Westminster Abbey on BBC2

[teamsaint]

Perhaps it is to do with principle, as much as a specific price charged?
as mentioned elsewhere, other "attractions " of national importance are free to visit.

And football prices are absurd, but pretty irrelevant to the discussion, IMO?

[Wolsey]

...as mentioned elsewhere, other "attractions " of national importance are free to visit.

Sorry if I've missed it, but precisely which 'attractions of national importance' (what are the criteria for that label, by the way?) "mentioned elsewhere" are free to visit?

[teamsaint]

Sorry if I've missed it, but precisely which 'attractions of national importance' (what are the criteria for that label, by the way?) "mentioned elsewhere" are free to visit?

Science, natural History, V and A , IWM, Tate, Tate Modern, National Gallery etc etc. A weeks worth there minimum,(probably a month)for nothing !

http://www.londonforfree.net/indoors/museums/museums.shtml

Looks like you got yourself a great cheap day out, Wolsey !!

The national importance thing was just something I threw in, but its fair enough for the ones mentioned I think?

Incidentally, if you missed it up thread (!) the National Gallery (for example) is funded by central government to the tune of approx £25m PA for running costs. I think the figure given for total entrance fees to WA was about £18m. something like 1.2 m visitors at what, £15 per head average?

[teamsaint]

Something occurs to me as a side issue. I was chatting just the other day to a young colleague about visiting Rome or Venice. When I visited both of those cities, I went to almost all of the main tourist attractions, and I can honestly say it was an experience where I didn't feel ripped off. of course there are some entrance charges, Doges Palace, Colisseum, but much is reasonable or free.
I was happy to recommend both of those cities as good places to visit on a modest budget.....

[Wolsey]

Science, natural History, V and A , IWM, Tate, Tate Modern, National Gallery etc etc. A weeks worth there minimum,(probably a month)for nothing !
http://www.londonforfree.net/indoors.../museums.shtml

This argument is going round in circles and heading into a cul de sac. The National Gallery is indeed one of the top six visitor attractions that are funded by central government through the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and consequently has free admission. The next most popular attraction, the Tower of London, is the most popular of the properties maintained by Historic Royal Palaces - an independent charity, and not funded in any way by the government nor the Crown. It has to charge to ensure funds for its upkeep. Next comes Westminster Abbey, and the arguments explaining why it, too, has to charge have already been so well aired. And do the attractions in Rome and Venice you mention receive any state funding?

[teamsaint]

I don't know about funding for attractions in Rome or Venice.
There are various funding models. I am completely in favour of the very successful government funded model for the major museums and Galleries.
Similar funding for our major cathedrals would cost comparative peanuts, and wouldn't risk excluding our own citizens from visiting important parts of their heritage.

[ardcarp]

If you had to categorise Westminster Abbey, would 'visitor attraction' be the box you put it in?

No-one's mentioned the Hawkesmoor faux-gothic twin towers. I've always thought them to be a bit of an abomination. They're out of proportion and designed by an architect out of his (classical) comfort zone. How about using some of the income to restore the Abbey's west end to something like its original appearance? Not likely to happen, I suppose...and it would be a shame to lose the ring o'bells.

[decantor]

And football prices are absurd, but pretty irrelevant to the discussion, IMO?

Irrelevant, ts? You and others have questioned the affordability of the Abbey's entrance fees for those on a tight budget. Yet every weekend about 350,000 citizens pay a higher fee to watch a Premier League match. I suggest, therefore, that it is less a matter of affordability, more a matter of individual prioritisation (unless we conclude that only the well-off attend football matches). And that, I believe, is an issue relevant to the discussion. There will, sadly, still be some excluded on grounds of cost, but the cost of transport is likely to be an even greater deterrent for all those outside the capital.

[Wolsey]

I don't know about funding for attractions in Rome or Venice. There are various funding models. I am completely in favour of the very successful government funded model for the major museums and Galleries. Similar funding for our major cathedrals would cost comparative peanuts, and wouldn't risk excluding our own citizens from visiting important parts of their heritage.

