So you'd rather we were ruled over by people who werent elected and have simply inherited the right to rule by convincing people it was given to them by god?
The British Monarchy
- Thread starter west didsblue
- Start date
So you'd rather we were ruled over by people who werent elected and have simply inherited the right to rule by convincing people it was given to them by god?
“While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers(*) in royal upkeep comes to around £500m per year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5b to the British economy in the same timeframe.”
How much money does the royal family bring in tourism?
Each year, millions of tourists travel to the UK to visit its many historical royal landmarkswww.independent.co.uk
I read somewhere else this week that they’ve brought in over £18b to the Bitish economy over the last decade. All for £1.50 a year per person(*).
Well worth it.
If they want to live a life similar to permanently being on a reality TV show, constantly in the public eye, almost like real life Royal cartoon characters for the world to constantly gawp at (I couldn’t think of a worse way to live), to bring in so much money for the economy, then it’s a no brainer to keep them.
They are just an amusement product or tourist attraction that we use to bring in money to the country. Why would we get rid of something that brings in a lot more money money than it costs to run?
(* all of our taxes - every penny, every year - go straight to the country’s deficit so we actually don’t personally fund them at all)
Windsor Castle (the most visited Royal tourist attraction) 1.48m visitors per year.
Versailles 10m visitors per year.
The royal family is responsible for <1% of British Tourism and it's dishonest to pretend that tourism would actually dry up if the monarchy ended.
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,405
We aren't ruled over by them, what we are talking about is a head of state and I get all he arguments and on balance I'd stick with an unelected head of state. As is seems the majority would going off the poll.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I think that’s an excellent principle until you look at the calibre of people we (and seemingly everyone else) keeps electing….
I'm using @Kirkstall Blue's definition.
You can't say we'd be ruled over by a hypothetical head of state and then claim we're not being ruled over by the monarchy.
As opposed to the people of such fine calibre the Windsor family puts up?
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,405
I can, and unless you are being pedantic we have a monarchy as head of state that doesn't rule over us.
So we're not ruled over by Charles III, but remove him as head of state and insert an elected head of state and we'd be ruled over by that person.
There's zero logic to that argument.
