Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Here's a thing I don't understand... Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever I engage in a debate with a monarchist (personally, I'm ambivalent about the need for the British monarchy in the modern era...but that's irrelevant), the argument is nearly always the same. They say: "Yes, but, the monarchy do so much for tourism."

    What do the monarchy do for tourism? Honestly? I know historical buildings are among the most visited tourist sites in the UK, but it's not like the Queen is standing on the steps greeting people as they come in...and it's not like, if she wasn't Queen, these buildings would get knocked down. In France, they had one of the bloodiest revolutions, but they still have the Palace of Versailles.

    What about the British Museum? The Royal Baths? Westminster Abbey? Stone Henge? The Imperial War Museum? What do the royal family do for tourism in these places?

    I don't know...I think the "so-much-for-tourism" argument is a weak one...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its due to the fact that rather than just having another faceless politician as the head of the country, we have a famous family that is instantly recognisable, not just to people in the UK, but to billions of people around the world.

    Take the royal wedding. This made major headlines in many countries around the world, most importantly countries where we are looking to boost tourism (e.g. America, China). The wedding showcased the best of British history and its landmarks making the perfect advertisement for the country. The equivalent cost of providing a worldwide tourism advertising campaign with as much reach as the Royal wedding got would be hundreds of millions of pounds - way more than their cost to the taxpayer per year.

    If you look abroad to European republics such as Germany, their ceremonial head of state is extremely low key and I very much doubt the majority of people on this forum could recognise him (clue: its not Angela Merkel).

    Overall as the head of state is a ceremonial position and our internationally famous, popular, recognisable royal family is perfect for this role as it will get Britain in the news wherever they visit.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I've never found the tourism argument strong for either side, but if I had to address it I would say it's far more likely that Britain being a monarchy would attract tourists than it being a republic. Might tip the balance for only 1% of the tourists to these shores, but it's still 1%.

    I think there are plenty more convincing arguments in favour of monarchy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I've never found the tourism argument strong for either side, but if I had to address it I would say it's far more likely that Britain being a monarchy would attract tourists than it being a republic. Might tip the balance for only 1% of the tourists to these shores, but it's still 1%.

    I think there are plenty more convincing arguments in favour of monarchy.
    Clear our economy does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Clear our economy does.
    Actually only 8.6% of UK GDP comes from tourism...so...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BingTaoBing)
    Actually only 8.6% of UK GDP comes from tourism...so...
    So only £96,000,000,000 then.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Its due to the fact that rather than just having another faceless politician as the head of the country, we have a famous family that is instantly recognisable, not just to people in the UK, but to billions of people around the world.

    Take the royal wedding. This made major headlines in many countries around the world, most importantly countries where we are looking to boost tourism (e.g. America, China). The wedding showcased the best of British history and its landmarks making the perfect advertisement for the country. The equivalent cost of providing a worldwide tourism advertising campaign with as much reach as the Royal wedding got would be hundreds of millions of pounds - way more than their cost to the taxpayer per year.

    If you look abroad to European republics such as Germany, their ceremonial head of state is extremely low key and I very much doubt the majority of people on this forum could recognise him (clue: its not Angela Merkel).

    Overall as the head of state is a ceremonial position and our internationally famous, popular, recognisable royal family is perfect for this role as it will get Britain in the news wherever they visit.
    Realistically how much does that actually bring in compared to how much that was spent on organising and paying for the whole event? Also I'm not sure you could really call the British monarchy the "best of British History" since almost every family if not every family that has held the crown has done some pretty distasteful things whether it's murder, wars, genocide, or just damn infidelity. How exactly does war, incest, and undemocratic ruling "make the perfect advertisement for the country?"
    Unless you think we should keep boasting and celebrating the fact that we have a royal family that reminds us and the rest of the world about our colonial past when we acted like *******s, killed, pillaged and conquered and didn't give a stuff that no-one liked us for it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon that's dog****, people would come here regardless. it's not like the queen sticks her head out her front door every day and greets the tourists, they come and look at the buildings and that's it. the queen might as well not exist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Realistically how much does that actually bring in compared to how much that was spent on organising and paying for the whole event?
    Impossible to say. However it made major news headlines worldwide with a reach of billions of people. Massive free worldwide advertising for the UK. Think about how much an equivalent marketing campaign with the same reach would cost.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Also I'm not sure you could really call the British monarchy the "best of British History" since almost every family if not every family that has held the crown has done some pretty distasteful things whether it's murder, wars, genocide, or just damn infidelity. How exactly does war, incest, and undemocratic ruling "make the perfect advertisement for the country?"

