[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Noble_giraffe

I would really like to know what Kate has done to offend and get so many people's backs up.
She represents Britain, as do all the royal family and they bring in a lot of money in tourism for this country.
I can assure you that the money Kate has pulled in from tourists and us Brits alike buying merchandise and tickets to the palaces far outweighs the alleged "35000" that was spent on her outfits.
I'm sure if Kate was dressing in Primark people would be slating her for not making an effort, so she is damned if she does and damned if she don't.
For what it's worth I would hate to have so many people scrutinise my every move and sure lots of people agree. I admire her alone for dealing with that stress.

There is nothing to back up this assertion. There is no proof that the Windsors bring in more tourist moola than they cost the country. In fact, the evidence collated by VisitLondon suggests that they are not a significant factor in British tourism.

[Noble_giraffe]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

There is nothing to back up this assertion. There is no proof that the Windsors bring in more tourist moola than they cost the country. In fact, the evidence collated by VisitLondon suggests that they are not a significant factor in British tourism.

Just the money that they generate in international media coverage is worth millions alone. The royal coat of arms also endorses many company's products, which in turn brings up the income for these businesses. The businesses that have this royal patronage are both large and small companies by the way.
It was estimated that the Queen's jubilee was estimated to bring in around 924 million pounds for the tourist and leisure industry alone.

Various articles to back this up, but cant be bothered to look for them all. http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...y-pay-its-way/
For what it's worth I am in no way a Royalist.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Noble_giraffe

Just the money that they generate in international media coverage is worth millions alone. The royal coat of arms also endorses many company's products, which in turn brings up the income for these businesses. The businesses that have this royal patronage are both large and small companies by the way.
It was estimated that the Queen's jubilee was estimated to bring in around 924 million pounds for the tourist and leisure industry alone.

Various articles to back this up, but cant be bothered to look for them all. http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...y-pay-its-way/
For what it's worth I am in no way a Royalist.

A very flawed article which seems to be making a lot of whopping claims with absolutely no evidence. For example, how is 'media coverage' worth millions to the British economy? Would media interest in the Windsor soap opera disappear if they no longer had the 'royal' tag? The Jubilee, like the royal wedding, was predicted to boost the economy, but the reality of extra bank holidays ultimately seems to be detrimental:

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/artic...economy/528004

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9730...amond_Jubilee/

Re: the article itself, how are sweeping statements like "Just the media coverage they generate internationally is worth hundreds of millions in free publicity for the country. For companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms these are powerful tools for changing people’s perceptions" justified? Similarly: "Haigh reckons such schemes are worth £4.4 billion to British brands alone. An extra help for the myriad of businesses, small and large, which enjoy royal patronage and endorsement.

Brand Finance places the monarchy’s intangible value at £26 billion, and the tangible benefit attributed to the Queen and her royal retinue at £18 billion."

How on earth are these figures arrived at? They just seem to have been conjured up. The problem with financial arguments for and against the monarchy is that the institution lacks transparency - we don't know how much the royals cost us and so neither republicans nor monarchists can back up claims about the cost of the royals. We're groping in the dark, thanks to the monarchy's own secrecy and exemption from the FOI Act.

[neo_wales]

Accounting web and the Daily Echo, top notch sources lol.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by neo_wales

Accounting web and the Daily Echo, top notch sources lol.

Perhaps you should learn to refute content rather than sources. If you can.

[emma555]

I don't see how Pippa can be viewed as a leech, when Kate is her sister, and of course she's going to attend events with her and go to parties if she is invited. I wouldn't mind if she was some distant cousin that turned up out of nowhere, but it's her sister, people! And forum members are criticising the Daily Mail commentators.

[halloweenbabe]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

The Duchy of Cornwall is a parcel of land separated from the Crown Estates (which belong to the Crown, not the Windsors) to provide income for whoever happens to be the Prince of Wales. This was arranged several hundred years ago. If we were a republic, I very much doubt that swathes of land would be used as a money-spinner for the Head of State's eldest child (or his/her grand-son's wife).

