ha ha yet again the double standards of the left are hanging for all to see. The Great Btirish tolerance is rammed down our throats, unless of course its anyone with more wealth, from a better school,someone who actually disagrees with them (all Mail readers and bigots).
Last night on the BBC (that left leaning organisation), it was said that in a recent poll only 17% of Britons want a republic; that leaves a huge majority in favour of the monarchy.
Last night on the BBC (that left leaning organisation), it was said that in a recent poll only 17% of Britons want a republic; that leaves a huge majority in favour of the monarchy.
The republican movement has a secret weapon - Prince Charles.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
You wouldnt believe the amount of Americans that consider coming to London just to try and get a look at The Queen or Prince William. They lap it up.
Take the Royal family away and leave the Buildings, and the essence of the Buildings themselves are lost.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
Last night on the BBC (that left leaning organisation), it was said that in a recent poll only 17% of Britons want a republic; that leaves a huge majority in favour of the monarchy.
This is a good point but one I'd not 100% necessarily I agree with. My own feelings on the monarchy have definitely mellowed over the years to the extent to me they are just an harmless irrelevence really. At times like these and the Jubilee, etc, though they bring a bit of happiness & sense of civic pride to others and that's fair enough in my book. We have enough crap going on in the world that if some people want to get a bit excited over the birth of a baby then fair enough, let them.
Point to note to the BBC haters on here though - perhaps you might want to remember the wall to wall coverage they've been giving to the story the next time you start ranting on about the Beeb being totally left wing, anti-establishment, PC gone mad, blah, blah, blah...
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
Would you go for a dusty drive around The Serengeti if there weren't Lions and Elephants to be seen ? Would you go to The Barrier Reef if it had no fish ?
As much as it upsets you The Monarchy creates huge wealth for GB and runs at a massive profit.
I'll happily cover your 50p as well if you decide it is all too much and do one.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Its all jealousy and bullshit none of those who try to imply that you are less of a person if you don't stand up against the regime and support the dirty unwashed in their crusade against all things anti establishment and believe in their liberal ways from what u can watch on tv without being a braindead idiot to removing the queen
None of them live like their views its all smoke and mirrors
Bfr is sitting in his plush mayfair pad in a union jack mankini rubbing himself over the latest edition of horse and country
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Could be because Versailles is open to the public and the likes of Buck Pal and Balmoral aren't ?
I am not about to count them but I would easily think that more people go and have a gawp at Buck Pal from the outside than go into Versailles. Their money goes on all the hotels in London, the pubs, restaurants and everything else.
Anyway, you are in a small minority and thankfully that isn't going to change.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Is the Tower of London not on the list?
Does the Royal Family live there? It's not exactly in use by them today.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Is the Tower of London not on the list?
Does the Royal Family live there? It's not exactly in use by them today.
It's a Royal palace. You said there was only one Royal property on the list. You were wrong.
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Is the Tower of London not on the list?
Does the Royal Family live there? It's not exactly in use by them today.
Yes it is. Her Maj keeps her tiara collection there !
The point is becoming a republic won't necessarily harm tourism to London - and as I mention, it may improve it as BP will be open for considerably longer than a handful of days every year.
According to this site (and it's Brenda's very own OS) BP opens only for 8 weeks a year - August and September.
The cost is £27.75 a head for adults (plus discounts for children, OAPs etc). Assuming 5m visits annually on an opening of 365 days a year that is £135m a year without factoring in sales of tea towels and the like in the gift shop. Think of the benefits to tourism and the job creation that would bring - not just in the Palace itself but right across London and the south east and further afield. Surely that would more than offset the few people who visit London only to gawp at the royal family?
It's good news. The same as any couple who have a baby.
But I wish that I didn't have to pay a proportion of my tax to fund its privileged lifestyle, while most of our children make do with state education and health.
Grumble over!
The Royal family costs about 50pence per GB resident per year in tax - c£30m pa total
c30m tourists come to GB most years - GB revenue from tourism was c£11bn in 2011. If one quarter of one percent of all the tourists came as a result of The Monarchy then they break even.
You go and live in France and I'll cover the 50p deficit you create.
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
May i be the first to say "rubbish"?
You can't really rubbish the facts though. Versailles gets more tourists than any Royal castle and it's empty.
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Is the Tower of London not on the list?
