The royal family

[suavegav]

Now, i have to admit i have no time for the Royals, any of them. To me they are an utter irrelevance in today's society and do nothing of importance what so ever. Over the last couple of years the country has had to deal with austerity measures, cut backs left right and centre, this country has been involved in 3 separate conflicts in the middle east, and somehow 2 members of the royals, who claim they are active members of the forces are nowhere to be seen, when other parents sons and daughters are putting their lives on the line. Ok, Harry did spend a short time over in Afghanistan.
Getting to my point, how many holidays do these guys get. Its just been on Sky news that harry is in Vegas having a great time in the pool, he was in Jamaica and brazil earlier this year. Why do they command so much respect. I always thought it had to be earnt, but obviously not with these guys.
What the point in having a lineage to the thrown if the 3rd in line is kept away form action, but my son would be told to go to war. If the 3rd in line dies then the 4th takes a step forward, simple as that.
Over the years i tolerated the royals, i turned the tv over or skipped a page reading the newspaper. Its time this country gets to grip with these parasites and stop making excuses for them.

[easty]

I'm firmly in the "abolish the monarchy" camp, but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Royal families belong in Disney films, not a real-life modern society.

[Future17]

I don't have any problem with any of them, but I just don't see where they fit into a democracy. If we accept that all are created equal, what is there position/purpose/relevance?

I think the celebrity aspect is all a bit hypocritical and is it really appropriate for Charles' adopted son to be getting his **** out on camera in a Vegas hotel room? He's not Britney Spears.

[suavegav]

I don't have any problem with any of them, but I just don't see where they fit into a democracy. If we accept that all are created equal, what is there position/purpose/relevance?

I think the celebrity aspect is all a bit hypocritical and is it really appropriate for Charles' adopted son to be getting his **** out on camera in a Vegas hotel room? He's not Britney Spears.

Couldnt agree more. If we want a classless society then the "less" must start at the so called top, not at the bottom, where the ordinary man on the street are taking the brunt. I think i could put up with them if they were more like the Spanish Royals, but unfortunately they are at the top of the "celebrity" tree.

[VickMackie]

What will happen if Charles and William both die?

Will Harry be allowed to be king? Is it written that there must be a royal bloodline? Let's face it, Charles is not his dad.

I did piss myself laughing when those two were on tv in the build up to the olympics and a wee boy said to Harry "is that your brother" pointing to William. :faf:

Personally I don't care about the royals but my understanding is that they bring a lot more into the economy than they're given. They're just a novelty IMO.

[Pretty Boy]

Surely even someone who respects the Royals as an institution can see that as individuals they are the biggest shower of dysfunctional twats.going?

[easty]

What will happen if Charles and William both die?

Will Harry be allowed to be king? Is it written that there must be a royal bloodline? Let's face it, Charles is not his dad.

I did piss myself laughing when those two were on tv in the build up to the olympics and a wee boy said to Harry "is that your brother" pointing to William. :faf:

Personally I don't care about the royals but my understanding is that they bring a lot more into the economy than they're given. They're just a novelty IMO.

I find that argument incredibly weak. Awww well they bring in some money lets just leave them be. France doesnt have a royal family but Paris gets more tourists each year than London. I think too much is made, by Royalists, of the money the royal family bring in. If they no longer existed then their history would still generate a ****load of tourism, and London would never ever be short of tourists.

[hibsbollah]

The problem for republicans like me is the Royal family is more popular than ever. In the UK, 69% think the country would be better off with the royals, only 22% think it would be better without. In Scotland its 50-38 in favour, still a decisive majority.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support?cat=uk&type=article

We are all servile, forelock tugging vermin :agree:

[easty]

The problem for republicans like me is the Royal family is more popular than ever. In the UK, 69% think the country would be better off with the royals, only 22% think it would be better without. In Scotland its 50-38 in favour, still a decisive majority.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support?cat=uk&type=article

We are all servile, forelock tugging vermin :agree:

Yep.

