£369,000,000 to refurbish Buckingham Palace

murpho999

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't believe that's true, there's many many tourists that visit England because Of The monarchy.
Those tourists wouldn't visit if the Royals didn't exist

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

He does. People don't go to the White House because of the architecture & landscaping. They go because it is where the president of USA is based it's where he makes decisions which have an effect on most of the free world.

My point is that whatever system countries use ; if they have nice iconic architectural structures that go with their role then it will attract tourists rather than the position itself.

Been to the UK plenty of times and there is loads to see there that is nothing to do with the monarchy.

Jimoslimos

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??

Actually, that is what your logic suggests.

Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions

You do know that those can all exist without a monarchy. The Tower of London hasn't been used as a royal residence or prison for many years now, yet is one of the top attractions in Britain, and is actually probably one of the few with a royal link.

lawred2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because it isn't their house.

the crown estates...

nowadays we'd call that a shell corporation

Edups

"They say Fagan drank half a bottle of wine before leaving."

He's a fagan right enough.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You do know that those can all exist without a monarchy. The Tower of London hasn't been used as a royal residence or prison for many years now, yet is one of the top attractions in Britain, and is actually probably one of the few with a royal link.

What I am saying is the package that is the royal family (buildings and people) attract vast numbers of EXTRA tourists to Britain. Huge numbers go to see the buildings only, huge numbers go to see the prancing & dancing only and huge numbers go to see both.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

They may attract tourists to their country.
The Royal family means they attract even more

Curiously, then, the republic that is France receives far and away more tourists than any country on the planet, and in 2015 received almost three times the number of tourists that Britain received.

Other royalist cult free countries receiving far more tourists than Britain include the republics of Italy, Germany and the United States. Except for a few touched Hyacinth types nobody believes this nonsense that keeping these parasites in privilege is essential to British tourism.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Curiously, then, the republic that is France receives far and away more tourists than any country on the planet, and in 2015 received almost three times the number of tourists that Britain received.

Other royalist cult free countries receiving far more tourists than Britain include the republics of Italy, Germany and the United States. Except for a few touched Hyacinth types nobody believes this nonsense that keeping these parasites in privilege is essential to British tourism.

All that proves is that tourists prefer to visit other countries. Doesn't say anything about the royals.
Where would you rather visit, England or Italy?
England or USA?
As countries go I'd rather visit a lot of other places, but not because there's a Royal family in England, just cos I'd prefer other countries.

Fleawuss

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Palace of Versailles brings in a lot of tourism (and more visitors than Buckingham Palace). Do they need a heir of Louis XVI to keep things going?

Very interesting. BH would be tourist draw even if the monarchy was gone. Would the monarchy be a tourist draw if they lived in a semi d in Dagenham and cycled everywhere?

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Been to the UK plenty of times and there is loads to see there that is nothing to do with the monarchy.

Yep, me too. Lots of other things.
However, millions of Asians in particular visit because Of The Royal family.
Americans too

Arcade_Tryer

The monarchy is the greatest scam going in the UK.

Fleawuss

lawred2 wrote: »

What have children in need got to do with this?

People pointing out the contradiction of fund raisers for charity and handing over huge sums to refurbish BH from the tax payer at the same time. A clash of priorities to some.

Jimoslimos

I don't think the presence (or indeed absence) of a monarchy has ever been a factor in deciding where I take my holidays. Cost/quality of accommodation, transport, language, amenities, climate, political unrest, etc. are all more important.

If you like the idea of a monarchy that's fine, but stop making nonsensical, absurd claims on their economic worth to somehow justify it to yourself.

Fleawuss

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The monarchy is the greatest scam going in the UK.

In 2nd place to Brexit!

Sue Pa Key Pa

Jimoslimos wrote:

I don't think the presence (or indeed absence) of a monarchy has ever been a factor in deciding where I take my holidays. Cost/quality of accommodation, transport, language, amenities, climate, political unrest, etc. are all more important.

Jimoslimos wrote:

If you like the idea of a monarchy that's fine, but stop making nonsensical, absurd claims on their economic worth to somehow justify it to yourself.

Just because it's not your thing doesn't make it untrue. I am as far from being a fan of Liz & her spawn as you can get but I accept that they are a profitable business. The Americans & Japanese in particular love that stuff

Fratton Fred

lawred2 wrote: »

the crown estates...

nowadays we'd call that a shell corporation

Not really. More like a national asset management agency.

Jimoslimos

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Just because it's not your thing doesn't make it untrue. I am as far from being a fan of Liz & her spawn as you can get but I accept that they are a profitable business. The Americans & Japanese in particular love that stuff

France and Germany provide more tourist numbers. Heck even visitor numbers from Ireland are nearly the same as the US.