    Unless you think we should keep boasting and celebrating the fact that we have a royal family that reminds us and the rest of the world about our colonial past when we acted like *******s, killed, pillaged and conquered and didn't give a stuff that no-one liked us for it.
    I don't see how this is relevant - how exactly are the current royal family involved with murders, war and genocide? If we get rid of our current royal family why would this solve any questionable foreign policies of Britain that happened a very long time ago?



    I guess you'd prefer the UK to have faceless, less internationally recognised politician as our ceremonial head of state that will end up costing us similar amounts to the royal family just so it can suit your social agenda.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Impossible to say. However it made major news headlines worldwide with a reach of billions of people. Massive free worldwide advertising for the UK. Think about how much an equivalent marketing campaign with the same reach would cost.
    Of course it probably does have marketing value however compare how much money it is likely to bring in alongside how much it all cost, I wonder what the difference was.

    I don't see how this is relevant - how exactly are the current royal family involved with murders, war and genocide? If we get rid of our current royal family why would this solve any questionable foreign policies of Britain that happened a very long time ago?
    I guess you missed the part where I said it might remind people of what the royal family represents as opposed to what they have actually done. Furthermore I didn't say getting rid of the royal family would solve any questionable foreign policies of Britain, past or present. I am not really anti-monarchist but I had to call you into question when you said the monarchy is "The Best of British History." So I'm guessing an inbred family of toffs is better than all the contributions this country has made to maths, science, engineering, and human rights?

    I guess you'd prefer the UK to have faceless, less internationally recognised politician as our ceremonial head of state that will end up costing us similar amounts to the royal family just so it can suit your social agenda.
    You could but then you'd be dead wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I guess you missed the part where I said it might remind people of what the royal family represents as opposed to what they have actually done.
    This is a very abstract argument. The current royal family is very different from the kings and queens from the Victorian era and before. There is very little relation between the political influence of the monarchy 100+ years ago and the monarchy today. You are trying to make it seem like there is some sort of symbolic link between the two and people make the comparison between them. Nobody but the most anti-monarchist would take this weak argument into consideration.


    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Furthermore I didn't say getting rid of the royal family would solve any questionable foreign policies of Britain, past or present. I am not really anti-monarchist but I had to call you into question when you said the monarchy is "The Best of British History." So I'm guessing an inbred family of toffs is better than all the contributions this country has made to maths, science, engineering, and human rights?
    No I was referring to the Royal family parading through the best historical sites of London and how it was great that they were being broadcast to billions of people worldwide. I admit I could have phrased that sentence it better. The royal wedding did not really showcase the history of the monarchy previous to the current generation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BingTaoBing)
    Actually only 8.6% of UK GDP comes from tourism...so...
    Well I wasn't expecting the Queen to contribute to the vast majority of our economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BingTaoBing)
    Whenever I engage in a debate with a monarchist (personally, I'm ambivalent about the need for the British monarchy in the modern era...but that's irrelevant), the argument is nearly always the same. They say: "Yes, but, the monarchy do so much for tourism."

    What do the monarchy do for tourism? Honestly? I know historical buildings are among the most visited tourist sites in the UK, but it's not like the Queen is standing on the steps greeting people as they come in...and it's not like, if she wasn't Queen, these buildings would get knocked down. In France, they had one of the bloodiest revolutions, but they still have the Palace of Versailles.

    What about the British Museum? The Royal Baths? Westminster Abbey? Stone Henge? The Imperial War Museum? What do the royal family do for tourism in these places?

    I don't know...I think the "so-much-for-tourism" argument is a weak one...
    Ask most people outside Europe do you know what the 'Palace of Versailles' is and you will probably get a blank stare in return, that French Palace is far far larger and grander than Buckingham palace (which was never even an original royal palace), but there is a very good reason for why most people will recognise the name Buckingham Palace ... Because unlike the French we didn't kill of all our Monarchs , it's still a living working palace. And THAT is what makes it so special to tourist it's a fairy tale that's real .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.