Versailles attracts more than 30,000 tourists a day, an average of nearly 10 million a year...

...all to see King ... er, no I mean Queen er....hmmmm

 

Buck Palace is a Barratt house in comparison to Versailles nt

 

It's the past that attracts visitors to these players rather than the present

Who are foreigners more interested in - Henry VIII or a boring, racist old fart like Prince Philip? No contest really.

 

There are genuine arguments as to whether we should retain the monarchy, tourism isn't one of them.

Its a nonsense point

 

yes but the gap would be larger still without the royal family

the fact that these are working places is surely part of the appeal.

furthermore I don't have figures but I'd stick my neck out and say considerably more tourists came for the Queen's golden jubilee and hopefully a diamond jubilee in 2012 will have the same effect.

Americans especially lap it up look at how much they loved Diana seeing where the Queen of England actually lives, not used to live, is a big thing for them

 

The point is palaces attract tourists with or without a monarchy nt

 

I understood the point mate but you can't write the tourism aspect off

although what is at least equally important are the crown estates ie Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall which more than cover the above cost it's just its not organised in a way that reflects this since tax incomes from there are treated like any others and so are not directly linked to the monarchy.

personally I would be happy to contribute taxes to the monarchy even if it was proven to be costing money overall but as yet this is not the case

 

But you can. See M1 Tyke's post above and my response. The Houses of Parliament, Whitehall, The Tower of London etc all have PAST links to the Royal family but no more.

Tourists still go to see them, why wouldn't they visit Buck Palace if she got off her arse and f.cked off?

 

Did the Queen turn you down for a date or something?

 

RE: I understood the point mate but you can't write the tourism aspect off

The other arguments are more complex and again there are valid arguments on either side, but tourism isn't one. Imagine the surge in tourism if royal palaces were opened up for the public to enjoy, or the vast array of artworks held in the private royal collection where put on display to the public.

Perosnally I don't think anyone should have the rights and privileges afforded the royla family just becuase they happened to be born in to it. It is an outdated and unjust class system. That said I appreciate there would need to be a constitutionally viable system to replace it.

To be honest I'm more concerned about the fact we still embarrasingly have an unelected form of government in the House of Lords but thats another argument.

Either way royal heritage would attract tourists with or without a King or Queen

 

What "past link" does the Houses of Parliament have to the Royal Family?

It was built in the 19th century and the White House in the US is older

 

Nah I turned her down, she asked me to call her stampy and lick the back of her head.

 

she's kinky.

 

She did say i was first class

 

You know what I meant.