The public, generally, are idiots though. :greengrin

[Saorsa]

:singing: the queen's a cow, princess anne is a boot, charlie is a p**f, the queen mother was a prostitute

[Future17]

Insightful.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I am and always will be a confirmed Republican:

For me its very simple ... In a modern society it is a rediculous concept that any country or for that matter institution should have at its head an unelected person. For me arguments for or against the Royal family .. how much good they do, how much money they bring in, how every other country in the world ( allegedly ) is envious of our royals, or even negative stuff like extra marital affairs or young royals getting their man bits out in American swimming pools, or dithering auld racist buffoons saying inappropriate stuff during factory visits is totally irrelevant.

In the 21st century the fact that a person would be expected to bow or courtsey to somebody, or call them sir, because they were born in a big house and can trace their ancestors back through a long line of historical characters, including a reasonable amount of murderers, mass murderers in some cases, is just plain idiotic.

While I'm about it ...... anybody who still labours under the myth that the royal family have no real power or influence really needs to take a closer look. There are a number of people at the very top of politics and business in this country for whom a knighthood, or better still peerage, is the be all and end all ... the culmination of everything they have workedv for. For that reason staying on the right side of the royals and those who have their ear is something to be aimed for.

Its a fact that Prince Charles is well known for using his considerable influence to get his own way ... he ruined a well known firm of architects with his opposition to a redevelopement plan for a certain part of London.

One final point: Every time there is a big royal event like weddings or such like the TV likes nothing better than to talk to American tourists outside Buck House and listen to them gush on about " your wonderfull Royal Family " The truth is that if President Obama went on the TV tomorrow and said I've decided to become King Obama and my kids are next in line he wouldnt survive the week.

In fact titles like Lord this or the duke of that should be the preserve of Jazz legends .... not the people who are running a supposedly democratic society.

Rant over.

[Pete]

I think the Royal family are here to stay. There's no realistic or acceptable way of phasing them out of "British" society and I don't think there is even the will to do so. The lines have become blurred and they are now global celebrities who share pages with Kim Kardashian and David Beckham.

I honestly think that people who consider themselves British and royalist revel in the folly. It's quirky, it's worked for years and everyone else loves it.

[Beefster]

I believe James Hewitt used to love a game of strip pool too.

It'll never happen because politicians go all gooey at the mere mention of the Big Kahoona but, if we must have them, they shouldnt be state-funded. It's ridiculous that poverty still exists in this country and yet some Germans and Greeks get to swan about having fun at our expense.

[PeeJay]

I believe James Hewitt used to love a game of strip pool too.

It'll never happen because politicians go all gooey at the mere mention of the Big Kahoona but, if we must have them, they shouldnt be state-funded. It's ridiculous that poverty still exists in this country and yet some Germans and Greeks get to swan about having fun at our expense.

... what's this then, I don't get the reference?:confused:

[(((Fergus)))]

Yep.

The public, generally, are idiots though. :greengrin

Which is why we need a hereditary King or Queen, as head of the armed forces, to oversee the governments elected by us idiots. :wink:

"Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate) (the royal property portfolio). King George III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom) agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists until 2013. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011.[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-98) It is held in trust, and cannot be sold or owned by the Sovereign in a private capacity.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-99) In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-cl-95) For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period,[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-100) and republicans estimate that the real cost of the monarchy including security is between £134 and 184 million a year.[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-101) From 2013 until 2020, the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid are to be replaced with a single Sovereign Grant, which will be set at 15% of the revenues generated by the Crown Estate.[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-102)"

And if you can't see the obvious physical resemblance between Harry and a) Prince Charles and b) the Duke of Edinburgh, you are either visually impaired, a slanderer or ******ed. :wink:

[NAE NOOKIE]

Which is why we need a hereditary King or Queen, as head of the armed forces, to oversee the governments elected by us idiots. :wink:

"Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate) (the royal property portfolio). King George III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom) agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists until 2013. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011.[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-98) It is held in trust, and cannot be sold or owned by the Sovereign in a private capacity.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-99) In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-cl-95) For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period,[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-100) and republicans estimate that the real cost of the monarchy including security is between £134 and 184 million a year.[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-101) From 2013 until 2020, the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid are to be replaced with a single Sovereign Grant, which will be set at 15% of the revenues generated by the Crown Estate.[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-102)"

And if you can't see the obvious physical resemblance between Harry and a) Prince Charles and b) the Duke of Edinburgh, you are either visually impaired, a slanderer or ******ed. :wink:

Your first statement is obviously meant to be a joke ...... good one :agree:

Your second part .... A commission should be set up to decide exactly what they can keep and the rest should revert entirely to public ownership .... end of story.

Your third part ..... somebody once told me I look like Kevin McAllister.

[Beefster]

... what's this then, I don't get the reference?:confused:

Sorry, it's what we in the Beefster household call Her Maj.

[PeeJay]

Sorry, it's what we in the Beefster household call Her Maj.

OH - OK - there was me looking for some sly subtle hidden meaning in some obscure '50s novel by some guy Kohner that I thought you were referencing ...

... "Big Kahoona" - you wouldn't be one of them republicans then, would you?? :greengrin

[Beefster]

OH - OK - there was me looking for some sly subtle hidden meaning in some obscure '50s novel by some guy Kohner that I thought you were referencing ...

... "Big Kahoona" - you wouldn't be one of them republicans then, would you?? :greengrin

Ever so slightly, much to my mother's shame!

[heretoday]

One of the reports had Harry "relaxing after The Olympics".

Gosh that was so hard watching all that sport from the best seats. I need to relax!

Even if Scotland went solo our media would still be full of this nonsense so there is no point getting hyper about it.

[RyeSloan]

Your first statement is obviously meant to be a joke ...... good one :agree:

Your second part .... A commission should be set up to decide exactly what they can keep and the rest should revert entirely to public ownership .... end of story.

Your third part ..... somebody once told me I look like Kevin McAllister.

The crown estate is essentially public property is it not...i.e the UK Treasury owns the income and will return only a fraction of that to the Royals.

Personally while I would consider my self republican by nature I've kind of came round to the fact that the Roylas do exisit and that there are, like it or not, part of the fabric of what makes the UK.

Despite some of Harry's antics I think the primary Royals actually do work seriously hard and wouldn't thank anyone for their life....seems a lot of it is determined for them, they spend a huge amount of time having to look interested at some seriously boring stuff and basically have to live a life ruled by the constant law of trying not to offend anyone at any point.

Sure if I had a choice I would do away with the whole nonsense but in the real world that's not going to happen so I've stopped getting upset by them and to some degree have been heartened by their change of tack over recent years. And rather to my surprise I am actually starting to quite like their rather eccentric ways and the fact that they seem to annoy quite a few people by their mere existance :greengrin

[--------]

I believe James Hewitt used to love a game of strip pool too.

It'll never happen because politicians go all gooey at the mere mention of the Big Kahoona but, if we must have them, they shouldnt be state-funded. It's ridiculous that poverty still exists in this country and yet some Germans and Greeks get to swan about having fun at our expense.




... what's this then, I don't get the reference?:confused:


Sorry, it's what we in the Beefster household call Her Maj.



