The Royal Family is an an aid not a hindrance??

Lets not forget 6% of america is a whole third of our population, so yes that is quite large numbers for a country that ousted the British monarchy. .

And when you say remove them, you are aware that most of the cost of the monarchy is maintenance of property, so by removing them you haven't actually saved the government the cost of Buckingham Palace, Windsor castle etc, so i don't think it takes much intelligence at all to realise that actually it will have a negative effect, or do you propose that all royal residences get demolished or sold off as private houses, in which case they will definitely be closed to tourism.

I rekcon you will find that we shall have one soon, the added tourism from this recent royal wedding has been predicted into the many hundreds of millions of pounds, if we had no royals we would have no wedding.

end of.

As I've said, I would like to see your source for making the claim that the cost of the monarchy is mainly just maintenance - not that I don't trust you....well I don't actually, as I'm yet to see any evidence on the tourism front either.

With regards to the cost of the monarchy, for every article out there saying the monarchy doesn't cost us, there is another saying it does cost us a considerable amount.

And have you actually watched the OP's link, because i think form alot of what you have said you didn't bother getting yourself informed on what the actual topic was about.

Lets get rid of drastic and I'll just say a net loss then; how do you know there would be a material net loss to tourism if we got rid of the monarchy? By that I mean, they (the royal family) would still obviously be in the UK, but not in any official capacity of any means. How do you know conclusively that this would affect tourism? Moreover, please stop throwing "Americans" into the foray as if they are blind royalists - I've lived in the country myself for a very long time and as has been shown above, supposedly Americans where crazy for the wedding, it was shown otherwise - unless of course you think 6% of a population is crazy excited territory.

I'm not asking for someone to "go around every stall and ask" and don't insinuate (to further your 'argument') that I am. I just find it hugely surprising that given just 1 of the Top 20 tourists sites in the UK is do with a royal residence (at number 17 at that!) and indeed that without a royal family this tourism would drop, that the royals BEING IN POWER is really a major tourism factor. There is no evidence for it, particularly the latter claim, yet it is always made by royalists

Oh Jebus, here we go again

Provide any sources which can back up your claim that the royals bring in a great deal of money through tourism (which also shows that without the monarchy thus, the UK would loose a great deal of tourism revenue). I'll save you the time, you won't find one, because THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP, yet it is a myth used/made by royalists/the misguided all the time to support keeping a monarchy. Heck of the Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, only one is to do with the royal residences (i.e. the royal family), which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.

As for finances (i.e. how much they cost us taxpayers), you can find articles which pertain to the royals being net positive to the country AND net negative in that they cost us.

More importantly, the debate about having a monarchy should be first and foremost be with regards to the constitutionality of the country, not something like money; heck if it is just about money, lets just make Lego Man (with Lego Land being one of the best tourist attractions in the UK and thus bringing in a load of revenue) a member of the royal family.

Here is the video which rebukes the one posted by the OP directly, and points to the actual cost of keeping a monarchy;

Equally, I can find you a link stating and providing evidence that the royal family actually costs the British taxpayer money. Your point being with this post?

Here is the video;

Equally, I can find you a link stating and providing evidence that the royal family actually costs the British taxpayer money. Your point being with this post?

Here is the video;

Oh Jebus, here we go again

Provide any sources which can back up your claim that the royals bring in a great deal of money through tourism (which also shows that without the monarchy thus, the UK would loose a great deal of tourism revenue). I'll save you the time, you won't find one, because THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP, yet it is a myth used/made by royalists/the misguided all the time to support keeping a monarchy. Heck of the Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, only one is to do with the royal residences (i.e. the royal family), which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.

As for finances (i.e. how much they cost us taxpayers), you can find articles which pertain to the royals being net positive to the country AND net negative in that they cost us.

More importantly, the debate about having a monarchy should be first and foremost be with regards to the constitutionality of the country, not something like money; heck if it is just about money, lets just make Lego Man (with Lego Land being one of the best tourist attractions in the UK and thus bringing in a load of revenue) a member of the royal family.

Here is the video which rebukes the one posted by the OP directly, and points to the actual cost of keeping a monarchy;

The Republicans have no argument other than 'But they're not elected!!'

And frankly that's no argument at all. Long live the Royals, Long live the Monarchy and Long live the Queen!

And the massive cost of protecting them at the wedding, the clogged up roads and the damage to the economy due to work days missed-Rollseyes

The 200 million brought in every year makes up for that. Plus the Royal wedding is meant to be worth over 100 million in tourism to London

Don't give me that; there have been no real studies as to how much they really bring in, it's just speculation.

Well the first number is actually proven. The money comes from profits made off lands owned by the royals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost

n the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.

When you think 1 million people were in London just for the Royal wedding its hardly a jump to believe this figure is it?

Obviously the 6 billion figure is the worrying bit. However that is a one off. In the long term the Royal family is value for money.

1. The money would come into our coffers even without the Royals as things such as the crown estate would become public property and make little difference to the country except for the fact that we would not have to pay to protect them which practically ofsets this figure anyways.

2. Yes there were loads of people in London, but the multy billion pound loss completely puts the country in the red for the financial impact of the wedding. As well as the fact that the consumer has limited budget and so a short term windfall for the couuntry will be ofset by people, not spending their money on would they would have spend it had the wedding never taken place.

which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.

Well no they would't actually. Land belongs to the royals government merely gets the profits due to an agreement made with King George I think it was back in the 1700 hundreds. We get rid of the monarchy then they get their land back. Plus if they did become public property a lot of the tourism brought in goes down because without a living monarch and royal family a lot of places loose some of their attraction. Protection for the royal family costs 50 million a year.

I'm not a royalist but I am annoyed at people who say that we pay the Royal Family to do nothing and that they contribute nothing to society, when in fact they are a great help to the economy for the small price we pay them. Also as can be seen on Friday, the royal wedding was a reason for patriotism and bought many people in the UK closer together, showing that there is support for the monarchy.
It is part of what British tradition and culture is based on

Anyways here the clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

1. The money would come into our coffers even without the Royals as things such as the crown estate would become public property and make little difference to the country except for the fact that we would not have to pay to protect them which practically ofsets this figure anyways.