169 replies to this topic

[Martyn Sadler]

Also, I think you'll find that the "freedoms" come from the constitutional bit not the monarchy bit and had to be fought for tooth and claw by very brave and patriotic women and men from monarchs who would dearly of loved to deny them.

The freedoms started being won in 1215, and, from that point onwards, slowly filtered downwards from the Barons and Earls to women finally getting the vote in the last century. I think the monarchs realised fairly early on, from the time of Charles 1st, that it wasn't too wise to stand in the way of history. History isn't about what you'd love to do, it's about what you have the power to do, and the history of Britain at one level is about the gradual loss of power by the monarchs.

[Northern Sol]

Yes, those two reasons. And the Highlands. Don't forget those. And one of the greatest cities in the World in London. And all those quaint little towns, like Oxford or Edinburgh. Don't forget those. And I'm sure I recall bumping into some American tourists at the weekend. Where was I - oh yes, in those horrid old Pennines. They were out walking.

It's very easy to do this country down, but the fact is that it's a remarkable place with a great deal to be proud of. If this country was a republic then tourists would still come here in vast numbers, not least to see the Museum of the British Monarchy we could install in Buckingham Palace. Prince Charles could work on the tills.

I like the Pennines but I've been to the Alps and the Carpathians and they don't compare. We have some nice things in this country but they are nothing special compared to what other countries have got.

[Northern Sol]

What a pity that when she dies she'll be replaced by a buffoon who can't keep his trap shut.

Being a buffoon who can't keep his trap shut hasn't stopped Boris Johnson becoming an icon.

[Millman]

Being a buffoon who can't keep his trap shut hasn't stopped Boris Johnson becoming an icon.

He is at least elected. Although I'd question whether or not he is iconic.

You're not getting it are you?

[Northern Sol]

He is at least elected. Although I'd question whether or not he is iconic.

You're not getting it are you?

I get the fact that don't like an unelected head of state but why you have to argue absurdities about the Windsors not being a draw for tourists I don't know.

[Steve May]

The freedoms started being won in 1215, and, from that point onwards, slowly filtered downwards from the Barons and Earls to women finally getting the vote in the last century.

And men. Sorry to digress but this is a pet thing of mine. Women got the vote for the first time in 1918 and at the same time, and now almost forgotten, the property owning restrictions on men voting were largely lifted which gave men universal suffrage, or something close to it, for the first time.

I doubt many of my male ancestors had a vote before 1918.

[Steve May]

I get the fact that don't like an unelected head of state but why you have to argue absurdities about the Windsors not being a draw for tourists I don't know.

It's because they probably aren't a draw for tourists. As has been pointed out again an again to you, there are lots of countries that don't have a monarch that get more tourists than the UK and in any case the UK has many, many tourist destinations that would still exist if the country was a republic.

[Northern Sol]

It's because they probably aren't a draw for tourists. As has been pointed out again an again to you, there are lots of countries that don't have a monarch that get more tourists than the UK and in any case the UK has many, many tourist destinations that would still exist if the country was a republic.

Assertions have been made to me that we could be like France or Italy if only we didn't have a monarchy. Or quite possibly China. Yet I don't see any evidence that climate, cuisine or ancient engineering projects have any relation to having a monarchy in the 21st century.

I actually linked to research commissioned by Visit Britain that showed that in fact it is the case that tourists do come here because of the monarchy.

[Bob8]

Assertions have been made to me that we could be like France or Italy if only we didn't have a monarchy. Or quite possibly China. Yet I don't see any evidence that climate, cuisine or ancient engineering projects have any relation to having a monarchy in the 21st century.

I actually linked to research commissioned by Visit Britain that showed that in fact it is the case that tourists do come here because of the monarchy.

People have not said that we would be comparable to Italy and France (another contributor raised comparisons to third world nations, which were even more silly), what they have said is that tourism is not dependant on monarchy, which is very reasonable. I have had someone in the USA speak to me about the Royal wedding, having heard about it in the USA, so clearly they do raise the profile of the UK, but how much is sheer guess work from both sides. It should be remembered that few visitors will meet the royal family, so theiir impact should not be overstated. Equally, for a small to medium country, the profile of the UK is huge, royal family or not.

The Monarchy are laregely symbolic and so people are going be swayed by what they believe the Royal family symbolise and whether or not they favour that. If you feel that they represent the country and that you are proud of your country, I find that a very strong and valid reason to support them. On the other hand, arguing for a fractional increase in tourism is a dubious basis for selecting a form of Government.

[Martyn Sadler]

If you feel that they represent the country and that you are proud of your country, I find that a very strong and valid reason to support them. On the other hand, arguing for a fractional increase in tourism is a dubious basis for selecting a form of Government.