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/big_kahuna/

[Hibee87]

I dont see the point the royal family either for me they do nothing but they are here and us moaning wont change that......

the OP has sated a point regarding Harry being in afgan, i actually disagree to an extent on what you say. so Harry, through no fault of his own, is a member of the roayl family FACT. If he was to be on the front line and al-queida (sp?) were to know this dont you think he would be the number one target? that would be a global scalp for them ' the 3rd in line killed by the talaban' For this to happen then other troops in his regiment would most likely get caught up in the action and possible die also somthing which may have been avoided if he wasnt there. Harry DID go to iraq under very secretive movements and when this was noticed he had no choice but to come home. I think he was even quoted as saying words to the effect of 'I want to stay and fight for my country but my doing so would put others at a higher needles risk'

[suavegav]

I dont see the point the royal family either for me they do nothing but they are here and us moaning wont change that......

the OP has sated a point regarding Harry being in afgan, i actually disagree to an extent on what you say. so Harry, through no fault of his own, is a member of the roayl family FACT. If he was to be on the front line and al-queida (sp?) were to know this dont you think he would be the number one target? that would be a global scalp for them ' the 3rd in line killed by the talaban' For this to happen then other troops in his regiment would most likely get caught up in the action and possible die also somthing which may have been avoided if he wasnt there. Harry DID go to iraq under very secretive movements and when this was noticed he had no choice but to come home. I think he was even quoted as saying words to the effect of 'I want to stay and fight for my country but my doing so would put others at a higher needles risk'

I differ slightly. Harry didnt choose to be part of the royal family, but he does choose to stay in it as 3rd in line. As i said before, whats the point in having a linage to the thrown, 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th....etc. When the 3rd in line dies for some reason, they all take a step forward. Simples. Trying to protect behind the veil of " but hes the 3rd in line to the thrown" rubbish doesnae wash with me. They should not be allowed to join the armed forces, if they are gonna cause problems for other troops abroad. They should do normal jobs like Fireman or doctor if they want to help the country.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The crown estate is essentially public property is it not...i.e the UK Treasury owns the income and will return only a fraction of that to the Royals.

Personally while I would consider my self republican by nature I've kind of came round to the fact that the Roylas do exisit and that there are, like it or not, part of the fabric of what makes the UK.

Despite some of Harry's antics I think the primary Royals actually do work seriously hard and wouldn't thank anyone for their life....seems a lot of it is determined for them, they spend a huge amount of time having to look interested at some seriously boring stuff and basically have to live a life ruled by the constant law of trying not to offend anyone at any point.

Sure if I had a choice I would do away with the whole nonsense but in the real world that's not going to happen so I've stopped getting upset by them and to some degree have been heartened by their change of tack over recent years. And rather to my surprise I am actually starting to quite like their rather eccentric ways and the fact that they seem to annoy quite a few people by their mere existance :greengrin

Yeh .... Makes you wonder why they dont pack it in. Mind I suppose the job does have its compensations.

[Hibrandenburg]

"Young bloke gets bladdered and shows his todger." Jesus wept, there's starving children in this world and people find the energy to get all self righteous about this ****.

[easty]

"Young bloke gets bladdered and shows his todger." Jesus wept, there's starving children in this world and people find the energy to get all self righteous about this ****.

Wow, how succinct.

In any 'normal' circumstances "Young bloke gets bladdered and shows his todger." would be no big deal, but if we're going to persist with a royal family then they should be expected to behave better than 'normal people'. If they want to behave like 'normal people' then they should be treated as such.

[Beefster]

"Young bloke gets bladdered and shows his todger." Jesus wept, there's starving children in this world and people find the energy to get all self righteous about this ****.

This seems to be the majority view and yet the story is on all the front pages, leading the news bulletins and the most-read news stories on a lot of sites. I think folk (not necessarily you) care about this a lot more than they're letting on.

[Future17]

Your third part ..... somebody once told me I look like Kevin McAllister.

The Home Alone kid?!?

[Phil D. Rolls]

What will happen if Charles and William both die?

Will Harry be allowed to be king? Is it written that there must be a royal bloodline? Let's face it, Charles is not his dad.

I did piss myself laughing when those two were on tv in the build up to the olympics and a wee boy said to Harry "is that your brother" pointing to William. :faf:

Personally I don't care about the royals but my understanding is that they bring a lot more into the economy than they're given. They're just a novelty IMO.

What?

[NAE NOOKIE]

The Home Alone kid?!?

