The queen's decor

Do you think the tourists would stop coming if we didn't have a queen? It's not as if they get to nip in for a cuppa when she's at home is it? Do they stop coming in August when she's holidaying at Balmoral or all visit there instead. I'm sure Scotland would have mentioned the massive tourist boom in the Highlands each August if they did. And, if the tourists do come her because of her, which I doubt, they tend to stay in the London area. What good does that do the rest of the country?

Tourists come to the UK for our history. They come to see our castles and other historic sites such as Stone Henge. They're far more interested in our past than our present. The Royal Family is just an anachronism which many tourists see as yet another aspect of our British eccentricity along with our equally eccentric weather.

Many tourists are doing a tour of Europe taking in as many capital cities as possible. London is just part of the itinerary alongside the capitals of republics such as France and Germany.

Lilygran, does America house the presidents children, grandchildren, cousins , aunts and uncles?

Excellent post, vampire. Many American tourists would go to London because of the buildings rather than the Royals. They know our history was their history.

It used to amaze me how many would head for the Borders, after London and York, because that was where their ancestors came from.

Two million visit the Tower of London each year - the top tourist attraction, buck house is fifth. More than three million visit Versailles every year.

Seems tourists are more interested in where we beheaded queens than where a queen lives when visiting the UK

A series about Ann Boleyn was probably watched by many more than a programme about Queen Elizabeth, Annie.

If I take out the Republican/Royalist views and concentrate on the practical/financial side I say that Buckingham Palaces should have money spent on it.

It is an iconic building and whether or not there is agreement it is one of Britain's most visited tourist sites. It would probably cost a fortune to demolish it and what a stupid thing to do to leave it to dacay. Those are the alternatives.

To those who do not want the monarchy I say the alternative is either an elected president/leader, or god forbid a dictatorship. Even communist countries put their leaders in the best of properties don't they! As I hinted on a previous post there is as much money spent in countries of all forms of political hiarachy and it is the case they possibly spend disproportionately more on their buildings.

I agree with comments re the extended royal family but I believe the likes of a President Blair would nest their bank accounts and hide what they are doing , at least we know and are public ally informed where, what and how our tax is being used.

POGS , the financial set up of the queen is not available to the public, we see only what they wish us to see. And the windsors gained much wealth over generations by less than honourable dealings .

It's the pretence which annoys me, and the fact the windsors are above the law is so wrong

I agree with your post POGS, I didn't always feel this way I can remember when I supported the idea of Britain being a republic and thought that having a royal family was hardly egalitarian. I'm not sure egalitarianism exists, there will always be those who rise to the top of the pile and lord it over the rest and for me the royal family is preferable to that. I'm all for a pared down one though, in fact I think it's essential for their survival. I don't think too many people want to see public money spent on say Andrew and his daughters. Prince William seems to demonstrate he is not "old school" insomuch as a sense of entitlement is concerned, and when his time comes I like to think he may make the monarchy in the direction of those in Europe who appear to have dispensed with some of the protocol that surrounds the British royal family.

I don't think we can hold dishonourable dealings of previous generations against the present day royals. As far as Anne Boleyn is concerned I think any programme/film/book about the unfortunate 2nd wife of one of our most notorious monarchs will always be of interest to a wide audience particularly those who have a fascination with history. It may be the case that future generations would be just as interested in our present queen, not for her notoriety, possibly more for her longevity and the backdrop her reign provided in a historical context, which might be more interesting then than it is now. A bit similar to Queen Victoria's reign which spanned such a large part of the 19th century sometimes social, economic, political changes and conflicts are more interesting when consigned to history.

The monarch hasn't been 'above the law' since 1215. I believe Obama's MiL lives with them and there is no President in history whose family and extended family has not done well out of their exalted relative. Anniebach you keep confusing the privileges the sovereign of the UK has as sovereign and the advantages Elizabeth Windsor has that any very rich woman would have. You also keep referring to 'hypocrisy' but what you describe doesn't seem to me to be hypocritical. You really don't like the royal family, I think we've got the message even though it still isn't clear why!

Good post, TerriBull!

Who are the ' we' Lilygran? A group unknown by name ?

So if someone I know is being prosecuted and I suddenly remember a conversation with them which supports their defence I just ring up the court and the case is dropped ?

I do not dislike the royal family, I don't know them , the queen has never caused the country any embarrassment , is always dignified, seems to work quite hard for seven or eight months of the year , I just am not a flag waving, isn't she /he wonderful how lucky we are to have them person. I wish the queens sons did half as much work as her daughter and I admit to a fondness for Philip. My gripe throughout this thread has been the queen asking for over 6% pay increase and her very lazy! very costly grandchildren

If I had a magic wand I would turn all the windsors into Katherine Kents, I so admire and respect her and she didn't need a PR team spinning daily, she worked and she genuinely cared for people .

Lilygran I note the reference to the monarchy of 1215C, but the present lineage only goes back about 200 hundred years - 300 years less than my traceable, ancestral lineage. It's a wonder the ancestors survived in reality, what with having to work to earn their daily bread and then fighting for their corner. If nothing else, we all hasten to Wiki to learn about our beginnings.

CelticRose The present royal family's origins have nothing to do with the monarch being under the rule of law. Magna Carta (1215) was one of a series of agreements and events which led to the sovereign gradually giving up rights until we arrived at the kind of constitutional monarchy the UK has today. I expect executing Charles 1 and evicting James 11 also helped in arriving at the present situation.

I thought the money raised by opening the palace was for the upkeep.

Parliament started abolishing clauses in the Magna Carta in Queen Victoria's time. Today there are only three clauses still in existence, and none of them are to do with royalty.
One is to guarantee the freedom of the English Church. One is to confirm the liberties and customs of London and other boroughs.
The third is about no free man being stripped of his rights or possessions without due process being legally applied.
However, laws are changed quite regularly on the whim of the government. In 2012 the government introduced 7000 new laws without a vote in parliament. This is the government that promised to get rid of red tape.

The government itself now has more power than parliament. That was not in the spirit of Magna Carta.

I wasn't intending to enter into a discussion of the significance of Magna Carta which would bore me senseless, has been extensively covered in the press, on television, on radio, carved onto trees, painted on banners and would be ignored by nearly everyone on GN. I was intending to make the point that in England (then Britain, then the UK) it was established quite early on that the Crown was subject to the law. It didn't happen in a lot of countries which may explain why we still have a monarchy.

But let's not allow the facts get in the way of blind prejudice, Lilygran - that would never do!

I think you will find that I have posted a lot of facts, Ana, not prejudice.

Perhaps you find it impossible to recognise the difference.

Are you the only poster on this thread, durhamjen?

The OP was light-hearted and then it turned into a fairly even discussion about the expense of having a monarch versus, er.....not having one.

I've lost interest now.

So who did you mean, Ana?

The question is for the society of today and b----r all to do with the past, other than is it a historic building that deserves to have funding for renovation and modernisation.

It's fine to have an opinion of a political persuasion but surely the questions and answers should be whether or not it makes financial sense, is it an asset or liability and the only history connection to be had is whether or not it's iconic building status is worth maintaining.

I'd like to know too.

All those posters who have displayed little more than blind prejudice, obviously.