I’m accepting nothing, assuming nothing nor am I going to have words put into my mouth and l certainly don’t appreciate your patronising tone. Let me make it simple for you. Go onto the web and find a report that even suggests that the Royals cost us more than they bring into the country if you can. So the question I’m faced with is do I accept the overwhelming evidence to be had or do I believe the bias bleating of a couple of anti royalists. You stick your head in the sand if you want but I’ll keep an open mind.
You're not keeping an open mind at all. I've raised the following valid points that you've not addressed: Stating they "bring in" revenue carries an implicit assumption that if they no longer exist those tourists all won't come. That's disingenuous and inaccurate. France no longer has an active royal family and their main palace has 30 times the visitors ours does. This suggests that not only would tourists still come, we would be able to offer increased access and generate much higher revenue. The Royal Family will have cost the economy billions this year in the form of two extra bank holidays. Also laughing at "I don't appreciate your patronising tone" followed by a paragraph dripping in condescension.
The latest pope stopped using the summer residence as he found it too ostentatious. The town it is located in suffered as a results since during the time the previous pope's were there the place was inundated with tourists from all over the World and ,of course when he broke tradition they stopped coming. His answer was to open It up as a museum and permanent exhibition tracking all the previous popes. Turismo now booms as the palace is pristine having been in continuous use and maintained until relatively recently. The same would happen at Windsor,Buck palace Balmoral and all the other royal residences. The royal themselves are an irrelevance regarding income from tourism. History and tradition Is the fascination.
I won't be pledging allegiance, however the idea of an elected Head of State depresses me. President Blair, Boris or Truss. No thanks.
I think Charles has got his head in the right place, he seems to care deeply about the environment. I cling on to the idea (misplaced?) that our armed forces are loyal to the monarch and not an instrument of Parliament. But I shan't be pledging loyalty to him, I wish him a happy reign and all that, but I think he should be the last of them and we should have an elected president after his time comes.
Did anyone see last night's Frankie Boyle program about the royals? It wasn't uproariously funny but I loved the line about Charles having 2 children which proves he had sex at least once....
I like his general direction, but I think the format of his shows in recent times have got a bit dull. That is a good gag though.
