realise (or understand) there was so much "anti" feeling.

 

:confused:

 

Apathy maybe. Understanding or trying to is about making a conscious effort.

[mjw47]

Every few years or so we get this debate about our Royal Family.

Reading through these pages I didn't realise (or understand) there was so much "anti" feeling.

 

:confused:

 

It is widespread but in the usually British way tends to be confined to having a good old moan about it.

 

In fairness if you are against the institution for whatever reason, what exactly are you going to do about it?

 

We aren't going to get a vote on it, it's the absolute opposite of democratic by it's very existence.

 

As long as they don't do something to pee everyone off,which is against their self interest then they'll be safe.

 

The Diana situation is the closest they ever came to causing widespread ill feeling and they won't do that again.

 

Charles's letters might be interesting but I doubt it'll bring about the revolution!

[blackydog]

quote ------- "In fairness if you are against the institution for whatever reason, what exactly are you going to do about it?"

 

 

 

Join / support Republic. Graham Smith played a large part in pushing for Charles' letters to be made available.

Edited March 31, 2015 by blackydog
meant quote to be in a box

[mjw47]

quote ------- "In fairness if you are against the institution for whatever reason, what exactly are you going to do about it?"

 

 

 

Join / support Republic. Graham Smith played a large part in pushing for Charles' letters to be made available.

 

Fighting hopeless causes has limited appeal I'm afraid.

 

Whilst ever they take care not to get caught out doing something outrageous that really offends people they'll survive through a mixture of apathy,ignorance, genuine support and " well it's always been like that, why change it " reactionism.

 

The Queen has played her hand brilliantly, how can anyone get overly anti about her personally?

 

Charles may be a different kettle of fish as he's going to find it almost impossible to keep his mouth shut and not give his views on everything under the sun.

 

That partiality is completely unacceptable in the role as it's been laid down and defined by the actions of his mother, could be amusing times ahead.

 

My own objection to them is purely on principle it is an archaic anachronistic institution which should be unacceptable in any mature country in this day and age.

 

They could keep a decent amount of money and a couple of nice homes in my view but their claim to ownership of all of the land in the country plus their titles would be abolished.

 

The Austrians dealt with it sensibly when they refused permission for the Hapsburgs to return to the throne and became a republic.

[petcharlie]

Fighting hopeless causes has limited appeal I'm afraid.

 

Whilst ever they take care not to get caught out doing something outrageous that really offends people they'll survive through a mixture of apathy,ignorance, genuine support and " well it's always been like that, why change it " reactionism.

 

The Queen has played her hand brilliantly, how can anyone get overly anti about her personally?

 

Charles may be a different kettle of fish as he's going to find it almost impossible to keep his mouth shut and not give his views on everything under the sun.

 

That partiality is completely unacceptable in the role as it's been laid down and defined by the actions of his mother, could be amusing times ahead.

 

My own objection to them is purely on principle it is an archaic anachronistic institution which should be unacceptable in any mature country in this day and age.

 

They could keep a decent amount of money and a couple of nice homes in my view but their claim to ownership of all of the land in the country plus their titles would be abolished.

 

The Austrians dealt with it sensibly when they refused permission for the Hapsburgs to return to the throne and became a republic.

The set up is undemocratic you are so right.I see Charlie has opened his mouth once more to tell everybody that they are using to much energy and then climbs aboard his helicopter travels 80 miles in it climbs out and in to a seven and a half liter Rolls followed by four Range Rovers.I hope he as been preaching to Air Miles Andy about all his use of energy and his niece who has just flown back from her ninth holiday in twelve months.How do they fit all these hols in when according to some they never stop working.They are of coarse supper human and can be in two places at once.Anyway I have taken his advice on board and every body in the house will have to ask permission to put the kettle on. PS Has anybody got a spare room.