The Royal Wedding 2018

[bramling]

Why anyone would camp out in Windsor for hours in the hope of catching a glimpse of a celebrity or the wave of a gloved hand speeding passed is beyond me. Don’t they have better things to do?!

I can only assume most of them were yanks - they lap that kind of thing up. Especially as the Windsor soap opera now features Meghan’s Hollywood smile.

The soap opera analogy is sadly quite resonant. Many of my hobbies appear to be regarded as sad, yet I completely fail to understand why anyone would camp for days to watch a couple get married.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Right lets take the Tourism issue, the Royal wedding cost an estimated £30 million and had an estimated Worldwide TV audience of around 1.8 billion, your not telling me that wasn't a good advert for the UK and not generate interest in visiting the UK, especially from the Americans, if it increases Tourism from the US by 2% or get the existing level of US Tourists to spend an extra £20 per head in the UK it will more than pay for itself. Yes people would still visit the UK without the Monarchy but I think there would be less interest and less awareness in the Country, but at the end it is very subjective as to why Tourists visit regardless of any Survey.

In terms of the General Principal of the Head of State for the country, I am no ardent Monarchist by any means I think there is an argument to suggest those that are not in immediate line to the throne shouldn't carry out Royal Duties and have some element of Downsizing, but I see no reason to change the Head of State at this time, a non Political head of state who more than likely will be an ex Politician will still attract significant cost, and probably attract less interest in both the UK and around the world.

No not everyone who wants to get rid of the Monarchy are envy driven Socialists but a lot are, and it strikes that if you are a True Socialist then the idea of a Monarchy is somewhat incompatible to your beliefs, but then a lot of Socialists are usually extreme hypocrites who are socialist when it suits them, which is one of the many reason why I despise such people, you also seem to make out I am some raving Tory, yet at the age 56 the last election was the first time I voted Tory thanks to Corbyn Labour.

Now we're getting somewhere in this discussion! It is true that it is very subjective to why tourists would visit the UK, but that doesn't strictly support the notion of the monarchy being a major contributing factor. Fact of the matter is there's no real way to tell at this point just how much of an influence it has. As some have argued though, the Royal Family may benefit London more than it does anyone else really, but much of the interest in the UK seems to come from it's museums, shopping, landscape etc., and the Americans aren't really reflective of world tourists. Not to mention, they probably take interest in Britain merely because of similar culture and same language. They see us as their natural allies, and in some cases vice versa. Unfortunately though for them, we do not have tea with the Queen watching cricket every Sunday like some would think.

I would agree that, in principle, a socialist should not support the idea of a monarch given it's stance on equality, but not everyone is so absolutist in their views. For example, despite calling myself a British liberal and believing in freedom of choice for the most part, I don't agree with it absolutely. Sometimes people aren't fit to make the choices such as the grieving parents of sick children in hospitals. This has subject of controversy several times as I'm sure you are aware. I don't mean to make out like you're some kind of raving Tory, and if you were I'd be completely indifferent unless you were trying to shove it down all our throats. As a matter of fact, I don't blame you for not wanting to vote a Corbyn Labour Party since he's a bit of a plant pot himself.

 

[birchesgreen]

France has no royal family yet has more tourism than the UK.

Anyway money should be irrelevant to the question of whom is the head of state, it is a bit small minded to put a price tag on everything eh?

 

[47802]

France has no royal family yet has more tourism than the UK.

Anyway money should be irrelevant to the question of whom is the head of state, it is a bit small minded to put a price tag on everything eh?

You can take view but there is usually a price tag on most things in one way or another.

Just because the French get more Tourists that doesn't mean anything really, the point is we may get less without the Royal Family, the weather is generally better in France particularly the South for starters, and then there is French Ski resorts, French Cuisine and Culture etc, some of which we can not do much about and compete against.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes but what i mean is saying (as some have) we should keep the RF just because of tourism and equally getting rid of them just because of the cost are wrong. The question of whom we have as head of state should be based on more than that.

 

[Bromley boy]

The soap opera analogy is sadly quite resonant. Many of my hobbies appear to be regarded as sad, yet I completely fail to understand why anyone would camp for days to watch a couple get married.

Yes likewise.

I “do” my hobbies (trains and aeroplanes). Both are considered pretty sad, but I enjoy them!

I like to think those of us with interests beyond eating, drinking, fulfilling basic bodily functions etc. are a tad more interesting than those who worship celebrities and live vicariously through them.

 

[Bromley boy]

In terms of the General Principal of the Head of State for the country, I am no ardent Monarchist by any means I think there is an argument to suggest those that are not in immediate line to the throne shouldn't carry out Royal Duties and have some element of Downsizing, but I see no reason to change the Head of State at this time, a non Political head of state who more than likely will be an ex Politician will still attract significant cost, and probably attract less interest in both the UK and around the world.

Indeed.

When you look at the current (democratically elected) head of state in the US you start to realise why they idolise the British royal family.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes but what i mean is saying (as some have) we should keep the RF just because of tourism and equally getting rid of them just because of the cost are wrong. The question of whom we have as head of state should be based on more than that.

