[richiemayne]

(Original post by marcusfox)

How about this one. "The ONS said that over the month of April (Royal Wedding) there were 350,000 extra visitors to the UK compared to the previous year."



Now for the recent little shindig. No Queen means no Jubilee. These events have been seen all over the world by billions of people. They have not seen them for nothing. Broadcasting rights are sold not given.

How about Mervyn King suggesting that the Bank holidays resulting from the Jubilee are the sole cause of the UK GDP growth declining in 2012 Q2? All of those broadcasting rights aren't going to account for all those people who aren't producing goods or providing services. He also points out that the royal wedding hit the economy last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17530003

[marcusfox]

(Original post by richiemayne)
You don't have to be a Republican to dislike a particular argument in favour of the monarchy. The greatest argument in favour of the monarchy, that it brings the nation together under a non-partisan national figure and gives us a sense of 'togetherness' is a particularly strong one, as is your argument that if they are supported by a vast majority of the people then there is no reason to remove them.

I simply take considerable issue with the argument that we should keep the Royal family because they are a tourist attraction. Government should be organised by legitimacy and efficiency. At the moment our system is both of those things, but should people feel that they no longer want the Royal family I would not object because they would lack legitimacy.

Edit: My point about 'if they were gotten rid of' was that if the tourism argument is so strong, then surely, if we could make more money by abolishing them, we ought to do that. It is the same logic after all. Of course, this would be a poor argument because the monarchy has other benefits beyond tourism and it would be foolish to do away with these benefits for the sake of a bit more wealth.

Why would we make more money by doing away with them?

It's just a silly argument proposed by small minded people who have no idea, reading the headlines in Socialist Worker about how much the Queen costs and how much security and this and that for whatever event costs, and then bleating like sheep.

Those headlines tell you that the Queen costs the taxpayer £x million per year, but they are surprisingly quiet on the £xxx millions that the Crown Estates generate for the exchequer.

The tabloids are screaming red and black that this event costs £y million to the economy in lost hours for the additional bank holidays and £z million in security costs.

Nothing about all the millions of tourists coming to actually be at the event in person, all the money they spend on flights, hotels at London prices, food and drink at London prices, souvenirs at London prices...

You'll say they would come anyway. I agree, a fair portion of them may well do. But in that case, the argument also works that those that would come anyway would come if the Queen is in place, equally as if she isn't.

In any case, whatever you think, you'd have a hard time arguing the position that less tourists come to the UK because of the Queen than currently stay away because we are a monarchy.

[MonkeySee]

(Original post by TheHansa)
There are lots of other costs, protecting the entire family, supplements to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall which then go to their personal income, servicing in the interest on the debt king George 3 ran up, the estimated total cost is just over £200m per year that £40m is just her personal allowance, but the real annoyance is that the royal estate is not owned by any of the royals so that £200m would be recieved anyway. Saying that the monarchy only costs the country £40m per year is the equivalent of a child who recieves £5 per week pocket money, claiming that he only costs his parents £5 per week to bring up.

No, her personal allowance is between 6 and 8 million. the 40million is the TOTAL cost to the taxpayer for their allowance. Plus you overlooked the tourism revenue for UK businesses, which im sure outweighs servicing interest on some debt.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by richiemayne)
How about Mervyn King suggesting that the Bank holidays resulting from the Jubilee are the sole cause of the UK GDP growth declining in 2012 Q2? All of those broadcasting rights aren't going to account for all those people who aren't producing goods or providing services. He also points out that the royal wedding hit the economy last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17530003

As if it is possible to count the net benefit/cost the Jubilee has had on the economy a mere day after the Jubilee celebrations have finished?

Much of the benefits to the UK economy from the Royal Wedding won't be counted in the quarter that it happened, even if the loss from the day off was, and much of it is still coming in as we speak.

[richiemayne]

(Original post by marcusfox)

It's just a silly argument proposed by small minded people who have no idea, reading the headlines in Socialist Worker about how much the Queen costs and how much security and this and that for whatever event costs, and then bleating like sheep.

If the implication here is that I'm some sort of angry leftie who enjoys getting worked up about 'the system', simply because you have a misconception that I am a Republican (which I am not) then I suggest you withhold such judgments.

In any case, whatever you think, you'd have a hard time arguing the case that more tourists come to the UK because of the Queen than currently stay away because we are a monarchy.

