But should they hang around for less money than they take from the public purse at the moment? If during these austere times "we're all in it together" shouldn't the cuts start at the very top? I don't give a flying one about monarchy existing but when those that can now not afford it have to prop up a foreign mafia that has never gone without a meal or a roof over its head its time to change the system and let them be royalty in name only like in Holland and fund themselves. just my opinion.
I don't know the facts, and I'm not really interested enough to do the research, but I remember when this subject came up in the past it was maintained that their attraction to Yanks and other sundry foreigners brought in more money in tourism than they cost. Anyway, if we sack them they'll never get another job and will end up being benefit scroungers. Channel 4 will make a documentary about them living in a 268 up, 268 down on a council estate in Slough and all the papers can slag 'em off for that instead.
If you look at the pane to the left of this message you'll see something called a "username". That's who I am.
I heard they mainly look like Gary Cahill but a few of the have knuckle tattoos so look more like Danny Agger.
This! The idea that tourists come to see the queen or any of her offspring and hangers on is mindnumbing You honestly think the queues around Windsor Castle are for ppl expecting to see the queen and philip having tea?? Any revenue earned from our royal heritage is precisely that - from its heritage! Foreigners come to look at our historic buildings, sites, ancient royal artefacts, famous figures burial sites AND items from important historical events that shaped this country and impacted on others. Anyway this is a matter of principle not money. Why the hell should someone deserve my (or anybody else's) hard earned money just bcos of where they are born. What archaic bullshit; it flies in the face of all civilised belief in equality. And the flag waving psychophants who cheer them on are cringeworthy and pathetic to be quite honest.
We should privatise the whole shebang, and then just rent her back in to open Parliament and knight *****s.
But would people come to see it if it wasn't Queenies house? People are stupid, they come hoping to see a glimpse of Queenie I'm sure. There are plenty of big houses all around the country but Buckingham Palace attracts more than the rest put together because it's where she lives.
Buck House has only been open to the public for the last 15 or so years iirc. Tourism in the UK was a massive contributor to UK economy before then. Also the fact it's opened relatively recently explains its popularity (coupled with the fact the Queen lives there). If the queen was gone would it really impact on tourism? It would have the attraction of where the queen lived AND more of the private quarters would be opened up to reveal royal lives so would attract even more nosey buggers! As for seeing the Queen do you think it's a deal breaker for your average american or japanese couple as they're booking their hols? "Hey Jo lets go England, check out London, the nightlife, theatres, windsor castle, the lake district, the shopping, hyde park, old trafford, buck palace, hey we might even see the queen and prince charles" "Sorry sam, they got rid of the royal family." "Ah fck it, lets not go then."
People still visit the many castles dotted around Britain. Its a famous and historic building. People would still visit it in numbers because historic sites never stop becoming relevant. But to think in 2015 we still have a situation where someone can make decisions that affect the rest of the world just because they were born into a certain family is silly to say the least.
I am no royalist but at least they are born and brought up to understand the requirements of their position and not just some knob (prime minister) who thinks they know it all because they can talk smarmy and get elected on promises they can never keep. When was the last time you heard a royal make any statement promising a better economy, better working conditions, safer borders or anything else unrealistic. They are ambassadors for the country (with considerable knowledge and experience) who`s opinion carries a lot of weight in foreign climes. I try not to discuss politics because it is very devisive but **** it, people shouldn`t vot Labour because they are for "the working man", they shouldn`t vote Tory because they are for "the money men". They should wake up and vote for a government that is good for the country, that is after all what their job requirement entails.
What decisions can they make that affects the rest of the World? If you're looking for a position that does affect the rest of the planet and seemingly any ****ing gimp can manage to get their hands on, if they've got enough cash behind them and a decent set of teeth, look no further than Washington mate Tourists visit historic sites not only because of the buildings themselves but because of the narrative that goes with them. The Royals do create tourism to suggest they have no influence is just plain wrong.
Thing is Diego, in a democracy we the people deserve the leaders we have. If we have knobs in charge it's bcos we're all knobs for voting them in. It's a reflection on us. I agree we need to start thinking about the way we choose our leaders, but at least we will always have the choice and the ability to change them. The royals on the other hand get all their gravy based on birth. They have a duty ofcourse but unlike politicians perhaps they dont make false promises and cheat the system bcos they don't need to? They get it anyway.
