Prince William just inherited a 685-year-old estate worth $1 billion

[DezLez]

On 9/14/2022 at 9:46 PM, stevenl said:

Don't change my words. I mean what I said.

i rephrased your "words"; from "I said it is putting people off." to "It is is putting you off" as you can only really speak about your own feelings unless you have asked them!

It is of course now too late to answer the question(s) which prompted your lack of an answer!

[stevenl]

19 hours ago, DezLez said:

i rephrased your "words"; from "I said it is putting people off." to "It is is putting you off" as you can only really speak about your own feelings unless you have asked them!

It is of course now too late to answer the question(s) which prompted your lack of an answer!

Thanks for admitting you changed the meaning of my words.

To illustrate my point, see e.g. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/whats-wrong-with-britain-lets-start-with-the-monarchy/

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/abolish-the-monarchy-child/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/opinion/letters/queen-elizabeth-britain-monarchy.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/world/europe/uk-jubilee-republicans/index.html

And there's many more. 

[DezLez]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

And there's many more.

That are pointless and have no bearing on your original misleading post.

[Denim]

On 9/14/2022 at 9:50 AM, stevenl said:

Strongly disagree, these excesses will in the end be their undoing I feel.

You are probably right.

 

The morally correct thing to would be to sell the inheritance and give the proceeds to the people.

 

Ok , this life changing windfall might only be enough for a pint at a pub ( likely not ) but principals are what counts.

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, DezLez said:

That are pointless and have no bearing on your original misleading post.

They underline my point and show that I am not speaking for myself.

[jak2002003]

On 9/14/2022 at 11:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know the state pays for maintenance on the buildings, but the amount the royals earn the country in tourism would make that worth while.

Get rid of the royals, and all the pomp and circumstance goes away too. No changing of the Guard, no Household cavalry etc. Be interesting to see how much tourism falls if all that happens.

You might want to read this ...and then see if the royal family really does bring in some much money for the UK people.

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

[puchooay]

20 hours ago, RayC said:

That might be true? However, I find it hard to believe that tourists visit the UK because they think that they are going to bump into the head of state on their travels.

They don't. They come to view the history. To see Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Tower of London and the crown jewels, to name a few.

 

In the meantime They are spending money on hotels, restaurants and souvenirs.

[puchooay]

13 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

You might want to read this ...and then see if the royal family really does bring in some much money for the UK people.

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

That website, plus other republican websites, continually write drivel.

 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, puchooay said:

That website, plus other republican websites, continually write drivel.

 

Looking forward to your corrections of the mentioned article.

[puchooay]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Looking forward to your corrections of the mentioned article.

In 2021/2022 the net profit from the Crown, which was passed on to the treasury,was £312m. The royal grant was £83m.

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by puchooay

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, puchooay said:

In 2021/2022 the net profit from the Crown, which were passed on to the treasury,was £312m. The royal grant was £83m.

 

Sounds good, excellent. Can you expend on that with a link from your source and, since you claimed the earlier link to be drivel, the corrections on the drivel?

[transam]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Sounds good, excellent. Can you expend on that with a link from your source and, since you claimed the earlier link to be drivel, the corrections on the drivel?

I thought you would have Google, I have, and I am.....????

[puchooay]

Just now, stevenl said:

Sounds good, excellent. Can you expend on that with a link from your source and, since you claimed the earlier link to be drivel, the corrections on the drivel?

It's there for all to see. The crown publishes an annual report. The treasury announces the royal grant each year.

 

The website I said was drivel did not mention this or the profits made. They also did not mention how security is actually funded.

 

Hence my "drivel" comment.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, puchooay said:

It's there for all to see. The crown publishes an annual report. The treasury announces the royal grant each year.

 

The website I said was drivel did not mention this or the profits made. They also did not mention how security is actually funded.

 

Hence my "drivel" comment.

So no explanation forthcoming, a pity. 

[puchooay]

Just now, stevenl said:

So no explanation forthcoming, a pity. 

Oh dear. Selective reading syndrome. 5555

[RayC]

37 minutes ago, puchooay said:

They don't. They come to view the history. To see Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Tower of London and the crown jewels, to name a few.

 

In the meantime They are spending money on hotels, restaurants and souvenirs.

Right. Just as they do when visiting Rome, Athens, Istanbul and other cities.

 

The original proposition was that the monarchy increases tourism. Do you think that these cities would get even more tourists simply by having a living monarch rather than an elected head of state?

Edited September 18, 2022 by RayC
Clarity

[candide]

It's just an example of a broader issue. 30% to 50% of the land is owned by the aristocracy in the UK. It's huge.

