People moaning about the Royal Baby

pollypenny

19lottie82 wrote: »

The Royal Family costs the tax payer about £33 million a year (62p a person?), and generates £500milion from tourism, which leads to an extra £176million for the UK treasury, so that's not really true, is it?

It really gets my goat when people say "It's me who's paying for them", when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

What an arrogant post.

The many people who complain about the royals do know what they/we are talking about.

A). The oft-quoted 62p does not include security costs for the royals. OR Airmiles Andy's frequent use of helicopters to go golfing.

. Stratford-upon-Avon is full of tourists. Shakespeare died in 1616. The same applies to Chester and the Romans left a long time ago.

duchy

geoffky wrote: »

You and other brainwashed fools always try to use this line...Those tourists come here for far more and to say they come because of the royal family is a lie...
I think you will find we are full of foreign tourists here in Chester and they are not here to see our royal family they are here for our roman history and Tudor buildings and very many other tourist attractions such as our natural beauty in Chester and north wales..

You can carry on believing in fairytales if you want..I am a bit more grown up to believe in them.
Of course they are parasites, They are one of the biggest landowners in this country and have assets in the billions,Yet still get the taxpayer to pay for their weddings and such...They are laughing at you.

Hmm I just asked a cross section of overseas friends if they regarded Chester as a tourist attraction........... All have visited Britain and enjoy the historical tourism side..... None had even heard of Chester (bar one who thought they drove past it on their way to Scotland ).

I do honestly believe that if we became a Republic tomorrow tourism would diminish. I've lived and worked in London all my life and have travelled abroad widely. Tourists in London seem to almost always have several monarchy related sights on their to-do list - and lets face it Buckingham Palace without the guards would be a very boring building .....and I don't think I've ever travelled to the US, Canada or Australia without getting asked about the Royals even sometimes by random strangers who've heard my accent. (strangely no-one has ever asked me about Chester tho Maybe your tourist board needs to do a better job as it's a nice city )

I don't think I realized quite how much resonance the Royal family have until Diana died. I was working at Heathrow- and it was utterly extraordinary how many people felt compelled to fly in for her funeral to offer their respects by standing in the crowds that day.

We live here - we don't see it the same way - but there is an absolute facination with our monarchy from people living elsewhere.

Financially they ARE an asset to us.

pollypenny

No one heard of Chester : ooh! I wonder where the tourists are from then. :cool:

It's our main shopping place and it's crammed in the summer.

Americans, French and Germans mainly, with a lot of Brits from other parts of the country.

(And before you ask, the names are emblazoned on the coaches)

Errata

pollypenny wrote: »

No one heard of Chester : ooh! I wonder where the tourists are from then. :cool:

It's our main shopping place and it's crammed in the summer.

Americans, French and Germans mainly, with a lot of Brits from other parts of the country.

(And before you ask, the names are emblazoned on the coaches)

It's the same at York; rammed with trippers every day of the year.

19lottie82

pollypenny wrote: »

What an arrogant post.

The many people who complain about the royals do know what they/we are talking about.

Really? You know all of them, and the full extent of their knowledge/understanding? The one's that I have encountered, certainly don't.

And one poster on here seemed to back up his claims with propaganda from a republican website.

pollypenny wrote: »

. Stratford-upon-Avon is full of tourists. Shakespeare died in 1616. The same applies to Chester and the Romans left a long time ago.

totally irrelevant.

margaretclare

pollypenny wrote: »

No one heard of Chester : ooh! I wonder where the tourists are from then. :cool:

It's our main shopping place and it's crammed in the summer.

Americans, French and Germans mainly, with a lot of Brits from other parts of the country.

(And before you ask, the names are emblazoned on the coaches)

A good friend of ours runs 'Civil War tours' in Chester. It's amazing how many American visitors are unaware that we had a Civil War - they think theirs was the only one.

The week before the baby's birth we happened to be in London. It was the day that Lizzie had a special event for all the royal warrant-holders, a garden-party and a concert in the evening in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. We didn't go for that reason, wouldn't have gone if we'd known, but in addition to the women in fancy hats, the place was absolutely heaving with tourists. They were leaping out into the middle of the road taking photos on their mobile phones, snapping each other, risking being run over 'I woz 'ere in the Mall' etc. And crowds in Whitehall round the mounted guardsmen. They're all here and they all spend money - let them all come, say I, just so long as they go home again!

pollypenny

19lottie82 wrote: »

Really? You know all of them, and the full extent of their knowledge/understanding? The one's that I have encountered, certainly don't.

And one poster on here seemed to back up his claims with propaganda from a republican website.



totally irrelevant.

Highly relevant, because tourists bring jobs and money to an area because of its history and its beauty.

They don't go to Stratford to stand around in case Will Shakespeare appeared and they don't come to Chester to see the Romans.

Why is it 'propaganda' from one web- site, but facts from another?

KxMx

Surely as the Royals are alive and well that may be a bigger tourist draw than popular tourist areas where the main attraction is long dead :cool:

There is history and reality/present, both equally valid.

seven-day-weekend

paulineb wrote: »

Im not a royalist and I dont have kids so dont fall into the category of claiming any money for them. I was surprised that hes accepting the 126 a week paternity pay, he clearly doesnt need it, a nice gesture would be to donate it to charity.

I think people have the right to their opinions on the royals or on anything else.

They may add value to the UK in tourism and the like, but they also get paid very handsomely for just being born royal.

My view is, if this baby will grow up wanting for nothing, no child in the UK should be born into poverty.

Still, I bet Liam Gallagher was happy that hes been knocked off the front pages by the new arrival

How do you know he isn't? If he is taking Paternity leave, then by law he has to be paid Paternity pay.

TopQuark

duchy wrote: »

there is an absolute facination with our monarchy from people living elsewhere.

No. I live in Switzerland and work for a large international, inter-governmental organisation. Almost all of my colleagues are from other parts of the world and I can honestly say that not a single person is 'fascinated' with our royal family - they are almost never a topic for discussion.

When I lived in the far east it was exactly the same. People were more interested in David Beckham and football clubs than the royals. One possible exception was Americans.

Only in this country is there an 'absolute fascination' . I can't really understand it myself as I find it impossible to have much respect for a family that believes they are better than me and mine, that their lives are worth more. Which of course is absolute nonsense.

As for tourism, France gets the most, with Paris the most visited city in the world. As we know, they guillotined their royals centuries ago :T