Would YOU stand for the National Anthem?

[Richard Barrett]

"Of 25,000 potential foreign visitors surveyed by VisitBritain, 60% said they would like to see places associated with the Royal Family and several others said they would send home a postcard of the Queen."

"25 000 potential foreign visitors". What does "potential" mean? Who were they? Where were they? What questions were they asked? And so on.

[ahinton]

"25 000 potential foreign visitors". What does "potential" mean? Who were they? Where were they? What questions were they asked? And so on.

Indeed. A "potential" foreign visitor (to UK) is not a visitor to UK so wold have done nothing about visiting such places or sending postcards; leaving aside that opinion polls are usually less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot in any case, what on earth was the supposed point of asking a random selection of people what they think they would do should the visit UK? And what does it prove anyway?

[french frank]

So not what Johnny said then

As far as I can see, the links you quoted were nothing to do with what 'Johnny said'. If you read it in that way, I would suggest you go back and read it again. As I read it, there are different ways of calculating the 'value', one method leaves supposed 'benefits' in, the other strips them all out. Would you like to explain why the stripped-out figures are preferable? (One figure, quoted in the Independent's standfirst, is from a campaign group called 'Republic' - 'which calls for the abolition of the monarchy').

MrGongGong said, 'Where's the evidence?' so I googled for what I thought was the actual topic that was challenged: the matter of the tourist industry. As for Richard Barrett's questions, the answer would appear: you (we) carry on (dis)believing as we did before any evidence is produced, and challenge evidence that is counter to our belief. Clearly, I'm not in a position to answer your questions.

[french frank]

A reasonable discussion?

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21663904-etc-three-views-etc

[MrGongGong]

MrGongGong said, 'Where's the evidence?' so I googled for what I thought was the actual topic that was challenged: the matter of the tourist industry. .

So I had another look at what you linked to
I didn't think getting rid of the benefit scrounging "Windsors" meant demolishing all traces of Royal palaces and castles ?

What Johnny said (for information porpoises)

"God save the Queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems"

[Richard Barrett]

you (we) carry on (dis)believing as we did before any evidence is produced, and challenge evidence that is counter to our belief.

Wrong. I would really have no problem accepting that the Royal Family boosts UK tourism if any evidence thereto was produced, but in fact what was produced wasn't evidence of anything without answers to my followup questions. I dare say that bullfighting boosts Spanish tourism; that doesn't make it a "good thing".

[french frank]

Wrong. I would really have no problem accepting that the Royal Family boosts UK tourism if any evidence thereto was produced, but in fact what was produced wasn't evidence of anything without answers to my followup questions. I dare say that bullfighting boosts Spanish tourism; that doesn't make it a "good thing".

As I said, I posted the first source I found in answer to Mr GongGong's challenge. You may well 'have no problem accepting that the Royal Family boosts UK tourism', but if you are a Republican, that won't change your mind about the monarchy, will it?

Mr GongGong - we may keep all the royalless palaces and castles, but if you're not going to demolish them, they will still need to be staffed and maintained. They could be sold off to Russian oligarchs, I suppose. IBT put the total value of the Crown's 'tangible assets' at £21bn last year. How long do you think that will keep the NHS going?

[MrGongGong]

Mr GongGong - we may keep all the royalless palaces and castles, but if you're not going to demolish them, they will still need to be staffed and maintained. They could be sold off to Russian oligarchs, I suppose. IBT put the total value of the Crown's 'tangible assets' at £21bn last year. How long do you think that will keep the NHS going?

Like many people I find visiting castles, churches and the like fascinating and visit many
BUT it doesn't mean that I have to believe in the teachings of the church or the divine right of kings !
The assumption is always made that somehow people won't visit the UK and visit it's historical buildings without the monarchy
Lot's of folks go to St Petersburg and Versailles

[french frank]

Like many people I find visiting castles, churches and the like fascinating and visit many
BUT it doesn't mean that I have to believe in the teachings of the church or the divine right of kings !
The assumption is always made that somehow people won't visit the UK and visit it's historical buildings without the monarchy
Lot's of folks go to St Petersburg and Versailles

As a Republican you're entitled to believe what you like, but you've overlooked the point: that these places still need to be maintained and staffed. Rooting out the Royals doesn't mean the buildings won't still cost the taxpayer, so it doesn't save much.

And since you also missed out the question about the NHS, it cost about £116bn in 2015/16 compared with the tangible Crown Estates worth about £21bn (in total i.e. what they might bring in if sold).