Does the Royal Family live there? It's not exactly in use by them today.
Yes it is. Her Maj keeps her tiara collection there !
I think the Tower of London is the highest 'paid' attraction. (Behind all the free museums and galleries).
Just saying that i'm not against the Royal Family, just think the 'tourism' aspect that they bring is a bit overstated. (Outside of major occasions such as the Wedding/Coronations).
Just saying that i'm not against the Royal Family, just think the 'tourism' aspect that they bring is a bit overstated. (Outside of major occasions such as the Wedding/Coronations).
Very overstated...
A year or so back George Osborne cited the royal wedding and the day off we were given as one of the reasons why we slipped into recession.
Lots of "facts & figures" on here, but surely the royal family still being active makes visiting London a popular and unique place to visit for tourists. A 'fact' that is very hard to quantify. Personally I don't think London would be anywhere near as popular if they weren't around. For full disclosure I am fully supportive of the royals....love 'em.
Comments
Tourism in France doesn't seem to be struggling - Versailles alone attracts some 5m visitors a year. In Berlin the Charlottenburg Palace is a also major visitor attraction as is Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. So I doubt getting rid of the royal family would hit tourism - it's possible that it might actually improve it, Buckingham Palace only opens a few days a year when the royal family are visiting one of their numerous other palaces and castles that we generously fund for them. If the Queen moved out it could open 365 days a year and would be a major all year round tourist attraction - I reckon it could easily match Versailles in terms of visitor numbers. Think of the extra jobs created in hotels, transport, restaurants, airports etc and the tax revenue that they would contribute to the exchequer. Keeping the monarchy is potentially costing us money.
Take the Royal family away and leave the Buildings, and the essence of the Buildings themselves are lost.
Point to note to the BBC haters on here though - perhaps you might want to remember the wall to wall coverage they've been giving to the story the next time you start ranting on about the Beeb being totally left wing, anti-establishment, PC gone mad, blah, blah, blah...
'Windsor Castle only Royal property to make top 20 UK tourism attractions (at 17). Windsor Legoland is in at 7.'
Would you go to The Barrier Reef if it had no fish ?
As much as it upsets you The Monarchy creates huge wealth for GB and runs at a massive profit.
I'll happily cover your 50p as well if you decide it is all too much and do one.
None of them live like their views its all smoke and mirrors
Bfr is sitting in his plush mayfair pad in a union jack mankini rubbing himself over the latest edition of horse and country
I am not about to count them but I would easily think that more people go and have a gawp at Buck Pal from the outside than go into Versailles. Their money goes on all the hotels in London, the pubs, restaurants and everything else.
Anyway, you are in a small minority and thankfully that isn't going to change.
So i's rubbish that the Palace of Versailles gets 5m visitors a year then?
http://www.parisdigest.com/paris_attractions.htm
The point is becoming a republic won't necessarily harm tourism to London - and as I mention, it may improve it as BP will be open for considerably longer than a handful of days every year.
According to this site (and it's Brenda's very own OS) BP opens only for 8 weeks a year - August and September.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/latestnewsanddiary/factfiles/40factsaboutbuckinghampalace.aspx
The cost is £27.75 a head for adults (plus discounts for children, OAPs etc). Assuming 5m visits annually on an opening of 365 days a year that is £135m a year without factoring in sales of tea towels and the like in the gift shop. Think of the benefits to tourism and the job creation that would bring - not just in the Palace itself but right across London and the south east and further afield. Surely that would more than offset the few people who visit London only to gawp at the royal family?
back to topic yeah
I think the Tower of London is the highest 'paid' attraction. (Behind all the free museums and galleries).
A quick bit of research, some of these prices are on the door - although there are cheaper options for buying on-line/family tickets etc:
Tower: £19.50 for an adult ticket.
London Eye: £19.20 - adult ticket
Buck House: £27.50 - adult ticket
Madame Tussauds - £30 - adult ticket
British Museum - free, but £25 for the Hadrian exhibition.
London Zoo - £25 - adult ticket.
Westminster Abbey: £18 - adult
St Pauls: £16 - adult.
A life of deference and servitude awaits you. Enjoy.
A year or so back George Osborne cited the royal wedding and the day off we were given as one of the reasons why we slipped into recession.
Shares in Mothercare are down today as well...