Depends how you look at it. The vast majority of the revenue generated by the royal family is from tourism and the vast majority of that is in London lining the pockets of London business owners and Londoners in general yet there tax burden funding the royal family is spread equally across the UK. Then there's the next one of the king might bring in money but does 76 year old Birgitte - wife of the kings first cousin once removed - bring anything in really? If so how? Why is her lifestyle funded?
So as a gesture of gratitude, after the coronation I suggest the word‘Royal’ should prefix the words ’ food’ and ‘bank’
Aye but lets go after the real benefits scroungers on UC, PIP and other entitlements. Must be costing the exchequer a few million a year eh?
You could make that London argument about many things. eg the new Elizabeth underground line now open v the Trans Pennine line that is still on the drawing board
It really doesn’t. France gets fat more ‘royal ‘ visitors than we do. It’s the buildings and history they sent to see not Charles Fatfingers.
It's totally up to the individual but they really ought to realise this is the 21st century, they're not living in the middle ages, Middle Earth or Westeros.
If I’ve understood you correctly you are comparing all of Frances antiquities against the Royal Family rather than all of the UK antiquities
You can make all the smart r’s quips you want but just google the question and the evidence is overwhelming whether you like it or not
Don't visitors come for the history rather than the actual royal family though? It's not like you can pay money to spend a day with the King or Queen!
It’s not something I know about anymore than any other poster on the bbs. I suppose people want to see the grandeur, the trappings and paraphernalia of it all. Changing of the guards, trooping of colours. But yes history and tradition no doubt come into it
So you accept that of the tourism they "generate" a substantial proportion would still come regardless of whether the Royal Family is active or not? And is there not an argument that if the monarchy were abolished we would be able to better monetise things like tours around Buckingham Palace, and the revenue would actually increase? By the way, how much do you think a Bank Holiday (of which we've had 2 this year due to the Royal Family) costs the economy?
I'll make it simple for you. The royal family cost far more than they bring in for the country as a whole. Some tourists come to see them no doubt, but if we stopped paying the scroungers the amount of tourists isn't going to drop. Assuming that without them there would be no tourists is the only way the "they bring in more than they cost" nonsense actually adds up. I say this as someone that used to believe it was true.
I never sing that racist song. And certainly will not be swearing allegiance to any member of that inbred and totally dis functional family.
Interesting thread. Is there anyone on here actually going to swear allegiance? Anyone brave enough to own up?