Strange question. I simply pointed out there was other information available, and it wasn't hard to find. Are people too lazy to do it for themselves?.
What is strange about it? You got snotty about the other person providing a source to validate their comments, and after you dismissed it as biased and incorrect, refused the request to provide evidence of your own.
Nor does the 56p (or whatever) per person nonsense. Like I said - transparency and accountability would be good, but both are sadly lacking. These people consider themselves to be entirely entitled and above the law. Nasty stuff.
What is strange about it? You got snotty about the other person providing a source to validate their comments, and after you dismissed it as biased and incorrect, refused the request to provide evidence of your own.
I pointed out that the study had incomplete information that might have missed a few valid incomes. Not dismiss it. That would be stupid as most of the information is correct.
Then I pointed out there might be a possible reason for missing the information out. Perfectly valid, but no attempt to make anything of it.
And then I pointed out it was easy to find further information. No problem there either. As I wasn't arguing but just pointing out a fact that can be shown in seconds, I had no need to 'provide evidence of my own' to support anything. Anyone could use a bit of effort to find out more if they were actually interested.
I pointed out that the study had incomplete information that might have missed a few valid incomes. Not dismiss it. That would be stupid as most of the information is correct.
Then I pointed out there might be a possible reason for missing the information out. Perfectly valid, but no attempt to make anything of it.
And then I pointed out it was easy to find further information. No problem there either. As I wasn't arguing but just pointing out a fact that can be shown in seconds, I had no need to 'provide evidence of my own' to support anything. Anyone could use a bit of effort to find out more if they were actually interested.
I don't even know where to look to, as you say, add "the income to the nation of foreign tourism etc etc to the balance sheet." What figures have you seen and where?
Try typing 'income from Royal Family', which gives you the details of what gets missed over a number of articles.
If you type 'tourist payments from Royal Family' you'll get the argument as to what that might be worth from both sides.
Whilst you're there, look for details of lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. That'll show you that the quoted workings out for the RF costing £300k+ annually includes rather a lot of 'lost revenue', not actual costs.
Not a standard practice when costing. On that basis, pretty well everyone in the country would be calculated as a financial liability because you don't work at your peak capacity and the lost revenue exceeds your salary.
Try typing 'income from Royal Family', which gives you the details of what gets missed over a number of articles.
If you type 'tourist payments from Royal Family' you'll get the argument as to what that might be worth from both sides.
I've done both and I can't see any proper figures - it would be helpful if you showed which particular links impressed you.
Whilst you're there, look for details of lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. That'll show you that the quoted workings out for the RF costing £300k+ annually includes rather a lot of 'lost revenue', not actual costs.
Not a standard practice when costing. On that basis, pretty well everyone in the country would be calculated as a financial liability because you don't work at your peak capacity and the lost revenue exceeds your salary.
Lost revenue is still lost revenue, but my point wasn't that this was a definitive figure, rather that what is constantly repeated by monarchists isn't factual. Until we get transparency from these people - and for some strange reason the Windsors are incredibly against it - then no one will know for sure what the real costs are.
56p, £5.60, whatever it is I'm not bothered. They're good value for money. Phil alone deserves it for the comedy gold he's come out with over the years!:D
Then as I have been saying lets privatise them like we do other profitable enterprises. The Monarchy can live off this tourism income even more splendidly than they do already and it will not cost the country a penny.
Win win all round.
If the Monarchy lived of all the money they generate through tourism then you would be paying more taxes so not so much a win win but you pay more more :cool:
If the Monarchy lived of all the money they generate through tourism then you would be paying more taxes so not so much a win win but you pay more more :cool:
Fine by me so long as they can show it is an income source that only exists because the Monarchy exists. Can you quantify any such source? Speculation is interesting but balance sheets depend on facts.
56p, £5.60, whatever it is I'm not bothered. They're good value for money. Phil alone deserves it for the comedy gold he's come out with over the years!:D
Many such wits are happy to bore the rest of us with their prejudices for free. Phil could at least do the same. It is not like he needs the cash.
If the Monarchy lived of all the money they generate through tourism then you would be paying more taxes so not so much a win win but you pay more more :cool:
I think the artefacts and history of Monarchy attract tourism rather than the Royal family itself and they belong to the nation. Unless tourists think they'll be invited for tea and scones from the tupperware box with Maj and Phil.
I think the artefacts and history of Monarchy attract tourism rather than the Royal family itself and they belong to the nation. Unless tourists think they'll be invited for tea and scones from the tupperware box with Maj and Phil.
Tourists wouldn't come if there was no actual Royals, :cool:
Fine by me so long as they can show it is an income source that only exists because the Monarchy exists. Can you quantify any such source? Speculation is interesting but balance sheets depend on facts.
Must admit the dark glasses suit you though.
:cool: it has been shown many times you should google it :cool:
:cool: it has been shown many times you should google it :cool:
One can google but the results just link to opinion and speculation. Unless you can cite something more substantive of course. That would be interesting.