Well, if you are able to devise a government-funded model to accommodate, for peanuts, the 43 cathedrals of the Church of England - and not sideline the 32 churches in the Greater Churches Group as well, I'm sure they'd be grateful for your input. What criteria would earn a building the label of a 'major' cathedral? Westminster Abbey - a royal peculiar and thus outside the diocesan structure - would still have to ensure it can raise the £11 million p.a. it costs to run the place.

[teamsaint]

Irrelevant, ts? You and others have questioned the affordability of the Abbey's entrance fees for those on a tight budget. Yet every weekend about 350,000 citizens pay a higher fee to watch a Premier League match. I suggest, therefore, that it is less a matter of affordability, more a matter of individual prioritisation (unless we conclude that only the well-off attend football matches). And that, I believe, is an issue relevant to the discussion. There will, sadly, still be some excluded on grounds of cost, but the cost of transport is likely to be an even greater deterrent for all those outside the capital.

I did put the question mark. Yes priorities are important. If people regularly pay PL prices, they don't have much room to complain that they can't afford WA, though it would still be reasonable for them to think that WA should be funded from central government...after all, Its at the centre of national life, apparently, something that can't be said of, say, Stamford Bridge. If its sad that people are excluded, why don't we actually do something about it. We can afford it. It doesn't have to be that way.

Unless I have missed it, I still haven't seen good argument for why we should fund The great museums, and not the great churches.

As regards Ardcarp's question about which "box " WA should go in attraction wise? hard to say, but I guess most people go there for the architecture and history, so historic building would be the nearest. TBF, these are usually paid for.....
For all that, the great and the good use the Abbey to conduct their private lives in public . I won't be convinced that we should have to pay big admission fees for the privilege of a little glimpse of OUR heritage. Back to that Unknown Soldier.......

[decantor]

No-one's mentioned the Hawkesmoor faux-gothic twin towers. I've always thought them to be a bit of an abomination. They're out of proportion and designed by an architect out of his (classical) comfort zone. How about using some of the income to restore the Abbey's west end to something like its original appearance? Not likely to happen, I suppose...and it would be a shame to lose the ring o'bells.

The towers are indeed irritatingly out of proportion, but - abomination or not - they are now the international logo of the Abbey, as well known as St Paul's dome or Tower Bridge. And, as you say, there's the big peal. But what's that about "using some of the income....."? Do you believe the Abbey is amassing a substantial surplus? You will know as well as any the costs of running a dedicated choir school, and of raising a full complement for the back row each time - and that's just the music. I doubt they could finance a west-end rebuild out of income. Just your flight of fancy?

Thank you for letting my wallet rest easy pro tem. I do fear the worst now, though perhaps that well-known alto........

[ardcarp]

Just your flight of fancy?

It's the only flight I can afford just now!

[Gabriel Jackson]

Unless I have missed it, I still haven't seen good argument for why we should fund The great museums, and not the great churches.

The sole purpose of museums and galleries is to display art for people to look at. While they may contain great art (and, indeed, be it) the purpose and function of churches is different.

[teamsaint]

The sole purpose of museums and galleries is to display art for people to look at. While they may contain great art (and, indeed, be it) the purpose and function of churches is different.

Yes it is. But they don't charge for that purpose and function. They charge essentially as visitor attractions.

It would just be good if as many people as possible could visit this part of our heritage. The country could afford it. What an excellent way to spend public money, and help attract foreign visitors .

[MrGongGong]

Surely there is a big difference between some of you folk visiting and people like me ?
To most people it's a part of our culture NOT a statement of belief
Surely it's up to the church to do what it likes ?
no one is forcing them to get gay married ........
and the sooner they go their own way apart from the state the better
as most of us are not members of the church then it really is their gig

Maybe it's time for a test of "faith" at the door......... believers to the left , the rest to the right ?
With someone sitting in a tennis umpires chair to arbitrate ....