The British Monarchy

[Trickyblues]

Numerous times over the years.

Why don't you Google it, there are several recent current articles on the Internet backing this up.

From who? The daily mail? The telegraph? The Financial Times?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

From who? The daily mail? The telegraph? The Financial Times?

No, why not have a look yourself?

 

[johnny crossan]

In terms of modern technology and infrastructure we are behind most of Europe and Asia for starters. We have gone backwards in the last 20 years.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the Royals friend. Instead let's start with Atlee who failed to use Marshall Aid to modernise our industry while the Germans & Japs performed miracles with a fraction of the funds. Then the Militant crazies who kicked Callaghan out and let in Thatcher's mob in for two decades. She destroyed what was left of our industrial base because she was frit of a commie takeover of the big unions. The lefty loonies on here are a sick joke.

 

[Trickyblues]

No, why not have a look yourself?

Have done. All articles point to royals not having any benefit on tourism in this country. The buildings - yes. The royals - no. Unless there is something like a coronation which isn’t very often. Royals impact on tourism has significantly declined over the last 10 years.

 

[johnny crossan]

Have done. All articles point to royals not having any benefit on tourism in this country. The buildings - yes. The royals - no. Unless there is something like a coronation which isn’t very often. Royals impact on tourism has significantly declined over the last 10 years.

According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy is £1.76bn . Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.

 

[bluenova]

I like them, I think they do a great job and bring in more money to the country than they cost.

Usually that's based on dubious calculations that attribute huge amounts of tourism to them, while not deducting the huge amounts of cash that "their" properties and land earn.

The Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle and many more places are a lot more interesting to visitors than the current residences of the Royal family, and earn a lot more money.

We could get the same tourism benefits, and provide them with fabulously wealthy lives, without them needing to financially profit from huge areas of the country - land that simply comes with the job.

 

[bluenova]

According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy is £1.76bn . Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.

Mostly how much stuff we already own is worth, and attributing an incredible amount of tourism and status benefit to them, that most pretty every other country attributes to 'history'.

 

[johnny crossan]

Mostly how much stuff we already own is worth, and attributing an incredible amount of tourism and status benefit to them, that most pretty every other country attributes to 'history'.

All the analysts agree the net financial benefits to the UK of the Royals through tourism are undeniable. It Is abolitionists who call the figures dubious without any convincing contrary evidence. Who do you think would profit from the crown estates if Charlie & Co got the chop? Calling all US hedge funds.....

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Mostly how much stuff we already own is worth, and attributing an incredible amount of tourism and status benefit to them, that most pretty every other country attributes to 'history'.

All this debate is is people who like the monarchy believe the favourable figures and journalism written about them and those that don’t like them are more sceptical of such articles.

 

[johnny crossan]

All this debate is is people who like the monarchy believe the favourable figures and journalism written about them and those that don’t like them are more sceptical of such articles.

So everybody's wrong and everybody's right. Actually in this case the sceptics are just wrong.