Brexit will probably have a much bigger impact on tourism than the royal family.

Galwayguy35

If my house needs to be repaired I pay for it myself, don't see why Lizzie Windsor can't do the same.

But it's up to the Brits to decide that, it's their taxes that pay for them.

tomwaterford

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If my house needs to be repaired I pay for it myself, don't see why Lizzie Windsor can't do the same.

But it's up to the Brits to decide that, it's their taxes that pay for them.

It's a certain amount of lunacy tbf

It's a country where people who run on a platform to cut welfare regularly do well......but they are surly the same thing....getting money and houses off the state?

screamer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The monarchy is the greatest scam going in the UK.

Given that they're of German descent it sure is

voz es

I like that it is £369,000,000.00 for no other reason than its an oddish number. I like that they didn't go £370m.

Like I often wonder when it's reported that a school or a road is going to cost €10 million over here, are they picking a whimsical number out of the sky.

Hammer89

cocoman wrote: »

If it's carpet I know a few guys !!

I don't know anyone who'd want to go near the Queen's carpet at this stage.

droidman123

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The monarchy is the greatest scam going in the UK.

All monarchies the world over are scams.i dont care how much money they bring in to their respective countries,royalty are a disgusting plague and have no place in the modern world.it makes me sick when i see people bowing to these people,anyone bowing and looking meek to any so called royalty should have more respect for their own self worth.

Stigura

Fair play to North Korea. No bugger has to bow and scrape before any " Monarchy " there.

afatbollix

The thing is they are paying for it themselves. Currently they get about 10% of the profits from the crown estate (She one of the highest EU grant receiver for farmer grants in the UK!)

They are going to raise this to 25% to pay for this upgrade.

But don't let that get in the way of a good moan.

Love for the monarchy is still pretty strong in the UK and overall, it's not that much.. You can pay that money now and preserve a massive part of the culture for another century or you can let it waste away, become an eyesore and eventually it will a very large uninhabitable landmark of the glory days that have gone.

While obviously not as old as Newgrange or the Colosseum, the British Monarchy and Buckingham Palace are still prominent in the country and arguably of more cultural importance.. It would leave a lot of people aghast if it were left to ruin.

Richard Hillman

After doing a whistlestop tour of France the overriding feeling was that they never should have gotten rid of their monarchy.

Do an audio bus tour of Paris or Bordeaux and there is just a sense of general sadness that everything of note in the cities (bar the obvious exceptions) was build and maintained during monarchy.

People are saying that they would still attract tourists even without monarchy. That is true, one year after. But when we are talking about 20 years later, 50 years, 100 years, when suddenly the maintenance of these buildings become a low priority.

lawred2

afatbollix wrote: »

The thing is they are paying for it themselves. Currently they get about 10% of the profits from the crown estate (She one of the highest EU grant receiver for farmer grants in the UK!)

They are going to raise this to 25% to pay for this upgrade.

But don't let that get in the way of a good moan.

Brexit will put an end to that

lawred2

Richard Hillman wrote: »

After doing a whistlestop tour of France the overriding feeling was that they never should have gotten rid of their monarchy.

Do an audio bus tour of Paris or Bordeaux and there is just a sense of general sadness that everything of note in the cities (bar the obvious exceptions) was build and maintained during monarchy.

People are saying that they would still attract tourists even without monarchy. That is true, one year after. But when we are talking about 20 years later, 50 years, 100 years, when suddenly the maintenance of these buildings become a low priority.

I think the vast majority of French people would disagree with you.

Del.Monte

Why is there even a thread on this issue on Boards.ie?

Akrasia

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

British Monarchy bring in far more in tourism then they will ever cost.

I wonder if there is anything to be said if we were to..............best not, I suppose

I know people say this, but who the **** decides to go on holidays to london so they can look at the Queen?

They bring in the gossip media, but then so does Sharon Osbourne

Is Ozzy worth 400 million to the UK economy?

Richard Hillman

Akrasia wrote: »

I know people say this, but who the **** decides to go on holidays to london so they can look at the Queen?

It's called Branding. The Royals are a major part of Brand Britain. When you are far away and think of Britain, you think of Kings & Queen, men with funny hats, tea & crumpets, castles & palaces, pomp & ceremony, gentlemen & ladies, Knights and dames. That is the very essence of Great Britain and people facking lav it.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Akrasia wrote: »

I know people say this, but who the **** decides to go on holidays to london so they can look at the Queen?
?

Apparently loads of people do. I wouldn't be arsed, but I have to acknowledge it is a good business model. Like many countries, they have fantastic historical buildings. Unfortunately, they cost a lot to maintain and the Mrs Windsor generates a surplus over what it takes to keep hers in good nick

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7914479/Monarchy-attracts-500-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-queen-and-the-uk-royal-family-contribution-to-the-uk-economy-2015-9

http://the-british-monarchy.weebly.com/tourism.html

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's called Branding. The Royals are a major part of Brand Britain. When you are far away and think of Britain, you think of Kings & Queen, men with funny hats, tea & crumpets, castles & palaces, pomp & ceremony, gentlemen & ladies, Knights and dames. That is the very essence of Great Britain and people facking lav it.

Yeah seriously.. I teach rich Asian kids and they all want to visit London to see Big Ben and Buckingham Palace. And they go and do it.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why is there even a thread on this issue on Boards.ie?

For the same reason we discuss the American Presidency, Earthquakes in New Zealand, English Premier League, North Korean isolation or Kim Kardashian

It's called discussion

Oodoov

The UK's biggest welfare scrongers.

Sam Kade

Fleawuss wrote: »

One's gaff needs a makeover. Children in Need on BBC tonight. Brit Twitter in meltdown.

I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

I dare say old fellow one has to keep ones place in top condition and when the taxpayer foots ones bill it makes it easier

Gmaximum

Well they're too late to fund it through the European Development Fund so no skin off our or Angela's nose

andekwarhola

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

How do republics attract tourists then?

That's like saying we can knock the GPO down and build an LIDL on it because the yanks can still visit Gendalough.

The royals are part of the British tourist brand. And BP is a historical building. People lap it up even if I don't get it or agree with monarchy.

Del.Monte

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

For the same reason we discuss the American Presidency, Earthquakes in New Zealand, English Premier League, North Korean isolation or Kim Kardashian

It's called discussion

It's called the Irish anti-British/begrudgery/inferiority complex.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Love for the monarchy is still pretty strong in the UK and overall, it's not that much.. You can pay that money now and preserve a massive part of the culture for another century or you can let it waste away, become an eyesore and eventually it will a very large uninhabitable landmark of the glory days that have gone.

While obviously not as old as Newgrange or the Colosseum, the British Monarchy and Buckingham Palace are still prominent in the country and arguably of more cultural importance.. It would leave a lot of people aghast if it were left to ruin.

The upgrade isn't preserving the old aspects of the building,it's fittng the palacw with the latest fixtures and fittings.if anything it's destroying history. I also do not believe the royals to be net contributors to the exchequer,are there any audited figures to back up this claim? I don't count their land revenue,that land will make money whether those plebs are alive or not.

PowerToWait

murpho999 wrote: »

I never get why anybody would care about anything whatsoever to do with foreign monarchies.

For a man that's not interested, you're very interested.

suicide_circus

It does sound like a lot of money and feels pretty immoral while there are British people in need of help in various ways. But we wither think history and heritage are important or we don't and if we do sometimes we need to put the hand in the pocket.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Del.Monte wrote: »

It's called the Irish anti-British/begrudgery/inferiority complex.

Fair enough, you're entitled to feel that way if you wish

mattser

Del.Monte wrote: »

It's called the Irish anti-British/begrudgery/inferiority complex.

Exactly. We're always the Jack Russell trying to attack the Alsatian.

armaghlad

murpho999 wrote: »

I never get why anybody would care about anything whatsoever to do with foreign monarchies.

Some Irish people, such as myself, have to pay for it

LordSutch

Fleawuss wrote: »

One's gaff needs a makeover. Children in Need on BBC tonight.

I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

Dead right too ...

Like everybody else, the Royals have to forward plan too, so that when QEII and Prince Phill kick the bucket, William & Kate can inherit a fully functioning palace worthy of a King & Queen. I don't think Charles will reign, (although maybe he will in a holding capacity) before William & Kate take the reins.

Reigns, get it

smurgen

mattser wrote: »

Exactly. We're always the Jack Russell trying to attack the Alsatian.

Not really.i'm just more laughing at the british to be honest with ya.spreading democracy in the middle east while keeping a queen in the lap of luxury,strange people!

steddyeddy

It's up to people in Britain as to whether they accept the monarchy but I get the impression an increasing number of people don't. I don't see how people can complain about dole scroungers and complian about the Royal family in the same sentence

steddyeddy

Del.Monte wrote: »

It's called the Irish anti-British/begrudgery/inferiority complex.

Begrudgery is a load of balls. I see the exact same attitude in the UK.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Begrudgery is a load of balls. I see the exact same attitude in the UK.

You missed the point.