The monarchy

Fade wrote:We do get their full income basically. We just pay them a Salary of £40 Million.

But we get more than 4 times that from them, so they actually make us money.

Then they make us even more money from tourism.

Fries. Wedges. Crisps? wrote:

Errkal wrote:the Monachy is so popular because it is there NOW not a thing from the past. People come over because they are our Royal family its a real life right now thing.

jawafour wrote:I don't love the monarchy but in terms of cost / benefit to the country it's a great deal.

I can't agree with you here, gents.

Republic.org wrote:"It's good for tourism"
This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it.

Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.

Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.

But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of visiting tourists to determine what kind of political system we have?

Royal residence admission numbers can be found in the Royal Collection Trust's annual reports

https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/mo ... od-tourism

Not worth it for £334 million a year.

Fade wrote:With all due respect. A website with the sole intention of abolishing the monarchy could be slightly biased.

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:With all due respect. A website with the sole intention of abolishing the monarchy could be slightly biased.

Also addressed on the previous page page 8.

For someone who posts things like "do some strawberry floating research", you don't seem to have paid much attention to the conversation that's taken place already.

Fade wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:With all due respect. A website with the sole intention of abolishing the monarchy could be slightly biased.

Also addressed on the previous page page 8.

For someone who posts things like "do some strawberry floating research", you don't seem to have paid much attention to the conversation that's taken place already.

I don't usually read through every page of a thread before I respond. Do you?

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:With all due respect. A website with the sole intention of abolishing the monarchy could be slightly biased.

Also addressed on the previous page page 8.

For someone who posts things like "do some strawberry floating research", you don't seem to have paid much attention to the conversation that's taken place already.

I don't usually read through every page of a thread before I respond. Do you?

No but I will usually read the last page or so of current discussion.

Irene Demova wrote:One side: sources with citations
Fade: a reddit link and "I said on Facebook"

jawafour wrote:(Original post text deleted - got quoted but not going to get involved again. Cheerio for now!)