Rds1983 Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: Oh this argument again. Because nobody goes to Versailles since they took care of their royals. I'm curious how many people on here have ever visited a country purely because they wanted to see their royal family? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 3 minutes ago, blandy said: He could, but then would things be changed so inheritance tax might apply? I mean how many billions has he just inherited tax free? So while the rules that apply to us don’t apply to him, he has to do a load of pomp and nonsense in return. Wait a minute... My son can avoid paying inheritance tax if he arranges a 10 day street party on my road and makes all my neighbours pay for it just as long as he does some mingling about? Yeah, I've changed my mind. Sign me up. I'm now Team Monarchy! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Oh this argument again. Because nobody goes to Versailles since they took care of their royals. 500 million a year outlay for 2.5 billion back, those are the facts. It’s impossible to gauge how many less or more people would visit to the UK and the Royal sites without the monarchy so your comparison is deeply flawed to suit your anti Royal agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: I'm curious how many people on here have ever visited a country purely because they wanted to see their royal family? Few as I would imagine the sole reason for most on here attending any type of gig like that would be to try to get them beheaded 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 Just now, Xann said: Is that a plate you can buy on the back of the Daily Mail weekly TV guide for £49.99 a month for the next 20 years, Commissioned by Franklin mint? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: I'm curious how many people on here have ever visited a country purely because they wanted to see their royal family? Does it matter what we do? Other people do. Visit Britain did research indicating £500M is generated per year from the 2.8M people visiting Royal residences. Whilst no research has been done to indicate how many foreign travellers visit Britain solely or partly for this purpose 60% of foreign tourists who visit London attend one of the Royal residences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 I do wonder how people would feel if it was a democratically elected head of state that made themselves exempt from legislation instead of a monarch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: 500 million a year outlay for 2.5 billion back, those are the facts. It’s impossible to gauge how many less or more people would visit to the UK and the Royal sites without the monarchy so your comparison is deeply flawed to suit your anti Royal agenda You say without a hint of irony or awareness that your numbers are equally flawed for the exact same reason. Edited September 18, 2022 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 1 minute ago, HKP90 said: Does it matter what we do? Other people do. Visit Britain did research indicating £500M is generated per year from the 2.8M people visiting Royal residences. Whilst no research has been done to indicate how many foreign travellers visit Britain solely or partly for this purpose 60% of foreign tourists who visit London attend one of the Royal residences. But my point is that it's highly likely those people would still visit the country and those palaces (which would likely be more accessible) if we didn't have a Monarchy. If Royalists can dismiss people saying that it's impossible to calculate the difference then they themselves can't rely on these figures to support the Monarchy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: You say without a hint of irony of awareness that your numbers are equally flawed for the exact same reason. The figures are based on the Royal brand, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 Just now, Rds1983 said: But my point is that it's highly likely those people would still visit the country and those palaces (which would likely be more accessible) if we didn't have a Monarchy. If Royalists can dismiss people saying that it's impossible to calculate the difference then they themselves can't rely on these figures to support the Monarchy. And as has been discussed so many times, without the royals living in the palaces, they could be more open to the public and potentially raise even more. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I do wonder how people would feel if it was a democratically elected head of state that made themselves exempt from legislation instead of a monarch Like Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolta Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Follyfoot said: 500 million a year outlay for 2.5 billion back, those are the facts. It’s impossible to gauge how many less or more people would visit to the UK and the Royal sites without the monarchy so your comparison is deeply flawed to suit your anti Royal agenda The notion that one family is treated as special, is lauded and so obscenely over privileged is something that belongs in the past. It's so easy to have an anti royal agenda because it's a joke in the 21st century, and all it does is perpetuate this bullshit heirarchical, aristocratic, betters and their minions inequality in the national psyche. Living in a place with no king or queen is a visceral joy (I'm not currently but have in the past). Edited September 18, 2022 by Rolta 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 1 minute ago, Rds1983 said: But my point is that it's highly likely those people would still visit the country and those palaces (which would likely be more accessible) if we didn't have a Monarchy. If Royalists can dismiss people saying that it's impossible to calculate the difference then they themselves can't rely on these figures to support the Monarchy. I'm not a Royalist, but since our economy is in the toilet, our currency has tanked and Tourism accounts for a significant proportion of our GDP, maybe another self sabotaging clusterf**k based on what people reckon Britain should stand for might not be the best idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 The Monarchy can solve the problem themselves. Create a role of President or equivalent and have that person elected by the population. All the ceremonial powers of the King/Queen are enacted by this elected official. The Monarchy can go on as celebrities and all that to keep tourism for the country and the actual governing of the country is 100% done by elected people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 9 minutes ago, Rolta said: The notion that one family is treated as special, is lauded and over privileged is something that belongs in the past. It's so easy to have an anti royal agenda because it's a joke in the 21st century, and all it does is perpetuate this bullshit heirarchical, aristocratic, betters and their minions inequality in the national psyche. Living in a place with no king or queen is a visceral joy (I'm not currently but have in the past). Come the revolution eh mate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 @mottalooleaving the thread 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 3 minutes ago, CVByrne said: The Monarchy can solve the problem themselves. Create a role of President or equivalent and have that person elected by the population. All the ceremonial powers of the King/Queen are enacted by this elected official. The Monarchy can go on as celebrities and all that to keep tourism for the country and the actual governing of the country is 100% done by elected people. I assume this is irony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted September 18, 2022 If we're talking about getting rid of celebrities for what they stand for, I say we abolish the Kardashians. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts