- This topic has 300 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
They Didn’t Like Ground……
“Around 2 million a week in tourism …..yeah I reckon that would be right”
—————————————————————————————-
I can’t disagree, or agree with you on that one HDLG, I simply don’t know.
I suppose the question is, if there was no monarchy, how much revenue would
be collected if the various palaces and country houses were used simply for
tourism. I think there would be a great deal of interest both domestically
and from abroad.The history of the Royals would be of great interest, even 100 years from
now (if we’re still occupying this planet). I’d warrant by that time that
people would be even more interested in who these people were that commanded
so much power and influince. eg, I visited the Colosseum some time back which
effectively ceased about 400 AD. It’s partially a ruin but visited by approx
8,000 a day. The Doge’s Palace reortedly about 4,000 daily etc etc.Do the Royals who presently occupy them add or cost us money.?
BigG expands on my thoughts.
Not only do the Royal Family cost a huge amount, they have their own source of revenue from assets they “own” that are in my view public assets they never earned.
Tourists visit London and Britain generally for a variety of reasons and I think the Royals are credited with a lot of tourist revenue when there’s no hard evidence that is actually the case.
Abolish the monarchy, legally seize what are rightfully public assets and turn places like Buckingham Palace into access all areas pay-to-visit museums.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“Not only do the Royal Family cost a huge amount”
A popular misconception.
The royals cost the taxpaying public about £100m a year, which is peanuts in terms of the national budget; they also bring far more than that back into the country.
And if the royal family were to be abolished, Buckingham Palace and the other royal properties should be turned into hotels. Stupid (but rich) tourists from America, the Middle East, etc would pay fortunes to stay in them; we could clear the national debt in a few years.
I’m getting mixed messages from you on this, Gladders.
I get that £100 million isn’t a large amount in terms of overall annual public expenditure, but like the many others who say this you still don’t provide evidence for the airy assertion “they bring in far more.”
And then in the next breath you come up with a stupendous suggestion as to how what I regard as morally public buildings could instead be used to more efficient effect to boost the UK economy.
Bang with you there!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"To be clear, Chezza, as a matter of principle I believe in a meritocracy. Inheritance tax should be set at 100% and nobody should have any advantages in life.
However, this is unrealistic, unless every human society on the planet does a full reset. Given that we are stuck with the monarchy, I believe that they are not a drain on the country’s resources and are, in fact, net contributors. Although they could easily add to the national coffers by converting their properties into hotels, I have severe reservations about the government’s ability to spend the additional funds wisely anyway.
All fair comment, Gladders, and tbh I’ve no evidence to prove they aren’t net contributors either.
I think it’s all supposition and conjecture based on rich fat tourists swanning around London and seemingly loving the Royal Family a lot than the average Brit does.
Im not sure we’re stuck with a monarchy though.
I detect a fall in popularity only mitigated by the manifestly outstanding 70-year public service stint the now deceased one did.
Biggest of big boots to fill – I’d say Charles III could be Charles The Last because I reckon it’s last-chance saloon for them once the funeral and coronation are over and grim reality bites.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Excellent article by Greg Wood in the Guardian:
Clare Balding also spoke well on BBC News this morning about the late Queen’s support of racing and added some personal reminiscences.
Agree about the picture of Carozza being led in by the late Queen with Lester Piggott up. The two figures who arguably did most for racing in the 20th Century. Sad to think they have both gone within months of each other.
“Clare Balding also spoke well on BBC News this morning about the late Queen’s support of racing”
Well, she would – it was common knowledge that the Queen (who had horses in training with Ian Balding and consequently had known his children all their lives) was personally instrumental in Clare Balding being employed by the BBC in the first place.
And pretty much catapulted straight into the top racing job.
Just read the Greg Wood article and thought it was very good.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Surely King Charles lll will appear on our coins and notes … or would it be too big a task for the Royal Mint?
He will start to appear on coins and notes Rob. His portrait will be done facing the opposite way to what the Queen does currently, the direction switches with each change of Monarch.
His image will appear on the currency but I believe it might take up to two years.
One change will be that Charles III will be shown facing to the left. It is tradition that the new monarch faces in the opposite direction to their predecessor.
Historically there is nothing particularly unusual about coins bearing the previous monarch’s image being in circulation. I can remember having old shilling coins bearing George VI’s image, which were still legal currency as 5p after decimal currency was introduced and remained so into the 1980s, when they were finally withdrawn.
There are still lots of post boxes bearing the “GR” insignia and a few displaying “VR” are still in use.
It has been confirmed that the day of the funeral will be a bank holiday.
Cue moaning that there probably won’t be any racing that day either.
I can see a permanent extra BH being introduced in the Queen’s honour. There have long been calls for another one and the government will want* to do something popular.
*pronounced ‘need’
“It has been confirmed that the day of the funeral will be a bank holiday.
Cue moaning that there probably won’t be any racing that day either.”
Ffs, ANOTHER day with no racing??!!
At least I’m reliable.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"He will start to appear on coins and notes Rob. His portrait will be done facing the opposite way to what the Queen does currently, the direction switches with each change of Monarch.
Maybe facing both directions to suit the trans gender brigade?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysOn Monday 19th September there is racing in Ireland at Fairyhouse and Listowel.
I’d best start studying the form now because the Telegraph reckons that’s “the day.”
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"And if the royal family were to be abolished, Buckingham Palace and the other royal properties should be turned into hotels. Stupid (but rich) tourists from America, the Middle East, etc would pay fortunes to stay in them; we could clear the national debt in a few years.
—————————————–I dare say it would raise a great deal of money Gladiateur, but I doubt it would
raise more than opening them to the public as places of historical interest.
Long term I think this would be more profitable. Just my opinion for what it’s
worth
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.