Queen to hand out Maundy money at Easter In Sheffield

[Bigthumb 10]

What are you on about 950 years? Victoria came to open the new town hall

 

That wasn't a royal event it was the queen turning up to open a building.

[Vaati 11]

She's just gone up Hanover Way with the escort.

[lawsom34 10]

Not that old chestnut again!

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1986%2F12%2F02%2Fscience%2Fmajor-personality-study-finds-that-traits-are-mostly-inherited.html&ei=F-kbVaagLcLC7gawlICoAg&usg=AFQjCNFL4Qe-tK9tsgzFQK96mtU-FdVx-w&bvm=bv.89744112,d.ZGU

 

Explain why the UK had a tourist visitor total of 31.2 million with a monarchy, whilst Germany got 31.5 million and France - the most visited country in the world - got 84.7 million without either having one?

 

Do you think that every single one of our 31.2 million visitors got to actually see the queen or one of her family?

 

Because unless you do think that then it would indicate that royalty have very little influence on our visitor numbers wouldn't it?

 

Who knows, if tourists could actually gain access and have a guided tour around all the royal palaces we may get more visitors.

 

Which together with the saving on royal expenditure would see us quids in, wouldn't it?

 

Nice figures but when you take into account that France is 2 3/4 times bigger than UK and Germany is 1 1/2 times bigger your figures actually stack up in the favour of the Monarchy. God bless the Queen.

[Blue Day 10]

Nice figures but when you take into account that France is 2 3/4 times bigger than UK and Germany is 1 1/2 times bigger your figures actually stack up in the favour of the Monarchy. God bless the Queen.

 

*THUMBS UP*

[mjw47 10]

Nice figures but when you take into account that France is 2 3/4 times bigger than UK and Germany is 1 1/2 times bigger your figures actually stack up in the favour of the Monarchy. God bless the Queen.

 

So it's all about the size of the country?

 

People look at an atlas and go " Ooh look at the Size of that country " we must go there!

 

 

How do you manage to explain that although France attracts more tourists than any other country in the world it is only the 42nd largest country?

 

It has been my experience that royalists aren't very good at logic, how could they be, they are in favour of retaining a completely illogical anachronistic institution well past it's sell by date?

 

Clinging on to garbage such as " they bring in millions in tourist revenue " is all they can think of as a justification for Ruritanian nonsense.

 

As I already said in an earlier post, of the 32.1 million visitors we had in 2013 how many of them got to see the queen or a member of her family?

 

No more than a few thousand or so I would guess, because if it was any more there would have been huge crowd problems and we'd have heard about it, wouldn't we?

[Vegas1 10]

How do you manage to explain that although France attracts more tourists than any other country in the world it is only the 42nd largest country?

 

Well, because they have:

 

- Paris

- The Alps

- The French Riviera...

 

..to name but three very tourist-intensive locations.

 

Kazakhstan is huge. That doesnt have much tourism at all because there is naff all there.

 

Have you considered how many of the 32m tourists to Britain wouldnt come if we had no royalty (or history relating to it)? OK its not going to be all of them but I would wager a significant number.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Vegas1

[evil woman 10]

Well, because they have:

 

- Paris

- The Alps

- The French Riviera...

 

..to name but three very tourist-intensive locations.

 

Kazakhstan is huge. That doesnt have much tourism at all.

 

Have you considered how many of the 32m tourists to Britain wouldnt come if we had no royalty (or history relating to it)? OK its not going to be all of them but I would wager a significant number.

 

But South Yorkshire doesn't have the queen living here and we are awash with tourists.

[Vegas1 10]

But South Yorkshire doesn't have the queen living here and we are awash with tourists.

 

Well,we aren't. Cant work out if you are being sarcastic or not.

[denlin 12]

That wasn't a royal event it was the queen turning up to open a building.

 

What is the difference, silly buggers lined the streets on both occasions and what was the Royal Event 950 years ago anyway?

[mjw47 10]

Well, because they have:

 

- Paris

- The Alps

- The French Riviera...

 

..to name but three very tourist-intensive locations.

 

Kazakhstan is huge. That doesnt have much tourism at all because there is naff all there.

 

Have you considered how many of the 32m tourists to Britain wouldnt come if we had no royalty (or history relating to it)? OK its not going to be all of them but I would wager a significant number.

 

Are you being serious?

 

London, York, Oxford, Cambridge, The Lakes, Scotland, the Yorkshire Dales, Snowdonia?

 

How many visitors to this country actually see the queen or any of the rest of them for that matter?

 

If they don't see them in the flesh then it can't have been the only - or even a main - reason for their visit can it?

 

As for ( or history relating to it ) what do you think we're proposing?

 

Get rid of the monarchy and knock down all the castles and palaces?

 

We've got the history, and we would then be able to allow visitors to actually walk around inside these places, chances are we'd get more tourists.

 

And the buildings would belong to the nation, as opposed to the present arrangement whereby the crown is the ultimate owner of all the land in the country, including the bit your house stands on, whether or not it's freehold and you think it's yours.

[Vegas1 10]

Where did I say they were coming to "see the queen"?

 

I assume you have done some research then, so please tell us how many tourists would no longer visit if we had no current monarchy.

 

Think I read somewhere that the monarchy costs the taxpayer something stupid like 50p a year

 

Ah yes, here it is:

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1289418/royal-family-costs-taxpayer-56p-per-person

 

Hardly a lot, is it?

[Alan Ladd 10]

Keeping the royal family costs more than the tourism brings in..

 

it's not only the day to day runnings of the palace and other residencies, but re-routing traffic and closing off roads during events, security and road closures for royal visits across the country etc, blah blah blah.. think about it all and add it together i'm sure it'll come to way more than the tourism actually brings in...

 

Oh cheer up, what would you prefer some anonymous president? or maybe Obama, perhaps tony Blair would come out of retirement to represent us.

 

Anyway your maths are wrong google it im sure they are good value for money.

 

You are British, at least you live here, enjoy what youve got.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 12:59 ----------

 

But South Yorkshire doesn't have the queen living here and we are awash with tourists.

 

Im a royalist but you are right, I've noticed many Romanians and Bulgarians enjoying the sights, maybe we should dredge the Don so we can cruise liners into Darnall.