Forum menu
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue
[url= http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ ]link[/url]
But Buckingham Palace is not open all the time hence the lower numbers - in fact its only open for a handful of weeks over the summer, so if it was open all year round the visitor numbers would easily beat the Kremlin and Versaille. There is nothing to see in Russia apart from Red Square/Keremlin etc - it's a crap hole. It was in the news recently that Versailles was facing ruin in the face of horrendous state of repairs that the French Government is struggling to afford despite all the visitors. Probably because the President is spending all the money on his mistress.
At worst our Royal Family cover their costs (show me the stats that say otherwise) - they are busy public servants after all and really do a fantastic job being ambassadors for our country - fact. At best they make us a tidy profit.
I really struggle to understand why people get so hot under the collar about them. They do a good job, and create a bit of drama in otherwise a pretty dull and boring world. They're not doing any harm, infact do alot more good than anyone on this forum.
Buckingham Palace would still stand without a Monarchy but it would be a folly without any real substance without a proper Royal Family residing there. It would have far less appeal for tourists.
[quote=wobbliscott ]At worst our Royal Family cover their costs (show me the stats that say otherwise) 🙂 sorry, but it doesn't work like that. If you're going to make assertions, it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.
We'd end up with[s] Blair[/s] Kinnock
FIFY
6. The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations.
That's the stat as the Telegraph (the source for the Atlantic) described it - and NB they don't attribute it to the UK's tourism agency. They also seem to be attributing all visits to historical palaces to the Royal Family - ignoring the fact that more people could and would visit them if they weren't clogged up with squatters.
It doesn't make sense to say Buckingham Palace would be less attractive to tourists if the Royal family was disestablished when Versailles (and a zillion other palaces in India, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria, Turkey etc are all hoaching with tourists despite their original inhabitants having been bumped off ages ago.
Who cares about the historic stuff - no need to change it. This is about today.
Well, considering Crossrail is just the name of the project, and the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state, it makes perfect sense to name the new line after the current head of state, making it about today, rather than the past.
As fat as the cost is concerned, I notice nobody is making a peep about the insane cost, and destruction of countryside and habitation, of the proposed High Speed Rail project, to make the North this powerhouse of finance and industry,
And then there's the electrification of the Great Western, capital spend supposed to be £7billion, but already overrunning and nowhere near any sort of finish date! There's a bridge that I would usually drive over to pick up a mate when we go to the pub or gigs, it's been closed for many months now, I [i]think[/i] getting on for six, if not more, and there's absolutely no indication when it'll be reopened, and that's causing significant inconvenience to local residents.
the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state
Ahahahahahha ahahah ahahahaha ahahaha lol lol lol lol
CountZero - MemberWell, considering Crossrail is just the name of the project, and the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state,
I know she hung around for a long time but she'd have been 150 years old when the Victoria Line was opened. Indirectly maybe, the line's named after the station which is named after the queen. Or possibly the station's named after the street, but the street's named after the queen.
But you made me curious- I went and looked it up and several underground lines did open during her reign. The Circle Line, the City and South London Railway and the Waterloo and City Railway. So if you want to hearken back to Victoria's time, there's your naming convention.
But Buckingham Palace is not open all the time hence the lower numbers - in fact its only open for a handful of weeks over the summer
Then what we could do is turn it into a large (nationalised) hotel for all the wealthy tourists to stay in. Or it could be a new hospital maybe. Or a large homeless hostel/refugee centre.
Either way would be of better use than it is now. (In my humble opinion).
The line should have had a more sympathetic name, something maybe in honour of the original tribes who were cleansed from the area in the name of Diversity and Enrichment. Should have called it the Stan/Ronnie/Terry/Mickey/Arfur/Gladys/Mabel/Violet etc Line.
They weren't cleansed in the name of anything. They buggered off because they were given modern houses in Essex for practically nothing so they didn't have to live in slums. That was back in the days when squalor was a state issue.
But you're talking about years ago I'm not. Personally I don't get offended by the Elizabeth Line. Not worth getting all pissy about tbh.
I notice nobody is making a peep about the insane cost, and destruction of countryside and habitation, of the proposed High Speed Rail project, to make the North this powerhouse of finance and industry,
😆
Most people have been slating this as a massive waste of time and money for ages, and it's not even going to go to the north of England. If they actually wanted to help the north they'd make high speed rail between Leeds and Manchester. I think the 'northern powerhouse' has officially been cancelled anyway.