MOTM
Good point, I'm trying to work out the comparison here with some American family that I know nothing about
What about this small country though, I would say people should be proud to have a Royal family, what would it be without them?
Royals
- Thread starter Pearls
- Start date
- Tagged users None
-
Please check your spam/junk folder after registration, for your email. Thank you
What about this small country though, I would say people should be proud to have a Royal family, what would it be without them?
Good point, I'm trying to work out the comparison here with some American family that I know nothing about
What about this small country though, I would say people should be proud to have a Royal family, what would it be without them?
I think it was more a flippant comment really not a serious comparison!
We constantly strive to protect heritage everywhere else this family is just that our heritage and what sets us apart from other places
Good point, I'm trying to work out the comparison here with some American family that I know nothing about
What about this small country though, I would say people should be proud to have a Royal family, what would it be without them?
The same as it is now
B x
MOTM
I disagree. We would, but he might work in a chippy or somethingWe wouldn't have Harry then though
B x
MOTM
He can batter me any dayI disagree. We would, but he might work in a chippy or something
B x
So the argument for the Royal Family is they draw tourism into the Capital from which London benefits from the extra revenue.
Us Northerners don't see much of that London money.
I will concede to keeping the Royal Family as long as they agree to be on a Reality TV "Royals on benefits", in which they have to live on a council estate and survive on benefits, get a job and shop at Aldi etc etc.
That would be great telly
.
B x
Us Northerners don't see much of that London money.
I will concede to keeping the Royal Family as long as they agree to be on a Reality TV "Royals on benefits", in which they have to live on a council estate and survive on benefits, get a job and shop at Aldi etc etc.
That would be great telly
.B x
MOTM
So the argument for the Royal Family is they draw tourism into the Capital from which London benefits from the extra revenue.
Us Northerners don't see much of that London money.
I will concede to keeping the Royal Family as long as they agree to be on a Reality TV "Royals on benefits", in which they have to live on a council estate and survive on benefits, get a job and shop at Aldi etc etc.
That would be great telly
B x
D
Deleted member 6485
I seldom watch TV, but that would be epic viewingThat would be great telly
xx
MOTM
Nowt wrong with Aldi. The queen could get a right bargain on a joint of gammon with her state pension of 70 quid a week or whatever it isAldi
.B x
Highgrove estate which is one of charles estates is what funds the princes charities trust so that goes to people mainly kids & yound adults all across the country.
The duchy of cornwall estate provides for him & the boys and goes towards their own charities (which means they arent state reliant) he also maintains all the land, forests, lakes etc and breeds rare livestocks, has holiday cottages, plant nursery etc. He also keeps all that land green so it can never be used for crappy new build estates or offices and keeps the wildlife protected.
So i think charles does a lot of good with his status and provides for more than just london.
The duchy of cornwall estate provides for him & the boys and goes towards their own charities (which means they arent state reliant) he also maintains all the land, forests, lakes etc and breeds rare livestocks, has holiday cottages, plant nursery etc. He also keeps all that land green so it can never be used for crappy new build estates or offices and keeps the wildlife protected.
So i think charles does a lot of good with his status and provides for more than just london.
MOTM
Plus Buck house is open to tourists, where does that money go? I am sure it's to fund the running costs.
Plus Buck house is open to tourists, where does that money go? I am sure it's to fund the running costs.
It does it takes a lot to run and maintain it same as all national trust properties do aswell!
D
Deleted member 1402
So the argument for the Royal Family is they draw tourism into the Capital from which London benefits from the extra revenue.
Us Northerners don't see much of that London money.
I will concede to keeping the Royal Family as long as they agree to be on a Reality TV "Royals on benefits", in which they have to live on a council estate and survive on benefits, get a job and shop at Aldi etc etc.
That would be great telly
B x
It's a nonsense to say the Royals "make" money for the UK via tourism.
France doesn't have a monarchy, for instance, but Versailles draws 7 million visitors a year, amongst other ex-royal sites.
If the British crown were abolished the heritage would still be there, people will still visit the Tower of London &c but we could a) open the palaces and art collections 7 days a week and b) not have to pay the Royal family either.
Now that makes money
MOTM
There isn’t any evidence to suggest there is any economic benefit to the royal family. Any benefit mentioned is from assets that belong to the nation - like tourist attractions - which would still belong to the nation if the monarchy was abolished.
I was relying on good ol' Joe to post some facts
.I think people need to remember that the Royals are just mere mortal men and women like us who happened to be born into a position of privilege.
I would concede that they do good charity work but hey if I had that much money and time on my hands, I would do some good charity work too
.I absolutely agree that Buckingham Palace, The Tower Of London etc would still bring in the same revenue through tourism with or without the Royals. It's not like the tourists get to see the part of the palace the queen actually resides in and have afternoon tea with her
.B x
P.s I also look after and maintain all my lands and estates too *pats myself on the back*.