I believe every child should grow up with the chance to aspire to be whatever they want to be be that an architect/lawyer/head of state whatever they want. We live in a country where all children are supposed to be equal, clearly the children of the Royals are more important than anyone else’s children.

 

[47802]

Yes but what i mean is saying (as some have) we should keep the RF just because of tourism and equally getting rid of them just because of the cost are wrong. The question of whom we have as head of state should be based on more than that.

Well yes I suppose its a fair enough point, but if there are economic implications why shouldn't you consider them in any decision?

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes but what i mean is saying (as some have) we should keep the RF just because of tourism and equally getting rid of them just because of the cost are wrong. The question of whom we have as head of state should be based on more than that.

I think the point that has been repeatedly made is that the royal family isn’t really a net cost, plus an elected head of state wouldn’t cost any less.

If it ain’t broke...

 

[northwichcat]

Yes but what i mean is saying (as some have) we should keep the RF just because of tourism and equally getting rid of them just because of the cost are wrong. The question of whom we have as head of state should be based on more than that.

It's worth remembering in countries like German and Portugal the most visited tourist attractions include palaces used by former monarchs. Losing the monarchy doesn't lose the tourists, in fact if we were to do it then it might even encourage some former visitors to Britain to come back if the likes of Buckingham Palace were open to the public year round who have previously taken a photo of the outside and seen the changing of the guard ceremony.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the point that has been repeatedly made is that the royal family isn’t really a net cost, plus an elected head of state wouldn’t cost any less.

If it ain’t broke...

If it ain't broke why is Prince Charles talking about significant reform to the Royal Family's finances when he becomes King? Either the system is broken or he's on course to break the system when the current Queen dies.

 

[47802]

I believe every child should grow up with the chance to aspire to be whatever they want to be be that an architect/lawyer/head of state whatever they want. We live in a country where all children are supposed to be equal, clearly the children of the Royals are more important than anyone else’s children.

A idealistic viewpoint which in practise never happens, even in communist Russia I suspect senior party members children were more important than others. yes we should strive to try give every child the best opportunity we can, but the idea that everybody will be equal in every way is just Socialist bull****.

 

[47802]

It's worth remembering in countries like German and Portugal the most visited tourist attractions include palaces used by former monarchs. Losing the monarchy doesn't lose the tourists, in fact if we were to do it then it might even encourage some former visitors to Britain to come back if the likes of Buckingham Palace were open to the public year round who have previously taken a photo of the outside and seen the changing of the guard ceremony.

That may work for so long but I think its debatable, and what about 30+ years down the line when the Monarchy is distant memory?

 

[Bromley boy]

If it ain't broke why is Prince Charles talking about significant reform to the Royal Family's finances when he becomes King? Either the system is broken or he's on course to break the system when the current Queen dies.

Nothing wrong with suggesting modernisation and reform. But that doesn’t mean to say the system is broken.

I don’t think there’s any mainstream political will in favour of abolishing the monarchy - despite the eccentric views posted on here - in fact they are more popular then ever.

Once again the forum reveals itself to be an exceptionally poor barometer of mainstream public opinion!

 

[northwichcat]

That may work for so long but I think its debatable, and what about 30+ years down the line when the Monarchy is distant memory?

You do realise the Portuguese and German monarchies I referred to were already a distant memory 30 years ago, so not really debatable. Don't forget in Canada they still have a public holiday for Queen Victoria's birthday and she died over 100 years ago!

 

[northwichcat]

Nothing wrong with suggesting modernisation and reform. But that doesn’t mean to say the system is broken.

I don’t think there’s any mainstream political will in favour of abolishing the monarchy - despite the eccentric views posted on here - in fact they are more popular then ever.

Once again the forum reveals itself to be an exceptionally poor barometer of mainstream public opinion!

If you take that reasoning with the Royal Family, why are you unable to use that reasoning when talking about the EU or the role of on board train crews?

 

[birchesgreen]

I did just watch the highlights of the wedding (at a gala yesterday), quite good wasn't it?

 

[Bromley boy]

If you take that reasoning with the Royal Family, why are you unable to use that reasoning when talking about the EU or the role of on board train crews?

I look forward to you quoting a post of mine where I have suggested I’m not in favour of modernisation or reform of either.

I also subscribe to the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, but walk away if necessary” viewpoint.

 

[47802]

You do realise the Portuguese and German monarchies I referred to were already a distant memory 30 years ago, so not really debatable. Don't forget in Canada they still have a public holiday for Queen Victoria's birthday and she died over 100 years ago!

Well of course but that's not the point is it, the point is how many people would visit the UK and the former homes of the monarchy if they no longer existed, compared to the real monarchy we have today which in one form or another is published around the world.

 

[northwichcat]

I look forward to you quoting a post of mine where I have suggested I’m not in favour of modernisation or reform of either.

OK but you're clearly against any modernisation of the EU that may result in us not leaving it and everything the EU is responsible for and you're clearly against drivers taking over door and dispatch duties with guards becoming OBS' based on your previous posts.