True. In the short term at least, some tourists may not visit the UK. I doubt however that it would be a considerable amount, certainly not anywhere near enough to send the economy into meltdown, though Windsor may not fare too well.

You're missing my point though. My point is that we shouldn't be basing our system of government on what is most beneficial to our economy. There may be some argument if Royal tourism was a significant % of our economy, but I doubt that it is even a huge % of our tourist market. We are after all, the 6th most visited country in the world and London is the 2nd most visited city, we have plenty to offer other than the Royals as you point out.

I digress; my main point is that government should not be organised on profit but on, as I've said, legitimacy and efficiency. For this reason I actually support the position of the Royal family, even if you seem so insistent on believing otherwise. This just isn't a very strong argument as it has nothing to do with the political reasons for organising a political system.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by richiemayne)
You're missing my point though. My point is that we shouldn't be basing our system of government on what is most beneficial to our economy.

Perhaps why so many people still vote Labour.

[richiemayne]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Perhaps why so many people still vote Labour.

I think you have confused the concept 'system of government' with 'composition of the government'.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by richiemayne)
I think you have confused the concept 'system of government' with 'composition of the government'.

Not at all.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by marcusfox)
The French? Who cares if the French, or the people of any other country think negatively of the fact that we in England have a King or Queen.

What has this got to do with their thoughts on our system? I was referring to the fact that the French would disagree with the notion that you can't sustain tourism after ditching a monarchy.

They wouldn't have had those nice buildings with fine art or fine palaces for tourists to visit if they didn't have a King or Queen at some point, and sure, if their monarchy back then had treated the people a bit better, they may even still have one.

And they wouldn't be open to the public either. The reason the Louvre is one of the most visited museums in the world by many millions more than Buckingham palace is because they threw out the monarchy and turned over their monument to the people.

Plenty of countries these days are happy with the monarchy they have, and like England, they're fully functioning democracies. And that's the choice of their people, not the French, or any other country.

Except without any election, it's never been a 'choice'. That is exactly what I want, a choice.

Thousands of tourists travel to Britain each year just to watch the royalty parading.

And MILLIONS come to see the art collection in the former royal palace of the Louvre in France, despite there being no 'parading royalty'.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
France is a mediterranean country featuring a warm climate and sunshine, a world renowned cuisine etc.

And we have legions of history, artwork, architecture and yes - even a cuisine. The French have done very well in marketing their draw ins in a 21st Century economy. It's time we did so too.

If we'd stop banging on about the Olympics 24/7 and averted some of our attention to attracting more rounded tourism, we'd be just as competitive as France. And the best thing we could do for ourselves? Turn out the Monarchy and open Buckingham Palace and the House of Windsor as international sites.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
What has this got to do with their thoughts on our system? I was referring to the fact that the French would disagree with the notion that you can't sustain tourism after ditching a monarchy.

I never said that you can't sustain tourism after ditching a monarchy. You are taking what you wish I had said, turning that into my opinion and attacking that.

I do say that our tourism economy is probably better with a monarchy than without though, unless you are saying that more people would choose to come to the UK without the Queen than with, and you can't possibly say that, the only place it currently exists is in your mind.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
And they wouldn't be open to the public either. The reason the Louvre is one of the most visited museums in the world by many millions more than Buckingham palace is because they threw out the monarchy and turned over their monument to the people.

Really, I thought it was because they stored tens of thousands of precious artworks in there. I think that's what they go to see. Just as they would go and see them if they had been stored elsewhere. The Louvre is simply a convenient building to store them in.

In any case, Louis XIV moved out of the Louvre into Versailles in the late 17th century and was storing artworks there instead, the royal family hadn't lived there for over a century before the French Revolution in the late 18th century.

So I know that you are trying to be clever to put forward the argument that if there was a monarchy in France, tourists wouldn't be able to go into the Louvre to see the artworks because there would be royalty living there, but it has no basis in reality.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Except without any election, it's never been a 'choice'. That is exactly what I want, a choice.

You have a choice. You can either live in the UK according to the current rules and customs or society or you can bugger off somewhere else where the current rules and conditions of society are more acceptable to you.

