Are they though? The Tower of London does good business and no one lives there, Edinburgh Castle never seems short of visitors, more than one National Trust property doesn’t have the ‘original’ owner but still attract the visitors.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Do you not think that having a monarchy reinforces a snobbery system in the UK where people look down on each other because of what family they were born into? This seems foolish to me. You don’t have any control over who you were born to. So how does it make sense for people to think you are superior because of your parentage?
I’ve noticed that royalists don’t really care about the RF. The minute any of them expresses an opinion, they are hammered by the press and royalists.
I don’t tend to agree with the argument about how much revenue it generates either because their security bill and police protection probably offsets that considerably.
Sorry I suppose the point I was making was they are popular because of the royal connections. Yes no one lves at the Tower of London now but the Crown Jewels are there and the history of it is connected to the royal family.
I’m not suggesting people only come to London for royal connections but they are an attraction.
edit for typos
On your definition the USA and Brazil and India and South Africa, which have presidents, are more equal than Sweden and Norway and Japan, which still also have constitutional monarchies like us. Absurd
When William married Kate in 2011 it generated £2 billion for the British economy
Royal wedding gives £2bn boost to UK tourism
Honeymoon effect may bring extra 4m visitors but taxpayers foot £7m bill for security operation
www.theguardian.com
And how much does their security bill cost the tax payer? Significantly more I should imagine. Your first point is a straw man argument.On your definition the USA and Brazil and India and South Africa, which have presidents, are more equal than Sweden and Norway and Japan, which still also have constitutional monarchies like us. Absurd
When William married Kate in 2011 it generated £2 billion for the British economy
Royal wedding gives £2bn boost to UK tourism
Honeymoon effect may bring extra 4m visitors but taxpayers foot £7m bill for security operation
Just been looking through the "Tiarapedia" on The Court Jeweller. Some really fabulous pieces, but we always seem to see the same ones. I would love to see this one brought back. Turquoise is underrated and it definitely suited Margaret's offbeat character. If it is still in the family following the auction of Margaret's jewels, it would look great with that black velvet McQueen dress that Kate wore a few years ago.
www.thecourtjeweller.com
The Persian Turquoise Tiara
Photo licensed to The Court Jeweller; DO NOT REPRODUCE. When the Queen Mum married the Duke of York in 1923, the two of them never expected to become monarch and consort one day. But even
www.thecourtjeweller.com
Last edited:
I assume you have never compared the security bill for the President of the US to that for our Royal Family? It is far more
I recently read the Norman Baker book which goes into GREAT detail about this and i would recommend anyone who is fascinated by the royals to read it
Ooo my mum has this, will have to nab it off her!
Is that the ‘And what do you do?’ one?
I can be a critic of the institution and enjoy looking at a good bling at the same time.
Sadly, it’s not as if even if the monarchy was dismantled tomorrow, the diamonds would go directly into funds to feed hungry people.
Also, it’s not my monarchy
so I observe it as I would any other strange creature at a zoo ( except I don’t go to the zoo)
( just making a joke, no need to jump onto throat, I don’t think they are animals)
Sadly, it’s not as if even if the monarchy was dismantled tomorrow, the diamonds would go directly into funds to feed hungry people.
Also, it’s not my monarchy
so I observe it as I would any other strange creature at a zoo ( except I don’t go to the zoo) ( just making a joke, no need to jump onto throat, I don’t think they are animals)
the thing is, while some the jewels are Crown Jewels, a lot of them are privately owned (passed down from Queen Mary - who elseI can be a critic of the institution and enjoy looking at a good bling at the same time.
Sadly, it’s not as if even if the monarchy was dismantled tomorrow, the diamonds would go directly into funds to feed hungry people.
Also, it’s not my monarchy
( just making a joke, no need to jump onto throat, I don’t think they are animals)
)and so will just stay with their current owners - like the Persian Turquoise one probably resides with Sarah Chatto.
Love the idea of becoming a private citizen (subject?) and owning a crown - flinging it on to make spag on toast with a pot of tea in an unglamerous kitchen.
Anyone who believes the myth that royalty drives tourism need only look at France. They've haven't had a monarch in over 200 years and their tourism figures far surpass the UK's. In fact, France had 90 million international tourists in 2019 & 2018 and 87 million in 2017 vs the UK at 40.9, 37.8 and 39.2 million respectively. I used 2017 - 2019 figures as obviously 2020 - present has been affected by COVID. Also interesting to note that tourism dropped in 2018 in the UK, despite the much-hyped royal wedding.
I genuinely believe that tourism revenue would increase if larger portions of the UK's castles and palaces were opened as displays to the public.
I genuinely believe that tourism revenue would increase if larger portions of the UK's castles and palaces were opened as displays to the public.
The US is a very different country to the UK where a concerning number of people have guns.
Quite. The Palace of Versailles generates loads of revenue.
And yet, when there was an attempt in the early 1970’s to kidnap Princess Anne, the would-be kidnapper had a gun and her security guard was shot.
If someone wants a gun badly enough, they will get a gun.
Agreed but at least in the UK it is harder since Hungerford and Dunblane. Whereas you can freely buy guns in the USA.
Whilst I agree with both points made above regarding guns, I think all can agree that comparing the security required for the US president vs the RF is like comparing apples to oranges.
One has a huge amount of political, diplomatic and military power and is arguably called the most important person in the World. The other is a famous family of figureheads who have no actual power, as we are so regularly reminded. Their security costs are not and should not be the same.
The Queen or any royal's assassination or injury would be a highly unfortunate and regrettable incident, as it would if anyone were unjustly killed or attacked. The assassination of the POTUS, on the other hand, would throw the entire world and our international relations into a state of chaos, even if for a short period.
One has a huge amount of political, diplomatic and military power and is arguably called the most important person in the World. The other is a famous family of figureheads who have no actual power, as we are so regularly reminded. Their security costs are not and should not be the same.
The Queen or any royal's assassination or injury would be a highly unfortunate and regrettable incident, as it would if anyone were unjustly killed or attacked. The assassination of the POTUS, on the other hand, would throw the entire world and our international relations into a state of chaos, even if for a short period.
Except France has better weather than we do, especially in the summer in the beaches of the sunny south of France and France also has mountains for skiing in winter we don't really have either. France is also the culinary capital of the world with the most Michelin starred restaurants. Yes they have a global city in Paris like we do with London and yes they have historic chateaux and palaces and cathedrals like our historic castles and palaces and cathedrals, however they do not get the royal wedding and royal jubilee revenue and mugs and teatowels associated with our royal family. As I pointed out earlier the 2011 royal wedding brought £2 billion into the UK economy.
The royal family is the only advantage over France we have in terms of tourism. Remove it and France would increase its lead over the UK in tourism terms even further. Protecting President Macron and his wife, who also live in the Elysee Palace and have a castle in the south of France which comes with his role as President, does not come cheap either. Charles has already said he will open most of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle all year round and just have a small office and apartment in the former and give the Cambridges Clarence House when he becomes King. Balmoral would become a museum to the Queen, also open to the public
Last edited:
Tourism-wise, a better comparison than France would probably be Germany. Very similar weather to the UK, tourism mainly focused on the big cities, with no major beach resorts that appeal to anyone other than their own countryfolk. I don't know how these tourist numbers are generated and I am never sure how accurate the figures are, but the top 4 countries for tourism in Europe (overwhelmingly), are France, Spain, Italy and Turkey. I'm sure we can all guess why and it isn't for their palaces. Monarchy or not, having a Mediterranean/Aegean coastline is a massive draw compared to a North Sea/Baltic one.
Last edited:
- Status