Crunchie .... :greengrin

[HKhibby]

I'm firmly in the "abolish the monarchy" camp, but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Royal families belong in Disney films, not a real-life modern society.

So a real life, modern society is what the majority people in scotland live in?,you may or may not like them there, but they make more for scotland, never mind the uk, than you, or for that matter me or anyone else you probably know ever will!, and thats just tourism for a start!

[easty]

So a real life, modern society is what the majority people in scotland live in?,you may or may not like them there, but they make more for scotland, never mind the uk, than you, or for that matter me or anyone else you probably know ever will!, and thats just tourism for a start!

:rolleyes: :aok:

More tourists visited Paris than London last year. Who is the king/queen of France just now, I forget?

With or without the royal family, London would be an attractive destination for millions. The history would remain, and that's where royal families belong, in history.

[Peevemor]

:rolleyes: :aok:

More tourists visited Paris than London last year. Who is the king/queen of France just now, I forget?

With or without the royal family, London would be an attractive destination for millions. The history would remain, and that's where royal families belong, in history.

That comparison is irrelevant. Most continental europeans think nothing of driving 1000+ miles over a couple of days to get to their holiday destination - all they have to pay is petrol/motorway tolls and any eventual one-night stops, without having to bother about air/ferry fares, baggage allowances etc. It's fairly common for Belgians and Dutch heading to Spain or the South of France to stop of at Paris for a day or two on the way - idem for Germans heading to the Western France.

As for French royalty - they've basically adopted ours. Everything that happens in the British roal family is reported in France - a lot of the jubilee stuff was broadcast live on French tv as was Prince Billy's wedding.

[easty]

That comparison is irrelevant. Most continental europeans think nothing of driving 1000+ miles over a couple of days to get to their holiday destination - all they have to pay is petrol/motorway tolls and any eventual one-night stops, without having to bother about air/ferry fares, baggage allowances etc. It's fairly common for Belgians and Dutch heading to Spain or the South of France to stop of at Paris for a day or two on the way - idem for Germans heading to the Western France.

As for French royalty - they've basically adopted ours. Everything that happens in the British roal family is reported in France - a lot of the jubilee stuff was broadcast live on French tv as was Prince Billy's wedding.

Your first point, I'd be interested to know where you get that from? I don't particularly believe it's true.

The second point....what does that have to do with anything? How does that, in any way, have anything to do with whether we need a royal family for tourism revenues?

But I'm happy to expand on the point I was trying to make..

Most visited cities by tourists (2011)
Paris 15.6m
London 15.2m
Antalya 10.5m
New York 10.3m
Singapore 9.2m

So, only London, is in a country that has a sitting royal family. Does it need it in order to attract tourists? I don't believe so, I think that London, in fact the UK as a whole, has plenty to offer tourists. London, in particular, will always be one of the most popular tourist cities in the world, royals or not. The history of the royal family will never go away, nor should it, and will always be a factor in attracting people here.

I don't expect to change anyones opinions on whether we should have a royal family or not. I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. By all means revel away in the fact that we are ruled over by a family born into power, but I don't want to hear about how we should keep them 'because they make us money'.

[hibsbollah]

So a real life, modern society is what the majority people in scotland live in?,you may or may not like them there, but they make more for scotland, never mind the uk, than you, or for that matter me or anyone else you probably know ever will!, and thats just tourism for a start!

I dont know Easty personally. But expecting him to make more money for scotland than the entire royal family is a wee bit optimstic...

[Pretty Boy]

I dont know Easty personally. But expecting him to make more money for scotland than the entire royal family is a wee bit optimstic...

****ing lazy bassa that he is.

All Scots are just lazy, crazy lefties. Thatcher and Major sorted us out though, it was only when that radical socialist Tony Blair got into power that it all went wrong again.

Hkhibby told me this so its FACT.

[Peevemor]

Your first point, I'd be interested to know where you get that from? I don't particularly believe it's true.