[Richard Barrett]

You may well 'have no problem accepting that the Royal Family boosts UK tourism', but if you are a Republican, that won't change your mind about the monarchy, will it?

No. But as MrGG says, the French and Russian approach to abolishing their monarchies, though a little brusque by today's standards, hasn't dented the popularity of their residences. I dare say Versailles is a lot more tourist-friendly for not having some Louis the 25th living in it!

As for the money, there's plenty for the NHS, it just isn't going there, but that presumably is not an issue to pursue further here.

[MrGongGong]

As a Republican you're entitled to believe what you like, but you've overlooked the point: that these places still need to be maintained and staffed. Rooting out the Royals doesn't mean the buildings won't still cost the taxpayer, so it doesn't save much.

And since you also missed out the question about the NHS, it cost about £116bn in 2015/16 compared with the tangible Crown Estates worth about £21bn (in total i.e. what they might bring in if sold).

You do take it all rather a bit to seriously
I don't think there's any chance of us getting rid of the "Windsors" anytime soon nor do I have anything "against" the queen (though in terms of dysfunctional families I don't think she is a great example of being a parent !)

but I do think that Johnny got it right
the "argument" that somehow "tourists are money" therefore we should bow and scrape to the "Royals" is spurious

Who said anything about selling off a few castles anyway

President Attenborough anyone ?

[french frank]

No. But as MrGG says, the French and Russian approach to abolishing their monarchies, though a little brusque by today's standards, hasn't dented the popularity of their residences. I dare say Versailles is a lot more tourist-friendly for not having some Louis the 25th living in it!

Again, the Republican argument (and ok, but it's a different one): The principle behind the Republican argument is one I respect. But there are arguments for and against which The Economist laid out. The point that Republican America is just as elitist without its monarch seems indisputable. Which society do you prefer?

As for the money, there's plenty for the NHS, it just isn't going there, but that presumably is not an issue to pursue further here.

I mentioned it because for many 'republicans' the main argument seems to be about the horrendous amount the Royal Family costs and their extravagant way of lfe. I don't think it's a Republican argument, anyway. In terms of national economies it's peanuts, but add a couple of noughts and people are (figuratively speaking) up in arms.

[Richard Barrett]

Which society do you prefer?

But you're putting this the wrong way around. It's more important (obviously) to break down social hierarchies in general than it is to dispose of one or other symbol of these. While the US system was set up as an alternative to hereditary monarchy, it was also set up to ensure that executive power rested in the hands of a wealthy oligarchy, which has been the case ever since (and perhaps never more so than in the 21st century!), and which in the end is not so very different from a monarchy when compared with a (for the moment hypothetical) non-hierarchical society.

[ahinton]

No. But as MrGG says, the French and Russian approach to abolishing their monarchies, though a little brusque by today's standards, hasn't dented the popularity of their residences. I dare say Versailles is a lot more tourist-friendly for not having some Louis the 25th living in it!

As for the money, there's plenty for the NHS, it just isn't going there, but that presumably is not an issue to pursue further here.

No, but those residences will still have to be staffed and maintained, as FF rightly notes. If their royal occupants vacate them and they're then used as museums, I have no doubt that, like Versailles and other such places, they will remain big tourist attractions and, provided that the income that they can generate from tourists will pay for their staffing and upkeep, all will be well and, if that income falls short of those costs, the taxpayer would presumably fund the difference for the continued existence of these national assets.

But the royals don't own them anyway; they use them; I cannot imagine that, should they decide to quit them and take up residences elsewhere (which I think that they could just about afford to do), I do not imagine for one moment that the government of the day would sell off all or any of them.

That said, the bills for restoring the Houses of Parliament is anticipated to be little short of that for doing the same to Buckingham Palace and the taxpayer will have to fund both projects.

This, however, raises the separate issue as to whether some people who might prefer the monarchy to be abolished would be more amenable to its continuation if the monarch and her family members who have use of all of these buildings decided to quite them and live elsewhere in more modest homes, even if wholly or partly at the taxpayer's expense; that in turn raises the question as to whether the royal family would then continue to boost UK tourism as much as it does now (assuming that a reliable figure could be ascertained as to how much that is).

However, to return to the thread topic, is it not the case that many of those who would not or might not be prepared at present to stand for the National Anthem change their minds and be willing to do so if either (a) the monarchy has been abolished or (b) the monarchy is retained but the anthem changed to something else that makes no reference to that monarchy?

[Bryn]

'God save Mrs Ethel Shroake, Long live Mrs Ethel Shroake, God save Mrs Ethel Shroake of 393A High Street, Leytonstone'