 

[northwichcat]

Well of course but that's not the point is it, the point is how many people would visit the UK and the former homes of the monarchy if they no longer existed, compared to the real monarchy we have today which in one form or another is published around the world.

Palace of Versailles gets 6m visitors per annum despite not being a monarch's residence since 1789 and the royal family being replaced by a presidency in the 1800s. Buckingham Palace gets 410,000 visitors per annum despite being in a central location in the capital city. Your point being?

 

[Bromley boy]

OK but you're clearly against any modernisation of the EU that may result in us not leaving it and everything the EU is responsible for and you're clearly against drivers taking over door and dispatch duties with guards becoming OBS' based on your previous posts.

On the contrary. If the EU had showed any sign of reforming I would have happily remained. We know what happened when David Cameron went out to try to repatriate powers. He was sent back with his tail between his legs - that sealed my leave vote.

I believe there should be a second member of staff on board trains. The introduction of non safety critical OBS is a step away from that and, in my view, is motivated by a desire to destroy the unions rather than improving things for the passenger.

I did just watch the highlights of the wedding (at a gala yesterday), quite good wasn't it?

Indeed it was. Harry has done well for himself (I didn’t watch the main event but have seen pictures in the press and may watch the highlights later if there’s nothing else on).

I’d have taken one for the team and married her myself at a far less expensive ceremony.

I wasn’t completely sold on her dress, mind you.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of the positive developments has been a sort of reconfiguration of "core Royals" - with Charles taking a direct line with the 2 York daughters , there is no doubt some other good tidying up work to do as to who really does deserve taxpayer subsidy in and around Kensington Palace. The Dutch Royal family , appears to be much respected and without Googling it, seem modest.

Things will certainly change in the next few years as the Elizabethan era draws to a close.

Anyway - as a nation , we did ourselves proud yesterday - the settings , weather and the use of 4 car 165's on the Slough shuttle clearly were outstanding. (plus 40 vehicles an hour into the Riverside with air con stock).....

 

[Dave1987]

A idealistic viewpoint which in practise never happens, even in communist Russia I suspect senior party members children were more important than others. yes we should strive to try give every child the best opportunity we can, but the idea that everybody will be equal in every way is just Socialist bull****.

Wow you are really gunning for this whole everyone who doesn’t love the Royals must be a devout Socialist thing aren’t you. For what it’s worth I’m all for responsible Capitalism. You right wing dogma and attitude shows just what is wrong in this country and why we have so much wrong in this country.

 

[northwichcat]

Bromley boy - don't forget Cameron wasn't acting in the UK's best interests but of those from back benchers in his own party. Blocking eastern Europeans getting benefits unless they've paid NI and having the ability to block Turkey joining were the reforms he wanted and got. You also have made it clear you would not accept reforms now and want to leave at any cost. Anyway this isn't the EU thread.

 

[47802]

Palace of Versailles gets 6m visitors per annum despite not being a monarch's residence since 1789 and the royal family being replaced by a presidency in the 1800s. Buckingham Palace gets 410,000 visitors per annum despite being in a central location in the capital city. Your point being?

that just because Versailles get 6m, I don't see that being of much relevance to the attraction of the UK to visitors and how much they spend either with or without the Royal Family. BP is of course only open a few months a year and takes no account of the probably many millions who walk to the front gates of the palace. I believe Windsor gets about 1.3 million a year and who to say it might get significantly less than that if the Royal Family didn't exist

 

[47802]

Wow you are really gunning for this whole everyone who doesn’t love the Royals must be a devout Socialist thing aren’t you. For what it’s worth I’m all for responsible Capitalism. You right wing dogma and attitude shows just what is wrong in this country and why we have so much wrong in this country.

I'm not going to even dignify that with a response

 

[northwichcat]

that just because Versailles get 6m, I don't see that being of much relevance to the attraction of the UK to visitors and how much they spend either with or without the Royal Family. BP is of course only open a few months a year and takes no account of the probably many millions who walk to the front gates of the palace. I believe Windsor gets about 1.3 million a year and who to say it might get significantly less than that if the Royal Family didn't exist

Why less? Someone living in a home means it can't be fully open to the public all the time. Do you know who Lord Egerton was? His former home is one of the most visited attractions in the North West.

Those who walk past the gates of BP and take a photo then move on to somewhere else. If it wasn't in central London I doubt they'd even bother to walk past for a photo.

 

[47802]

Why less? Someone living in a home means it can't be fully open to the public all the time. Do you know who Lord Egerton was? His former home is one of the most visited attractions in the North West.

Those who walk past the gates of BP and take a photo then move on to somewhere else. If it wasn't in central London I doubt they'd even bother to walk past for a photo.

Well we clearly not going to agree on this but I maintain it can have a significant effect, it keeps the UK in the public eye around the world, the figures for 2011 when William and Kate got married show that there were 800K more visitors to the UK compared with 2010 and OK not all of that will be due to the Royal Wedding but I bet a large chunk of it was, of course the following year 2012 would be difficult to quantify as we had the Olympics.