How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year Watch

Zionic
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
Very informative, thanks for posting this.
0
reply
Cyanohydrin
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by Drewski)
Won't deny they get more people, but they do have the advantage of being stunning buildings [something Buck House could never pretend to be] and being in France with a, generally, far better climate far more conducive to people wandering around enjoying them. Put them in London where it is, on the whole, far more dreary, and their numbers would drop considerably. However, people keep going to see Buck House and Windsor Castle because of who lives in them and that certain fascination about it.
Plus, Chainging Of The Guard is a big ceremony that a lot of people come in especially for. With no Royalty in the house, the military would categorically not be there to protect it.

It's a 6 of one, half dozen of the other thing.
Not to mention that France is steeped in the Republican tradition - the French rev. is a hsitorical watershed event that has it's own history and traditions (bastille day, republican guards etc) - a move to a British republicanism will have none of this. Anyway - what's a major tourist attraction in Paris? Napoleans tomb in les invalides ! ! :rofl: the royals are an attraction full stop.
0
reply
username537845
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by Arekkusu)
What tourist would come to see the trappings of a weather-worn old President in a suit? The significant contribution is the seven billion in tourist revenue. Your tax increase would be a couple of orders of magnitude higher then.
Provide me with some decent evidence that having a monarchy directly leads to more tourists, because, as I see it, we'd still have the same amout of people, if not more, come to see Buckingham or Windsor if they could get inside and look around for themselves.
0
reply
HereBeDragons
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by Arekkusu)
What tourist would come to see the trappings of a weather-worn old President in a suit? The significant contribution is the seven billion in tourist revenue. Your tax increase would be a couple of orders of magnitude higher then.
Yes.

Because ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has visited France since their revolution :rolleyes:
0
reply
JayTeeKay
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by Elbonian)

Arguably the Royal Wedding has given a boost to Britain's tourism industry, but surely it isn't going to generate £200 million in the short term alone? That's the job of the London Olympics in 2012.
Arguably the economy has lost money due to the wedding. If you allow millions of people an extra day off work, the decrease in productivity costs billions.
If we got 1 million tourists (and we got way less) and we lost a billion pounds due to reduced productivity, each tourist will have to have spent so much money that we could claim back £1000 in tax to offset the cost to the economy. Assuming VAT is at 20%, each of those 1 million tourists would have to spend £5000 on taxable goods in this country.
1 million tourists in a single weekend is highly unlikely. Each tourist spending in excess of £5000 pounds is even more unlikely. The economy loses. Simples.
I hope that we at least break even on the Olympics. I'm already cringing with embarrassment, but hopefully it will all be bearable if we make a tidy profit on it.
0
reply
Cyanohydrin
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by HereBeDragons)
Yes.

Because ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has visited France since their revolution :rolleyes:
but the revoloution has it's own glorious history.

getting rid of the moarchy would not come with republican guards, catchy slogans like liberty, fraternity, equality that are platered all over paris, it won't have a bastille day etc. France has been shaped by republicanism - just as we have been shaped by our monarchy. Give me the queen anyday over some drab political suit.
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by joe3469)
If the lands were owned by the state we could keep the £200 million instead of paying the royals...
But they aren't... Or are you suggesting we seize all the legitimately owned assets of the Royal Family? While we're at it, why not seize Tesco? We'd get a lot of money if we had all their profits too.
1
reply
OdinsThunder
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by joe3469)
I wouldn't recommend it. But think how did he get that car, by his dad "stealing" the product of people's labour...
lol, or just working hard.

If these people and their labour are so great they can go and setup their own business, the lazy ****s.

Communists... laziest scum on the earth.
2
reply
JayTeeKay
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by Arekkusu)
What tourist would come to see the trappings of a weather-worn old President in a suit? The significant contribution is the seven billion in tourist revenue. Your tax increase would be a couple of orders of magnitude higher then.
Tourists flock in far greater numbers to Legoland. Windsor castle is something like 17 on the list of the most frequented tourist attractions, so the royals aren't vital to the tourism industry in the slightest. That 7 billion in tourism revenue can only fractionally be attributed to the royals.
Given they cost 100 times more than the Irish presidency, I'm sure efficiency savings would cover any loss (and I doubt there would be much) in tourism revenue.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by JayTeeKay)
Arguably the economy has lost money due to the wedding. If you allow millions of people an extra day off work, the decrease in productivity costs billions. If we got 1 million tourists (and we got way less) and we lost a billion pounds due to reduced productivity, each tourist will have to have spent so much money that we could claim back £1000 in tax to offset the cost to the economy. Assuming VAT is at 20%, each of those 1 million tourists would have to spend £5000 on taxable goods in this country.
1 million tourists in a single weekend is highly unlikely. Each tourist spending in excess of £5000 pounds is even more unlikely. The economy loses. Simples.
I hope that we at least break even on the Olympics. I'm already cringing with embarrassment, but hopefully it will all be bearable if we make a tidy profit on it.
There we go.