I think the artefacts and history of Monarchy attract tourism rather than the Royal family
There wouldn't be much of a history of the monarchy without the monarchy! For how many years do think tourists would continue to have a look at 10 Downing Street if it was no longer the PM's residence? (And has been turned into a homeless hostel.)
The fact that we have a real, living monarchy must be an extra attraction, especially with a chance of glimpsing the incumbents themselves. Even the hangers-on.
(BTW I wonder what becoming a republic would actually cost? It would have to involve renaming the United Kingdom to the United Republic or some such name, and reprinting/reminting all the money. Probably pub names can stay the same, but we'd need a new national anthem. It's intriguing but it doesn't sound cheap.)
There wouldn't be much of a history of the monarchy without the monarchy! For how many years do think tourists would continue to have a look at 10 Downing Street if it was no longer the PM's residence? (And has been turned into a homeless hostel.)
The fact that we have a real, living monarchy must be an extra attraction, especially with a chance of glimpsing the incumbents themselves. Even the hangers-on.
(BTW I wonder what becoming a republic would actually cost? It would have to involve renaming the United Kingdom to the United Republic or some such name, and reprinting/reminting all the money. Probably pub names can stay the same, but we'd need a new national anthem. It's intriguing but it doesn't sound cheap.)
The continued popularity of ex-Royal establishments like Hampton Court and the Tower of London should reassure you. I think the Tower remains among the most popular tourist attractions, if not the most popular.
Comments
What is strange about it? You got snotty about the other person providing a source to validate their comments, and after you dismissed it as biased and incorrect, refused the request to provide evidence of your own.
Indeed.
Yet all your arguments seem to be exclusively about the revenue the Royal Family generates and why it is great for the UK economy.
What other argument have you presented?
Then I pointed out there might be a possible reason for missing the information out. Perfectly valid, but no attempt to make anything of it.
And then I pointed out it was easy to find further information. No problem there either. As I wasn't arguing but just pointing out a fact that can be shown in seconds, I had no need to 'provide evidence of my own' to support anything. Anyone could use a bit of effort to find out more if they were actually interested.
I don't even know where to look to, as you say, add "the income to the nation of foreign tourism etc etc to the balance sheet." What figures have you seen and where?
If you type 'tourist payments from Royal Family' you'll get the argument as to what that might be worth from both sides.
Whilst you're there, look for details of lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. That'll show you that the quoted workings out for the RF costing £300k+ annually includes rather a lot of 'lost revenue', not actual costs.
Not a standard practice when costing. On that basis, pretty well everyone in the country would be calculated as a financial liability because you don't work at your peak capacity and the lost revenue exceeds your salary.
Smug? ;-) I would say self-confident. Still, each to their own!!
I've done both and I can't see any proper figures - it would be helpful if you showed which particular links impressed you.
Lost revenue is still lost revenue, but my point wasn't that this was a definitive figure, rather that what is constantly repeated by monarchists isn't factual. Until we get transparency from these people - and for some strange reason the Windsors are incredibly against it - then no one will know for sure what the real costs are.
If the Monarchy lived of all the money they generate through tourism then you would be paying more taxes so not so much a win win but you pay more more :cool:
Fine by me so long as they can show it is an income source that only exists because the Monarchy exists. Can you quantify any such source? Speculation is interesting but balance sheets depend on facts.
Must admit the dark glasses suit you though.
Many such wits are happy to bore the rest of us with their prejudices for free. Phil could at least do the same. It is not like he needs the cash.
I think the artefacts and history of Monarchy attract tourism rather than the Royal family itself and they belong to the nation. Unless tourists think they'll be invited for tea and scones from the tupperware box with Maj and Phil.
Well said. He's just one horrible, ignorant and over privileged twerp.
Tourists wouldn't come if there was no actual Royals, :cool:
I really doubt that. Do you visit countries with Royalty for that reason?:cool: MM I like this look:cool::D
:cool: it has been shown many times you should google it :cool:
No I go to other countries because they have other things of interest UK happens to be Royals :cool:
Why else would anyone come here ?
One can google but the results just link to opinion and speculation. Unless you can cite something more substantive of course. That would be interesting.
Oh dear. Houston we have a problem :cool::D
I suspect the Queen would disagree with you. At least I hope she would.
There wouldn't be much of a history of the monarchy without the monarchy! For how many years do think tourists would continue to have a look at 10 Downing Street if it was no longer the PM's residence? (And has been turned into a homeless hostel.)
The fact that we have a real, living monarchy must be an extra attraction, especially with a chance of glimpsing the incumbents themselves. Even the hangers-on.
(BTW I wonder what becoming a republic would actually cost? It would have to involve renaming the United Kingdom to the United Republic or some such name, and reprinting/reminting all the money. Probably pub names can stay the same, but we'd need a new national anthem. It's intriguing but it doesn't sound cheap.)
Possibly
The continued popularity of ex-Royal establishments like Hampton Court and the Tower of London should reassure you. I think the Tower remains among the most popular tourist attractions, if not the most popular.