To be fair, she said "plenty of people" and not "tourists (...) only (...)".
And it's true, I have seen a few people on Insta that do come to England purely for the Royals. I don't know how many, but it seems fair to say "plenty".
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
And it's true, I have seen a few people on Insta that do come to England purely for the Royals. I don't know how many, but it seems fair to say "plenty".
She didn’t say England she said the UK and then went on to list several English royal “attractions”. Was tourists the wrong word to use to describe these people? How much is plenty and how many people holidaying in the UK don’t do the royal sites?
Ok, but England is part of the UK and yes Royal Fans from abroad are tourists. I think this is hair splitting.
Diana was also of Indian descent.
They also go to Scotland too and when they do often for royal connected places like Edinburgh castle or Holyroodhouse Palace or the royal yacht Britannia. Charles has also said he will make Balmoral into a memorial to the Queen when she dies for visitors.
Scotland of course has even worse weather than England, it is certainly not our beaches and warm sunshine we get people visiting for!
This is interesting. Tate modern was the most visited before Covid hit.
www.visitbritain.org
.
www.standard.co.uk
I agree that the big royal events and the pageantry will garner huge attention, especially jubilees and weddings, but those events happen too few times to be considered a reason as to why foreigners travel to visit Britain. Foreigners go to London because it's in the lists of top cities to visit with a lot to see. People visit Scotland for Loch Ness monster attractions, and along with Edinburgh, and other attractions. People visit Stonehenge too, which is another tourist site. Along with Hadrian's wall. Also, Harry Potter tour and the Downton Hall manor house tour.
There is so much history and things to see in Britain that people would still visit even if we didn't have the royal family. I'm neither a royalist or republican. I think we pay about 20p a month for the royal family, so that's nothing to me to worry about. The issue is that members like Andrew who have taken that privilege for granted for too long, he's taken the piss. The Queen has served the country and done what is necessary to put Britain in the best light, so I don't place any blame on her for what her family has done. I also don't think that lifestyle is particularly ideal, even if from the outside it looks so.
The scrutiny and restrictive nature of the job doesn't make me envy the Queen or RF in general to be honest. I would take my life over that because I can say what I want or do what I want, within reason, whereas she cannot. I also believe that the royal family has indirect pros, such as keeping many people in employment. But of course, in the grande scheme they aren't particularly important, so I can understand both sides of the argument.
VisitEngland survey shows scale of impact on visitor attractions from COVID-19
VisitEngland’s Annual Visitor Attractions Survey for 2020 published today shows the severe impact on visitor attractions from the COVID-19 pandemic, with a 65% drop in visitors overall compared to 2019 and a 55% decline in revenue.
This was the most-visited UK tourist attraction in 2018
British tourism is booming
I agree that the big royal events and the pageantry will garner huge attention, especially jubilees and weddings, but those events happen too few times to be considered a reason as to why foreigners travel to visit Britain. Foreigners go to London because it's in the lists of top cities to visit with a lot to see. People visit Scotland for Loch Ness monster attractions, and along with Edinburgh, and other attractions. People visit Stonehenge too, which is another tourist site. Along with Hadrian's wall. Also, Harry Potter tour and the Downton Hall manor house tour.
There is so much history and things to see in Britain that people would still visit even if we didn't have the royal family. I'm neither a royalist or republican. I think we pay about 20p a month for the royal family, so that's nothing to me to worry about. The issue is that members like Andrew who have taken that privilege for granted for too long, he's taken the piss. The Queen has served the country and done what is necessary to put Britain in the best light, so I don't place any blame on her for what her family has done. I also don't think that lifestyle is particularly ideal, even if from the outside it looks so.
The scrutiny and restrictive nature of the job doesn't make me envy the Queen or RF in general to be honest. I would take my life over that because I can say what I want or do what I want, within reason, whereas she cannot. I also believe that the royal family has indirect pros, such as keeping many people in employment. But of course, in the grande scheme they aren't particularly important, so I can understand both sides of the argument.
Edinburgh Castle and Holyroodhouse predate the UK monarchy and would continue to be tourist attractions regardless. If Charles wants to turn Balmoral into a tourist attraction he can do so as King or as a private individual, it would be his own private property after all.
People don’t visit Scotland for the weather but they do for many reasons other than royals. The television show Outlander has had a huge impact on our tourism, should we make the writer or a cast member our head of state?
- Status