Of course, a non-inherited HoS wouldn't need their child to be financially supported.

I agree it must be difficult to ascertain what income (tourist $ and otherwise) is generated for the UK by the fact we still have a living royalty who have several properties and lotsa 'pomp & circumstance' to go see. A lot of the tourists will see properties (Tower of London) which have been around for decades and would still go see even if the Royalty stopped tomnorrow.

However, I have heard some huge figures talked about the cost of the Amercian President... in excess of $1 bn a year. No idea what the breakdown of that is.

Now is Obama - his predecsessors and those yet to come - a tourist draw? In the same way that the Royal family & all its properties are?

Interesting point doncha know

For my money - and I believe the per capita expense of the Royals is well less than £1 per person - I think, on balance, they are well worth the dosh, and cost-effective to boot... esp when you consider that they do not sit there with the hand hovering over the 'blow them all the hell' red button

[funlovingirl]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

There is nothing to back up this assertion. There is no proof that the Windsors bring in more tourist moola than they cost the country. In fact, the evidence collated by VisitLondon suggests that they are not a significant factor in British tourism.

I agree with what you have said here. IMO I don't think that the royals bring in the tourists. The tourists come to see the landmarks, not the Royal family.

France is the most visited country in the world and they have no royal family.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by halloweenbabe

Of course, a non-inherited HoS wouldn't need their child to be financially supported.

I agree it must be difficult to ascertain what income (tourist $ and otherwise) is generated for the UK by the fact we still have a living royalty who have several properties and lotsa 'pomp & circumstance' to go see. A lot of the tourists will see properties (Tower of London) which have been around for decades and would still go see even if the Royalty stopped tomnorrow.

However, I have heard some huge figures talked about the cost of the Amercian President... in excess of $1 bn a year. No idea what the breakdown of that is.

Now is Obama - his predecsessors and those yet to come - a tourist draw? In the same way that the Royal family & all its properties are?

Interesting point doncha know

For my money - and I believe the per capita expense of the Royals is well less than £1 per person - I think, on balance, they are well worth the dosh, and cost-effective to boot... esp when you consider that they do not sit there with the hand hovering over the 'blow them all the hell' red button

Yes, the American HoS is expensive. The Irish and German Heads of State are, however, significantly cheaper than our royal family. Not many republicans would want an all-powerful executive President, but rather one with reserve power. The fact is that people come to Britain (not just London) because of our history, culture, architecture and arts; not because we have a 'live' royal family. In fact, Buckingham Palace doesn't even make the grade as a top 20 London venue at the moment - that might change if it was fully opened up to the public. Similarly, the 'royal collection' which is currently 'held in trust' for the nation ought to be distributed to museums throughout the country.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by funlovingirl

I agree with what you have said here. IMO I don't think that the royals bring in the tourists. The tourists come to see the landmarks, not the Royal family.

France is the most visited country in the world and they have no royal family.

Thank you - indeed, I'm sure more tourists would flock to Britain than currently do if they had full access to every courtyard, gallery and chamber that is currently Windsor-only territory. It's funny how people seem to think that the Windsors are necessary tourist-draws; are they somehow more of a draw than Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands? I don't see many people claiming that they go to Amsterdam because of her.

[Big Boy Barry]

One thing you need to understand is that online in particular, there's a backlash against everything.

[Leicester_Hunk]

In the Mail today they said that Kate and Pippa were making catty comments about Roger Federer's wife being fat at Wimbledon yesterday.

[neo_wales]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Thank you - indeed, I'm sure more tourists would flock to Britain than currently do if they had full access to every courtyard, gallery and chamber that is currently Windsor-only territory. It's funny how people seem to think that the Windsors are necessary tourist-draws; are they somehow more of a draw than Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands? I don't see many people claiming that they go to Amsterdam because of her.

