Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

£369,000,000 to refurbish Buckingham Palace

2456

Comments

  • #32
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Ahh but it's the Royal family in England that draws the tourists, it's a lot more than just Buckingham palace!
    Sure then they don't need the palaces, castles and numerous estates if that's the case!


  • #33
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,207 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    One's gaff needs a makeover. Children in Need on BBC tonight. Brit Twitter in meltdown.

    I can see the logic of keeping the place functioning though: the monarchy is a serious tourist draw and the Windsors have done a good job marketing their product. I've been through BP twice on the tours and you can see parts are in pretty poor nick. On balance, if they're keeping the monarchy they need the stage.

    What have children in need got to do with this?


  • #34
    BsBox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91 ✭✭BsBox


    murpho999 wrote: »
    How? What income? How can you say this?

    "The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained" - CGP Grey


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

    How do republics attract tourists then?

    They may attract tourists to their country.
    The Royal family means they attract even more


  • #36
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Do you really think tourists wouldn't go to Britain without the monarchy?

    How do republics attract tourists then?

    Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

    Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,207 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

    Can they not pay for it themselves?

    Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.


  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

    Can they not pay for it themselves?

    Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.

    Why do you care?
    Unless your an English tax payer?


  • #39
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They may attract tourists to their country.
    The Royal family means they attract even more
    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

    Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners

    If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

    The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.


  • #40
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,207 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why do you care?
    Unless your an English tax payer?

    you're

    I don't care. What makes you think I do?

    Is it not reasonable to ask why a Monarch couldn't afford the upkeep of their house?

    Why are you so defensive?


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    murpho999 wrote: »
    If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

    The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.

    So tourists visit other countries?
    Wow,
    Never....
    The point is that the Royal family do attract tourists. I don't see why you would try to deny that?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Tourism can be used to justify almost anything..

    Can they not pay for it themselves?

    Maybe sell some of those tracts of land that they've been hoarding for centuries.

    Because it isn't their house.


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lawred2 wrote: »
    you're

    I don't care. What makes you think I do?

    Is it not reasonable to ask why a Monarch couldn't afford the upkeep of their house?

    Why are you so defensive?

    I'm not defensive at all!
    I couldn't care less how much it costs to refurb the palace, I won't be paying for it. And I don't care if the Royal family or the British tax payer pay for it.
    Who cares who pays


  • #44
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    Where did I say that tourists ONLY go to Britain because of the monarchy? A huge amount do, however, go to see the buildings and the ceremonies.

    Republics attract tourists by promoting their own best features which are of interest to foreigners
    Are you saying tourists would choose NOT to go to Britain (in significant numbers) if there wasn't a monarchy?


  • #45
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    murpho999 wrote: »
    If they didn't have a monarchy they would have other things to attract tourists.

    The world's most visited country is France , a republic. So the argument is bogus.

    So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??

    Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions


  • #46
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    bubblypop wrote: »
    So tourists visit other countries?
    Wow,
    Never....
    The point is that the Royal family do attract tourists. I don't see why you would try to deny that?

    Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

    It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.


  • #47
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Are you saying tourists would choose NOT to go to Britain (in significant numbers) if there wasn't a monarchy?

    Yes


  • #48
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??

    Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions

    No. I'm saying not having a monarchy has not reduced it's tourism numbers.

    I don't see it as correct the queen is a billionaire but it's ok as she apparently attracts tourists but this is not really provable.


  • #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

    It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.

    I don't believe that's true, there's many many tourists that visit England because Of The monarchy.
    Those tourists wouldn't visit if the Royals didn't exist


  • #50
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Because they would still go if they didn't exist.

    It's like saying the American president attracts tourists to see the White House.

    He does. People don't go to the White House because of the architecture & landscaping. They go because it is where the president of USA is based it's where he makes decisions which have an effect on most of the free world.


  • #51
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    murpho999 wrote: »
    No. I'm saying not having a monarchy has not reduced it's tourism numbers.
    .

    But you don't know if a current monarchy occupying the royal buildings in France wouldn't double their tourist numbers.

    The vast numbers of people who attend the changing of the guard, Edinburgh Tattoo, royal weddings, queens birthday etc speak for themselves. Windsor Inc. is a thriving business


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I don't believe that's true, there's many many tourists that visit England because Of The monarchy.
    Those tourists wouldn't visit if the Royals didn't exist
    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    He does. People don't go to the White House because of the architecture & landscaping. They go because it is where the president of USA is based it's where he makes decisions which have an effect on most of the free world.

    My point is that whatever system countries use ; if they have nice iconic architectural structures that go with their role then it will attract tourists rather than the position itself.

    Been to the UK plenty of times and there is loads to see there that is nothing to do with the monarchy.


  • #53
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    So you're saying that France is the World's most visited country BECAUSE it is a Republic??
    Actually, that is what your logic suggests.
    Britain's monarchy (buildings, pomp & ceremony) attract a huge amount of tourists who might choose a different location to go to if they weren't there. Either that or they add greatly to the overall 'experience' for tourists who go for other attractions
    You do know that those can all exist without a monarchy. The Tower of London hasn't been used as a royal residence or prison for many years now, yet is one of the top attractions in Britain, and is actually probably one of the few with a royal link.


  • #54
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,207 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Because it isn't their house.

    the crown estates...

    nowadays we'd call that a shell corporation


  • #55
    Edups
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭Edups


    "They say Fagan drank half a bottle of wine before leaving."

    He's a fagan right enough.


  • #56
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    You do know that those can all exist without a monarchy. The Tower of London hasn't been used as a royal residence or prison for many years now, yet is one of the top attractions in Britain, and is actually probably one of the few with a royal link.

    What I am saying is the package that is the royal family (buildings and people) attract vast numbers of EXTRA tourists to Britain. Huge numbers go to see the buildings only, huge numbers go to see the prancing & dancing only and huge numbers go to see both.


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They may attract tourists to their country.
    The Royal family means they attract even more

    Curiously, then, the republic that is France receives far and away more tourists than any country on the planet, and in 2015 received almost three times the number of tourists that Britain received.

    Other royalist cult free countries receiving far more tourists than Britain include the republics of Italy, Germany and the United States. Except for a few touched Hyacinth types nobody believes this nonsense that keeping these parasites in privilege is essential to British tourism.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Curiously, then, the republic that is France receives far and away more tourists than any country on the planet, and in 2015 received almost three times the number of tourists that Britain received.

    Other royalist cult free countries receiving far more tourists than Britain include the republics of Italy, Germany and the United States. Except for a few touched Hyacinth types nobody believes this nonsense that keeping these parasites in privilege is essential to British tourism.

    All that proves is that tourists prefer to visit other countries. Doesn't say anything about the royals.
    Where would you rather visit, England or Italy?
    England or USA?
    As countries go I'd rather visit a lot of other places, but not because there's a Royal family in England, just cos I'd prefer other countries.


  • #59
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Palace of Versailles brings in a lot of tourism (and more visitors than Buckingham Palace). Do they need a heir of Louis XVI to keep things going?

    Very interesting. BH would be tourist draw even if the monarchy was gone. Would the monarchy be a tourist draw if they lived in a semi d in Dagenham and cycled everywhere?


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Been to the UK plenty of times and there is loads to see there that is nothing to do with the monarchy.

    Yep, me too. Lots of other things.
    However, millions of Asians in particular visit because Of The Royal family.
    Americans too


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    The monarchy is the greatest scam going in the UK.


Advertisement
Advertisement