The Olympics isn't only about generating capital from tourism. It creates thousands of jobs which should give Britain the economic boost that it really needs. It'll also result in improved infrastructure and modernization. The odds are it'll benefit the British economy.
0
reply
M1F2R3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
Immah spend my £2. somethin' on cider.
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
(Original post by JayTeeKay)
Arguably the economy has lost money due to the wedding. If you allow millions of people an extra day off work, the decrease in productivity costs billions.
If we got 1 million tourists (and we got way less) and we lost a billion pounds due to reduced productivity, each tourist will have to have spent so much money that we could claim back £1000 in tax to offset the cost to the economy. Assuming VAT is at 20%, each of those 1 million tourists would have to spend £5000 on taxable goods in this country.
1 million tourists in a single weekend is highly unlikely. Each tourist spending in excess of £5000 pounds is even more unlikely. The economy loses. Simples.
I hope that we at least break even on the Olympics. I'm already cringing with embarrassment, but hopefully it will all be bearable if we make a tidy profit on it.
The big mistake you're making is valuing money too much. Yes, people having time off work lost the economy money - but then so does every other holiday. Suggest to people that we should strengthen the economy by removing bank holidays and there would be a riot - so I don't see why the opposite is necessarily bad. Yes, tourism didn't completely offset the loss, but you are making the assumption that people's time is worthless - which it isn't.

You're "cringing with embarrassment" over the olympics? I would ask why but I imagine it will be a completely stupid reason to be embarrassed over.
0
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(Original post by callum9999)
But they aren't... Or are you suggesting we seize all the legitimately owned assets of the Royal Family? While we're at it, why not seize Tesco? We'd get a lot of money if we had all their profits too.
The Windsors do not own the royal estates. This is a delusion. The land belongs to the Sovereign. It is not the private property of the person acting as Sovereign. If we became a republic it would belong to the state.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by JayTeeKay)
Arguably the economy has lost money due to the wedding. If you allow millions of people an extra day off work, the decrease in productivity costs billions.
Nobody denies that, but the decision to make it a bank holiday had nothing to do with the Royal Family and everything to do with a sycophantic PM & Cabinet - take that up with him.

(Original post by JayTeeKay)
Tourists flock in far greater numbers to Legoland. Windsor castle is something like 17 on the list of the most frequented tourist attractions, so the royals aren't vital to the tourism industry in the slightest. That 7 billion in tourism revenue can only fractionally be attributed to the royals.
Given they cost 100 times more than the Irish presidency, I'm sure efficiency savings would cover any loss (and I doubt there would be much) in tourism revenue.
Has anybody ever looked into/done the research on where international tourists go? I'm sure there'd be a quite big difference between where British tourists go and where international tourists go...
I don't know, though, I'm just putting it out as conjecture. Let's face it though, foreigners don't exactly come here for our brilliant climate, do they?!
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
(Original post by manchild007)
There is no evidence for that frankly, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, any evidence to say tourism would necessarily fall if we got rid of an active monarchy. Of the Top 20 tourist sites in the UK, only ONE is a royal residence, that of Windsor Castle at lowly number 17 (not even in the Top 10).

Heck, The Louvre and Château de Versailles in France gets more visitors than Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle (the equivalents here in the UK, both in role and location from London/Paris), yet they abandoned the monarchy years and years ago.

Stop with the myths :rolleyes:
So true.

"Oh they bring tourists into the country!"

France gets lots of tourists and they have no monarchy.

Japan and Spain have royals. Who visits Japan or Spain because they have monarchies?
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by manchild007)
An exact rebuttal to the video posted by the OP, which is fallacious in what it says;

Thanks for the link

Repped
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by duke5)
So, you hate the Monarchy do you.

This is the BEST YouTube video I've seen on the subject. I was on the fence, now I'm a Royalist

All this "my taxpayers money spent on this..." banality (usually from people who pay little of any meaningful tax".

This video illustrates the way in which the deal between Parliament and the Crown Estates earns every person in the UK at LEAST £2.60, nevermind the £0.65p we supposedly pay each every year for the upkeep of the institution.

JUST WATCH IT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYg...feature=relmfu
finally someone with sense! and the guy explained it so idiots can understand too :P
0
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
(Original post by Drewski)
Has anybody ever looked into/done the research on where international tourists go? I'm sure there'd be a quite big difference between where British tourists go and where international tourists go...
I don't know, though, I'm just putting it out as conjecture. Let's face it though, foreigners don't exactly come here for our brilliant climate, do they?!
Yes, they have done the research. And if people don't come here for the weather, they're certainly not coming for the Royals either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-visitors.html
0
reply
OdinsThunder
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by Drewski)
I don't know, though, I'm just putting it out as conjecture. Let's face it though, foreigners don't exactly come here for our brilliant climate, do they?!
I'd go a step further and say that foreign tourists don't exactly come here for lego land either.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by No Future)
France gets lots of tourists and they have no monarchy.
France has the Cote d'Azur and [arguably] the world's best and most famous vineyards...


We have Brighton Beach and a few breweries. But we also have a curiousity. A fascinator, if you will. Something that's a bit unique and special. Certainly more special than a few pebbles pretending to be a beach, anyway...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (266)
38.66%
No - but I will (46)
6.69%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.41%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (325)
47.24%

Watched Threads

View All