Royal wedding and the economy

Wheezy_2

In a modern nation, there should be no place for a monarchy.

The concept that someone becomes head of state just by popping out of the previous head of state is mind boggling.

ninky_2

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I think you're wrong on this. Coach-loads of tourists come to the UK, specifically London, for the heritage factor. The Americans, Japanese and some Australians absolutely love all the royal tat that's sold. Most European countries have some sort of monarchy, but ours is by far the most well known and to deny that it's a draw for a lot of people is nonsense.

yes but people would still come and see the tower and crown jewels etc even if we got rid of the monarchy, just as people still go to france even though they have got rid of theirs. imagine if we kicked them out and opened up buckingham palace for tourists - maybe you could even stay the night there. i think that would see a few more tourists flocking in.

people also buy tat with red double decker buses on them, black taxis etc.

shakespeare remains a tourist attraction for stratford even though he's dead.

we'd still have the heritage factor. we just wouldn't have the embarrassment of still having a monarchy in the 21st century.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

ninky wrote: »

yes but people would still come and see the tower and crown jewels etc even if we got rid of the monarchy, just as people still go to france even though they have got rid of theirs. imagine if we kicked them out and opened up buckingham palace for tourists - maybe you could even stay the night there. i think that would see a few more tourists flocking in.

people also buy tat with red double decker buses on them, black taxis etc.

shakespeare remains a tourist attraction for stratford even though he's dead.

we'd still have the heritage factor. we just wouldn't have the embarrassment of still having a monarchy in the 21st century.

The way I see it, all the big European capitals have great museums, galleries, architecture etc and local tat, HOWEVER, London also has the royal family. For those who travel a long way for their holiday, that might swing it for spending more time here rather than elsewhere on the continent. It's something extra that we offer, and I think it does have a commercial value.

I go to Royal Ascot to see great racing. Most people go to dress up and cheer the royal procession as it goes past. Not my thing, but can't deny an awful lot of people seem to enjoy it.

ninky_2

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

The way I see it, all the big European capitals have great museums, galleries, architecture etc and local tat, HOWEVER, London also has the royal family. For those who travel a long way for their holiday, that might swing it for spending more time here rather than elsewhere on the continent. It's something extra that we offer, and I think it does have a commercial value.

I go to Royal Ascot to see great racing. Most people go to dress up and cheer the royal procession as it goes past. Not my thing, but can't deny an awful lot of people seem to enjoy it.

if you had stats to back up the assertion that people come here to see the royal family, or spend money here they wouldn't spend otherwise, then i'd reconsider. the fact i've never read anything (other than anecdotal) about the draw of the monarchy for tourism in the uk will make me keep my position.

ninky_2

this article here about what draws tourists makes no mention of royal family. football, art galleries and museums and pubs are mentioned however.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11282294

A._Badger

ninky wrote: »

we'd still have the heritage factor. we just wouldn't have the embarrassment of still having a monarchy in the 21st century.

Not for the first time, Ninky is talking out of the back of her neck and projecting her own right-on ideology. I have considerable experience of the US and USAians. While I've met a few (they do actually exist) who would want one of their own, many are absolutely fascinated by our monarchy.

Curiously,so are a lot of Europeans.

And I say that reluctantly, as someone who profoundly isn't.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

yes but people would still come and see the tower and crown jewels etc even if we got rid of the monarchy, just as people still go to france even though they have got rid of theirs. imagine if we kicked them out and opened up buckingham palace for tourists - maybe you could even stay the night there. i think that would see a few more tourists flocking in.

people also buy tat with red double decker buses on them, black taxis etc.

shakespeare remains a tourist attraction for stratford even though he's dead.

we'd still have the heritage factor. we just wouldn't have the embarrassment of still having a monarchy in the 21st century.

my guess is the sector who ARE interested in the monarchy get the same sort of kick at looking around Buck House as people who are interested in celebrity get from Hello magazine or that sort of thing.


I personally wouldn't choose a destination on whether there was a monarchy or not either, but on those practical decisions you outline and on culture. To some people the monarchy is a bigger part of the culture than to others, others focus on cultural aspects like art galleries, museums, clubs, sport ....its what appeals to different people. For instance, I wouldn't go to anywhere for the Olympics, but that's just me! I think it could be a small part of any USP for British tourism.

edit: I also second that a percentage but not all, people we know who are non Brits are interested in the monarchy. I have a canadian friend who swears she thinks the Canadians care more than we do about the Royals...lots of amaericans care (where would sarah ferguson have been without them!)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ninky wrote: »

personally i'd like to get rid of the monarchy. i don't see what benefits it gives us and it costs the country .

The Royal family contribute far more than they cost, in fact the UK taxpayer makes a significant profit from the Royal family every year.

The Crown Estate is not merely a collection of posh pastures managed for Her Majesty. From oyster beds in Argyll, via ancient castles, to the hustle and bustle of London's Regent Street, the £5 billion portfolio extends across Britain and makes money for us, the public.

To understand the full picture you have to go back to 1760 when George III - he of the 'madness' - needed to boost his income.
The agreement was that crown lands and properties would be managed on behalf of the crown by the government and any surplus revenue would belong to the Treasury. In return, the king would receive a fixed annual payment, known today as the Civil List.
Now 200 years ago this seemed like an excellent deal for the monarch as the estate was making very little money. Fast forward to the 21st Century and the profit is very regal indeed.

Not only is there a substantial surplus but it has risen every year for the last two decades. Last year it increased by more than 6% to a whopping £226.5 million and every penny is paid to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

In fact the two main objectives of the Crown Estate are to 'benefit the taxpayer' and 'enhance the value of the estate and the income it generates'. The monarch's share of the deal is now a 'mere' £41.5 million.
.

http://money.uk.msn.com/your-cash/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154001233

ninky_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Royal family contribute far more than they cost, in fact the UK taxpayer makes a significant profit from the Royal family every year.

http://money.uk.msn.com/your-cash/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154001233

you really think that if we got rid of the monarchy the crown estate would go back into their hands?

vaporate

My only concern is hearing this tack crap every time i turn the tv on.