I live in France - I know what my friends and colleagues do for their holidays.
I live in a very tourist area - I can see where the cars/camper vans come from.
I've watched and read reports on tourism trends, particularly during the financial crisis.


The second point....what does that have to do with anything? How does that, in any way, have anything to do with whether we need a royal family for tourism revenues?


I didn't say it did.



But I'm happy to expand on the point I was trying to make..

Most visited cities by tourists (2011)
Paris 15.6m
London 15.2m
Antalya 10.5m
New York 10.3m
Singapore 9.2m

Given that Paris is far easier to get to than London for the vast majority of Europeans and just as easy to get to for Americans, Asians, etc., the difference between the 2 destinations is very small. I think this weakens rather than backs up you argument.

So, only London, is in a country that has a sitting royal family. Does it need it in order to attract tourists? I don't believe so, I think that London, in fact the UK as a whole, has plenty to offer tourists. London, in particular, will always be one of the most popular tourist cities in the world, royals or not. The history of the royal family will never go away, nor should it, and will always be a factor in attracting people here.

I don't expect to change anyones opinions on whether we should have a royal family or not. I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. By all means revel away in the fact that we are ruled over by a family born into power, but I don't want to hear about how we should keep them 'because they make us money'.

[NAE NOOKIE]

So a real life, modern society is what the majority people in scotland live in?,you may or may not like them there, but they make more for scotland, never mind the uk, than you, or for that matter me or anyone else you probably know ever will!, and thats just tourism for a start!

The question is: In this day and age should people be deferred to and be allowed a higher place in society as a result of an accident of birth? How much revenue they generate, or how many charities they patronise is irrelevant to the argument.

The same argument was used by the Fox hunting lobby here in the Borders and elsewhere, with scare stories about folk losing their jobs and there being a hit to the local economy and dogs being destroyed if Fox hunting was banned. Even if that was true, it was and is reprehensible for civilized people to chase an animal to exhaustion and then tear it to pieces, no matter how far back the 'tradition' went or how much money or jobs it generated.

IMO there are a number of things the human race needs to put behind it in order to be able to advance. Cruelty to people ( even Yams ) and animals and deference to 'your betters' being amongst them.

[easty]

I dont know Easty personally. But expecting him to make more money for scotland than the entire royal family is a wee bit optimstic...

Edinburgh Uni just doesnt pay me enough. :greengrin

[easty]

I live in France - I know what my friends and colleagues do for their holidays.
I live in a very tourist area - I can see where the cars/camper vans come from.
I've watched and read reports on tourism trends, particularly during the financial crisis.



I live in Scotland but I'd feel a bit stupid to claim that I know what most Scottish people think, or would be happy to do. Plenty tourists in Edinburgh, but I couldn't say where they came from, or how they got here.

What tourism reports state anything like 'Most continental europeans think nothing of driving 1000+ miles over a couple of days to get to their holiday destination'. It just doesn't ring true to me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your first point, I'd be interested to know where you get that from? I don't particularly believe it's true.

The second point....what does that have to do with anything? How does that, in any way, have anything to do with whether we need a royal family for tourism revenues?

But I'm happy to expand on the point I was trying to make..

Most visited cities by tourists (2011)
Paris 15.6m
London 15.2m
Antalya 10.5m
New York 10.3m
Singapore 9.2m

So, only London, is in a country that has a sitting royal family. Does it need it in order to attract tourists? I don't believe so, I think that London, in fact the UK as a whole, has plenty to offer tourists. London, in particular, will always be one of the most popular tourist cities in the world, royals or not. The history of the royal family will never go away, nor should it, and will always be a factor in attracting people here.

I don't expect to change anyones opinions on whether we should have a royal family or not. I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. By all means revel away in the fact that we are ruled over by a family born into power, but I don't want to hear about how we should keep them 'because they make us money'.