The majority of the people in this country vote for political parties that support the monarchy. The minority of those that don't (you) and the rest of the people with the anti-elitist chip on your shoulder can either like it or lump it. No chance of you doing anything about it other than whinge, but you do have a vote. You can vote for a political party that supports its abolition, or create one. Also known as pissing into the wind, but there are many things in life that we'd rather were somehow different, but we put up with them for the sake of society and the ability to live in such a country as the UK .

You complain about it being undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, yet as part of the minority wish to do away with this custom to satisfy your own wishes. That's as clear a definition of hypocrisy as you can get.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
And MILLIONS come to see the art collection in the former royal palace of the Louvre in France, despite there being no 'parading royalty'.

Yes, we've already done that particular fallacy to death. That collection of artwork is because of royalty, not in spite of it.

[Nik2020]

Does anyone fancy discussing this topic tonight on a Google+ Hangouts - if you're interested, drop me a PM, we could do something with 9 TSR's on a video chat, which could be a cool way of getting to know people as well as this topic, it's an interesting one to say the least given the Jubilee weekend has passed so I'd love to hear people's thoughts on it.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by MonkeySee)
No, her personal allowance is between 6 and 8 million. the 40million is the TOTAL cost to the taxpayer for their allowance. Plus you overlooked the tourism revenue for UK businesses, which im sure outweighs servicing interest on some debt.

No it isn't, even sources which give the £40m number admit it's not everything such as protection.



The tourism thing is also massively exaggerated because only one royal destination Buckingham palace, even makes it on to the top 20 tourist destination list and even then without the monarch, this site would still exist and could be opened full time probably increasing revenue.

[richiemayne]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Not at all.

*sigh*

[HARRY PUTAH]

(Original post by JakeStenson)
I'd be interested to know if there's any data about whether the Monarchy funds itself via tourism or not. Because there seemed to be vast amounts of money spent on the Jubilee weekend and the Royal Family in general in a time of recession where many people are hit economically

Another clown on TSR once again shows his lack of knowledge.

How many countires which presidents are visited because they have a president?

None.

How many are visited because they have a Queen/king?

England is one of them.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Those headlines tell you that the Queen costs the taxpayer £x million per year, but they are surprisingly quiet on the £xxx millions that the Crown Estates generate for the exchequer.

The Crown Estates are state property. Even before George III's agreement with Parliament, it was the property of the monarch as an office, rather than the person occupying that office. If the office of monarch was abolished, so would that claim.

This is of course not even taking into account that it was acquired through 'right of conquest'.

The tabloids are screaming red and black that this event costs £y million to the economy in lost hours for the additional bank holidays and £z million in security costs.

Nothing about all the millions of tourists coming to actually be at the event in person, all the money they spend on flights, hotels at London prices, food and drink at London prices, souvenirs at London prices...

So it's basically a subsidy. The population at large pay the costs, private businesses take the gains.

(Original post by marcusfox)
That collection of artwork is because of royalty, not in spite of it.

It's mostly because of Napoleon, actually, he was the one who really got the Louvre going. The Arc de Triomphe is also a Napoleonic monument. Do you think they'd get more tourism if the Bonapartes were still Emperors of France?

[anarchism101]

The problem I have with the tourism argument, whether it's true or not, is that it sounds like an admission that Britain as a country is so bad and has so little in terms of culture and tourist attraction compared to other countries that we have to keep a relic of tyranny in order to get by. I also find it a horrible idea that an entire country can or should be considered as represented by one individual or family.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The problem I have with the tourism argument, whether it's true or not, is that it sounds like an admission that Britain as a country is so bad and has so little in terms of culture and tourist attraction compared to other countries that we have to keep a relic of tyranny in order to get by. I also find it a horrible idea that an entire country can or should be considered as represented by one individual or family.

I absolutely hate the argument that the non-partisan monarch unites us all despite political differences, when tens of millions of people don't want a monarch in any form.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
This is why most republicans are miserable bastards, they don't celebrate anything.

My birthday was pretty good.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by TheHansa)
I absolutely hate the argument that the non-partisan monarch unites us all despite political differences, when tens of millions of people don't want a monarch in any form.

Even if we ignore that though, it's a daft argument. If all political connotations are removed (and I'm not saying that's currently the case), then what is there for the monarch to unite us in?

Anyway, the idea that we have to be united in something at all is a political stance. As much as its advocates try to say otherwise, the monarchy is inherently political.