TSR Republican Society

Sorry, but, can you be more precise with your question?

It's unclear whether you're asking what's the difference between anyone aspiring for their children to become the Head of State as opposed to the PM or whether you're asking what the difference is between the current Monarch telling their children they could reign, as opposed to anyone else telling them they could become the PM.

I always find it hilarious (or equally sad as this is the level of discourse people use) when people bring up the monarchy being beneficial to tourism, WHEN THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM. Even the official UK Tourism Board doesn't include a sub-factor for the monarchy and how much tourism it brings to the UK, as the effect is deemed negligible/not important enough.

That and the myth that the royal family costs us 69p each every year (yes because all 60 million people in the country, including children, are taxpayers!) are the most moronic excuses to justify such a system.

I'm asking what the difference is between a parent in a hypothetical UK republic telling their child they could one day become head of state, and a parent in the modern-day United Kingdom telling their child that they could one day become PM.

This isn't about just domestic tourism - please do feel free to provide actual evidence, which documents international tourist numbers by each tourist site. Money from tourism is money from tourism.

Moreover, good on you for ignoring the rest of the post (i.e. questions/arguments you couldn't argue or provide a retort against)

bstantial difference. I suppose - if we want a parallel for the discussion - we can use the President of the USA. In the US, running a Presidential campaign involves spending a lot of money, and most Presidents have tended towards being members of the upper-middle class. You could - theoretically - transfer this across to suggest that the increased prestige and power of the position would involve a more comprehensive and expensive campaign trail.

There is no need to be patronise me with your little eye rolling emoticons. That is how good natured debates turn to crap. Just deliver your argument.

It is purely a matter of international tourism with regards to my original argument as I was talking about the importance of the monarchy to how our country is perceived by the outside world. I am not trying to suggest that individual royal attractions hold a monopoly on tourism as tourism in the UK is largely domestic especially outside London. What I am suggesting is that the role of the royal family is part of the whole appeal of the UK as a tourist destination just as much as the British Countryside or the Globe. If it were to no longer be a present institution and become an historical one, then it would be no more attractive than the french monarchy. Whenever I meet someone foreign as I often did at school, they would always ask about the Queen. We do get associated with the royal family frequently just as much as football.

I did provide evidence in my original argument. I stated the number of international tourists and the site most visited by international tourists.

Or you could say that if we adopt a Presidential system of government, election campaigns will be - even more than they currently are - nothing more than competitions between parties to see who can spend the largest amount of money, and style would be much more important than substance.

Americans make up the bulk of tourists to the UK, the Tower of London (owned by the monarchy) being the most visited site (2 million).

This isn't me being patronising, but rather trying to get a good natured debate going - simply picking and choosing what points you can retort (and thus leaving all other valid points made in a post aside), is not exactly the recipe for a civil discussion now is it.



You have not given even one single shred of evidence for any of the comments you've made above. Explain to me why the UK Tourism Board deems the royal effect being so negligible on tourism, that they don't even have it as a sub-factor within their statistics? Why the Top 20 sites for tourism in the UK only includes on royal residence? [and spare me the "its only international tourism that matters", as this is simply clutching at straws - the benefits of tourism are the same, whether these people come from the UK, USA or Mars].



Please provide an official source for this.

Moreover, are you saying you have exact statistics on the number of international only tourists, for various UK sites (as one is simply not good enough). Moreover within this evidence, it should be made clear that a monarchy is what made the tourists visit the sites in the first place, as simply assuming is somewhat deluded.

The British Museum (source: league table put out by the tourism board ALVA) is the most visited tourist site in the UK, not the Tower of London. Moreover, how do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.

I believe that I have now responded to your points prior to this post so you can drop that now.

Once again, domestic tourism is irrelevant to my original argument. Once again, the top 20 you are referring to is heavily weighted by domestic tourism

I am arguing that without the royal family, there would be a different perception which may not be as enticing to tourists, in particular those across the pond.

If you would have studied geography you would understand that tourism can be very broadly defined. A tourist to the British museum could be from Reading. This is the case with all the museums. This is why it is important to differentiate between domestic and international.

No you haven't and you know this, so stop clutching at straws and trying to escape out of arguments you have no retort for. See also post number 27.


Please provide evidence for this claim - I have never seen any domestic/international breakdown, nor any insinuation by the conductors of the league tables, that domestic tourism had a dominating effect on the outcome at all.



Again, evidence for this claim? You CANNOT make such a proposition but then provide no back-up for it.

If there are any points that I haven't responded to then it is not out of avoidance, simply that I don't remember what those points were in the first place. Nor do I see where I am clutching to straws, I have not strayed from my initial argument

That is a weak argument, but I shall accept it, b/c it takes me onto my main point (which curiously you have avoided answering the post of mine you have quoted - why?). Please answer the following questions, which I state AGAIN for the second/third time in hopes of a logical answer from you.

How do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.

I sort of agree with Republicanism really, but just to play devil's advocate: what's the massive difference in telling your kids they could one day be the head of state, to telling your kids they could one day be Prime Minister?

Very good question - I'd say none, and the idea that people will seriously believe they are able to become Head of State, or that it will somehow make people feel better about things, is laughable.

Moreover, those that do make it, will be politicians.

The unelected Monarch is the Head of State, rather than someone who's been democratically elected. I'd say that has a lot to do with democracy.