Printable View
Another question from across the Atlantic:
I'm picking up some FOI news about the black spider memos, and now this article by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ard-iii-tyrant
Is the monarchy really in *trouble* in Scotland, or Wales, or the UK ? How is "the firm" fighting back?
(I know, that's two questions)
I'm think that popularity of the monarchy is falling. There is still huge support for the queen but they 'younger' royals are not so well liked. Andrew & his daughters are the worst at damaging the monarchy, Edward basically for doing nothing at all.
I am not sure it will survive Charles as king. He does not understand that the monarchy has to keep out of politics and why should his meddling be kept secret? For those hoping he will not take the crown & pass it straight onto William will be disappointed. Charles believes his destiny is to be king and he would be failing in his duty if he refused it.
After the queens death I can see many countries in the commonwealth becoming republics. Jamaica is talking about it & it is only a matter of time before Australia do it to. It is their love of the Queen that has stopped it so far but they won;t has the same love for Charles.
They are long past their sell bay date and should be put to rest and stop sponging of every one
They may well be a throwback to a different age but the money they draw into the country far outweighs what is spent on them.
France draws more tourist money into their country than anyother country and their monarchy came to a bloody end over 200 years ago.
France is also a much larger country than the UK and I'm not sure that they get more tourists than other other country by far so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Unless that is you're condoning bloody revolution as an acceptable method of changing the system which would place you at the radical end of the spectrum for political discourse, which is of course totally unacceptable in a modern democracy.
Could it be that France is larger than the UK, I'm for the monarchy, would not want Alex Salmond as the president, he already tried to get his palace built next door to St Andrew's House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
By your argument and mine then Russia should be the biggest tourist destination on the planet. The bottom line is that the monarchy has got a limited impact on tourist numbers. Ask any foreign tourist and ask them why they've come here and I would expect them to say they want to see the tourist sights rather than get a glimpse of the Queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterTogether
Then why do more tourists go to visit Holyrood Palace than cross the road into the Parliament building .Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
For the history of the place. Certainly not to see the monarch.Quote:
Originally Posted by golach
History is part of the attraction of our monarchyQuote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
But then the queue into the Palace of Versailles was a mile long when I last visited. We do not need a monarchy to have a sense of history or to promote it.Quote:
Originally Posted by golach
That's probably down to French incompetence and the unions demanding that there are 15 tour guides for every visitor as opposed to excessive demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
If you're worried about the loss of tourist revenue then just think of the money that could be generated by turning all the royal palaces into mega-expensive luxury hotels, especially Buckingham Palace.
Unlike a Unionist to go off-topic and take the usual tired, old, boring pot-shot at a wannabe MP. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by golach