Absolutely! The arguments for or against a monarchy have nothing whatsoever to do with whether more or fewer tourists would visit the UK if we didn't have one.

[Millman]

Absolutely! The arguments for or against a monarchy have nothing whatsoever to do with whether more or fewer tourists would visit the UK if we didn't have one.

So we're all agreed. We shoot the lot of 'em, unless they have beards.

[Northern Sol]

People have not said that we would be comparable to Italy and France (another contributor raised comparisons to third world nations, which were even more silly), what they have said is that tourism is not dependant on monarchy, which is very reasonable. I have had someone in the USA speak to me about the Royal wedding, having heard about it in the USA, so clearly they do raise the profile of the UK, but how much is sheer guess work from both sides. It should be remembered that few visitors will meet the royal family, so theiir impact should not be overstated. Equally, for a small to medium country, the profile of the UK is huge, royal family or not.

Saying it is not solely responsible for tourism is a reasonable statement bringing up France and Italy are just bonkers because we can't ever be like them.

I agree that it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which the royal family raise our profile is tricky but it is absurd to argue that they don't have any impact.

The Monarchy are laregely symbolic and so people are going be swayed by what they believe the Royal family symbolise and whether or not they favour that. If you feel that they represent the country and that you are proud of your country, I find that a very strong and valid reason to support them. On the other hand, arguing for a fractional increase in tourism is a dubious basis for selecting a form of Government.

I didn't justify having a monarchy on the grounds of tourism, I merely disagreed with those who said that they had no impact on tourism.

If I wished to justify their existence I would do so on the grounds that I don't see the need for the massive constitutional upheaval that moving towards a republic would entail. Similarly, if this was a republic, I would be against restoring the monarchy on the same grounds.

[Northern Sol]

Absolutely! The arguments for or against a monarchy have nothing whatsoever to do with whether more or fewer tourists would visit the UK if we didn't have one.

Fortunately I didn't say that.

[Martyn Sadler]

Although your point is generally not a bad one it does depend on comparing Britain to countries that are much less developed or that lack civil infrastructure. If you compare Britain with more sensible countries you'll find a lot of republics that are just fine places to live. Like France or Germany. Or the USA. Or Finland.

Of course Republics are not all the same. In the USA the Head of State is also the Head of Government, and the same thing is true in France. But in Germany it isn't. I don't know about Finland.

The example of the USA in particular is an interesting one. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was designed to get away from the landed interests they had left behind, mainly in England. So they created a constitution that in some respects has become very inflexible. The fortunate thing they did was to ensure that the President couldn't serve more than two terms. Otherwise, making the Head of State also the Head of Government could have very severe consequences, and it does in countries in which there is no limit on the length of time someone can be the President.

As for France, that country is a curious mix of freedoms and non-freedoms. I seem to recall a case a few years ago in which some journalists were fined for making insulting comments about the visiting King of Morocco (probably Millman commenting on his beard). I'm not sure that (the fine, not Millman's comments) would have happened here.

[bigred]

Here is some proper research carried out by Visit Britain on the effects of the upcoming wedding on overseas tourism. It is pretty conclusive.

http://media.visitbr...earch-18b4.aspx

I note that further down the page we find that a red double-deck bus is more than twice as popular with visitors than the head of the spongers!!

[WearyRhino]

I note that further down the page we find that a red double-deck bus is more than twice as popular with visitors than the head of the spongers!!

No doubt NS will argue that all tourists think the queen drives buses and the Duke of Edinburgh (Greek Branch) is conductor.

[Steve May]

So we're all agreed. We shoot the lot of 'em, unless they have beards.

Hmm, no I think we should shoot the women as well.

[Steve May]

As for France, that country is a curious mix of freedoms and non-freedoms. I seem to recall a case a few years ago in which some journalists were fined for making insulting comments about the visiting King of Morocco (probably Millman commenting on his beard). I'm not sure that (the fine, not Millman's comments) would have happened here.

I think you'd have to be a bit odd to seriously argue that France isn't a sensible, free and open country.

[Steve May]

The example of the USA in particular is an interesting one. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was designed to get away from the landed interests they had left behind, mainly in England. So they created a constitution that in some respects has become very inflexible. The fortunate thing they did was to ensure that the President couldn't serve more than two terms.

Pedantry again, but the "Founding Fathers" had nothing whatsoever to do with the 22nd amendment to the US constitution.

[GeordieSaint]

a good chance for you to dress up at our expense.

Dress up at 'your' expense? I pay an absolute fortune in tax to HM Government for the pleasure of dressing up in a uniform my own pocket paid for...

Edited by GeordieSaint, 24 November 2010 - 04:50 PM.