[transam]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

Right. Just as they do when visiting Rome, Athens, Istanbul and other cities.

 

The original proposition was that the monarchy increases tourism. Do you think that these cities would get even more tourists simply by having a living monarch rather than an elected head of state?

Yes I do, we still have a King, with all that goes with it, not killed them off to have some tosser voted in as head for a few years....????

[stevenl]

On 9/14/2022 at 11:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know the state pays for maintenance on the buildings, but the amount the royals earn the country in tourism would make that worth while.

Get rid of the royals, and all the pomp and circumstance goes away too. No changing of the Guard, no Household cavalry etc. Be interesting to see how much tourism falls if all that happens.

 

9 minutes ago, transam said:

Yes I do, we still have a King, with all that goes with it, not killed them off to have some tosser voted in as head for a few years....????

That was the post the question relates to. Your answer has nothing to do with the question posed.

Edited September 18, 2022 by stevenl

[transam]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

 

That was the post the question relates to. Your answer has nothing to do with the question posed.

Good reading though.....????

[puchooay]

50 minutes ago, RayC said:

Right. Just as they do when visiting Rome, Athens, Istanbul and other cities.

 

The original proposition was that the monarchy increases tourism. Do you think that these cities would get even more tourists simply by having a living monarch rather than an elected head of state?

You are comparing cities with a nation. There are hundreds of historical sites in UK. Sites that would not be there if it weren't for the monarchy. Sites that are visited by millions each year.

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, transam said:

Good reading though.....????

Not on your part.

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, transam said:

Yes I do, we still have a King, with all that goes with it, not killed them off to have some tosser voted in as head for a few years....????

Can you  supply some evidence to support your view that tourism to Greece, Italy, Turkey, etc would be increased by having a constitutional monarchy?

 

I'll repeat again. I've still to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government but - again - if it is deemed necessary, then s/he should be elected.

 

You inadvertently point out one advantage of having an elected head of state: If s/he turns out to be 'a tosser' you can vote them out. If an heritatory monarch turns out to be 'a tosser' we are stuck with them for their lifetime.

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, puchooay said:

You are comparing cities with a nation. There are hundreds of historical sites in UK. Sites that would not be there if it weren't for the monarchy. Sites that are visited by millions each year.

Greece, Italy and Turkey also have hundreds of historical sites spread throughout their nations. Whether you compare London with Rome, Athens, Istanbul or the UK with Greece, Italy or Turkey, my question remains the same: Would these cities/ countries attract more tourists if they were currently kingdoms rather than republics?

[puchooay]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Can you  supply some evidence to support your view that tourism to Greece, Italy, Turkey, etc would be increased by having a constitutional monarchy?

Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

[Fab5BKK]

On 9/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, RayC said:

Imo very little. France hadn't had a monarchy for +/-230 years but it's the most visited country in the world.

Good point!

 

BTW, no monarch in France since 1870 (Napoleon III) = 152 years

 

Napoleon III

[Bkk Brian]

Personally I'm all for the Monarchy in the UK and I also believe they provide great value for money.

 

It helps earn hundreds of millions for Britain’s economy every year, with Windsor Castle and Frogmore House recording roughly 426,000 paying visitors between April 2021 and March 2022. An adult ticket costs £26.50 from Sunday to Friday. Other royal tourist destinations such as Buckingham Palace, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery also generate significant revenue.

 

While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Personally I'm all for the Monarchy in the UK and I also believe they provide great value for money.

 

It helps earn hundreds of millions for Britain’s economy every year, with Windsor Castle and Frogmore House recording roughly 426,000 paying visitors between April 2021 and March 2022. An adult ticket costs £26.50 from Sunday to Friday. Other royal tourist destinations such as Buckingham Palace, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery also generate significant revenue.

 

While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.

I also believe a monarchy is better than any alternative and probably not more expensive as well.

What I don't like is posts and links claiming the opposite being put down as drivel or similar without a real explanation.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I also believe a monarchy is better than any alternative and probably not more expensive as well.

What I don't like is posts and links claiming the opposite being put down as drivel or similar without a real explanation.

Having read this whole topic, your comments, replies and then your replies, I've come to the conclusion you are just trying to be difficult. This often happens when people feel they are losing an arguement.

 

The post you refer too clearly stated the source of the details.

 

A quick "Google" brings up all the info you need. A process you seem to be incapable of completing.

Edited September 18, 2022 by youreavinalaff

[RayC]

42 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

No but I can't categorically prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist either!

 

The onus isn't on me to prove a negative, it is on those who suggest that a (living) monarchy increases tourism (revenue) to provide evidence to support their hypothesis.