It may or may not be relevant but the figures you are quoting for tourists are misleading as they only include foreign visitors. I'm pretty sure London estimates its tourist total at between 25 and 30 million, which obviously suggests a very high degree of internal tourism. How many natives are visiting Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle is anyone's guess but if we're being accurate we should bear in mind that it's likely a significant amount of the economic activity associated with the Royals is generated internally.

[easty]

It may or may not be relevant but the figures you are quoting for tourists are misleading as they only include foreign visitors. I'm pretty sure London estimates its tourist total at between 25 and 30 million, which obviously suggests a very high degree of internal tourism. How many natives are visiting Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle is anyone's guess but if we're being accurate we should bear in mind that it's likely a significant amount of the economic activity associated with the Royals is generated internally.

This really seems to be getting off point. I don't care how much money we make with or without a royal family. I was merely trying to put the point accross that we'd do just fine for tourist revenue without a sitting royal family. The main point is my belief that having a royal family as head of state is a ridiculous concept in a modern democratic society. I can't think of any reasonable argument against that. Being a cash cow or not is irrelevant to the point.

[hibsbollah]

The question is: In this day and age should people be deferred to and be allowed a higher place in society as a result of an accident of birth? How much revenue they generate, or how many charities they patronise is irrelevant to the argument.

The same argument was used by the Fox hunting lobby here in the Borders and elsewhere, with scare stories about folk losing their jobs and there being a hit to the local economy and dogs being destroyed if Fox hunting was banned. Even if that was true, it was and is reprehensible for civilized people to chase an animal to exhaustion and then tear it to pieces, no matter how far back the 'tradition' went or how much money or jobs it generated.

IMO there are a number of things the human race needs to put behind it in order to be able to advance. Cruelty to people ( even Yams ) and animals and deference to 'your betters' being amongst them.

You're using an AK-47 to swat a fly here Bovril. Good post though.

[Future17]

So a real life, modern society is what the majority people in scotland live in?,you may or may not like them there, but they make more for scotland, never mind the uk, than you, or for that matter me or anyone else you probably know ever will!, and thats just tourism for a start!

What if Easty was King?

[Hibee Ryan]

Don't know if mentioned already but do the royals still pick the members of the house of lords? Who can decide which laws and legislations to pass or throw out, right?

I, personally, don't see the point of the royals. They don't give any major benefit to the country and I don't see how you can say that tourists just come to this country to see the royals. It happens all the time when you go on holiday, you ask someone what to do/see and they recommend something and you do it, the royals are one of those "things"

[ginger_rice]

Don't know if mentioned already but do the royals still pick the members of the house of lords? Who can decide which laws and legislations to pass or throw out, right?

I, personally, don't see the point of the royals. They don't give any major benefit to the country and I don't see how you can say that tourists just come to this country to see the royals. It happens all the time when you go on holiday, you ask someone what to do/see and they recommend something and you do it, the royals are one of those "things"

Living in Stirling I've never ever met a tourist who comes here because of the Royals, they come to Scotland to trace or visit their roots, or they come for the scenery, or they come for the history, or they come to play golf.

The argument about the money the royals generate is one of these put about by royalist/unionist types to justify the retention of an outdated concept, my preference would a republic, however I know I'm in the minority with those views, as second best I'd have the royals status the same as those of the Danish royal family.

[Hibee Ryan]

Living in Stirling I've never ever met a tourist who comes here because of the Royals, they come to Scotland to trace or visit their roots, or they come for the scenery, or they come for the history, or they come to play golf.

The argument about the money the royals generate is one of these put about by royalist/unionist types to justify the retention of an outdated concept, my preference would a republic, however I know I'm in the minority with those views, as second best I'd have the royals status the same as those of the Danish royal family.

Totally agree, I very much doubt that tourists that go to anywhere in the country apart from London go for the royals as their main reason. If I'm on holiday and I'm told about something that people normally go to, I think "may as well" and if you're not going back to London you may as well visit Buckingham Palace