And why would they? They are nothing compared to our Royal Family

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by neo_wales

And why would they? They are nothing compared to our Royal Family

In what way? Are they less dysfunctional? Are they less intrusive in politics? Do they make more or less diplomatic gaffes?

[Honestweegie]

Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk

In the Mail today they said that Kate and Pippa were making catty comments about Roger Federer's wife being fat at Wimbledon yesterday.

Well you will read the Mail

Another thing tho, why was Pippa in the royal box. Kate was supposed to be in the royal box with the queen who had to cancel, howver that shouldnt make Pippa the next in line

[Unigal07]

Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk

In the Mail today they said that Kate and Pippa were making catty comments about Roger Federer's wife being fat at Wimbledon yesterday.

Only The Sun is lower than the Daily Mail.

[Joey Boswell]

Originally Posted by Honestweegie

Well you will read the Mail

Another thing tho, why was Pippa in the royal box. Kate was supposed to be in the royal box with the queen who had to cancel, howver that shouldnt make Pippa the next in line

I would have confined Pippa to watch the match with the commoners, no room in the box for her.

[C14E]

They put out a list of charity stuff recently - the problem she has there is that everything she does will be compared to Diana. Do too much or show up in Africa suddenly and people will criticise her. But if she doesn't then she's not picking worthy causes etc.

With the clothes, she seems to have got it right. There are occasions where I would expect that the future Queen shows up in something a bit fancy rather than popping down to Topshop (no offence Sir Phil). Again, she can't win.

Originally Posted by Honestweegie

Well you will read the Mail

Another thing tho, why was Pippa in the royal box. Kate was supposed to be in the royal box with the queen who had to cancel, howver that shouldnt make Pippa the next in line

Because she's her sister?! It would be a bit odd if Kate showed up, sat at the front of the Royal box and her sister was sitting out on the hill! If I can take a +1 to a wedding then I'm sure Kate can take a +1 to Wimbledon!

[hooter]

Originally Posted by Nyota

I really like Kate.

It's her sister I can't stand, although to be fair the media obsession with her seems to have died down lately.

Thank goodness for that...given time her bum will drop anyways

[Honestweegie]

Originally Posted by C14E

Because she's her sister?! It would be a bit odd if Kate showed up, sat at the front of the Royal box and her sister was sitting out on the hill! If I can take a +1 to a wedding then I'm sure Kate can take a +1 to Wimbledon!

why would it be odd, i dont remember Dianas sisters freeloading in the way the middletons do

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Honestweegie

why would it be odd, i dont remember Dianas sisters freeloading in the way the middletons do

Whilst I can't stand the sight of Pippa Middleton purely due to media overexposure, surely people don't object to her sitting in a certain box at a tennis match? Do people still buy into the belief that royals are somehow innately superior and deserving of things us commoners should - by virtue of birth - know our place and not be presumptuous enough to go near?

[guffybear]

Originally Posted by C14E

With the clothes, she seems to have got it right. !

you must be joking she dresses like someone twice her age

most 30 year olds would be going to a tennis game in t shirt and shorts or jeans

[C14E]

Originally Posted by guffybear

you must be joking she dresses like someone twice her age

most 30 year olds would be going to a tennis game in t shirt and shorts or jeans

She'd not have got into the Royal Box if she showed up in a t shirt and shorts!

[C14E]

Do the people that object to Kate bringing her sister also object to David Cameron bringing his mother? Should mummy Cameron have been sitting outside on the hill with Pippa?

[Stella28]

Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk

In the Mail today they said that Kate and Pippa were making catty comments about Roger Federer's wife being fat at Wimbledon yesterday.

I've read that on several other websites as well. If it's true than she's gone way down in my estimations.
They're probably jealous because Mirka's married to the super handsome gorgeous Roger.
I know Kate's married to a prince, but he's the same age as Roger and looks about 50 in comparison. And he doesn't have Rogers lovely hair.
I know who I'd rather be married to.