That's just how it goes though, in cycles. The backlash to the backlash to the backlash etc.

Things get bad, people go progressive and try to fix the "bad things" which then hit a sort of reasonable level, then things start to get a bit silly, then people get tired of it and head back the other way, then they forget to hit the brakes and become a bit extreme in that direction, then people notice things are bad and get progressive... that's the narrative loop of the Western World.

Only now, it's hyper-accelerated by fast, free, widescale communication options (i.e. the internet) so an undulation that used to take decades is flipping back and forth much faster.

The internet hasn't "changed" anything, per se, it's just a (major) catalyst.

I don’t think many feel that way nowadays SB. People are just born, some into poverty, some into great richness , it's the accident of birth. No point in being bitter. :nono:
Many people enjoy the pomp and circumstance, the spectacular mass crowd - pulling displays, the history, the drama. Even America, who not - so- secretly envy us having our Monarchy, had to have their ‘first family’.
Not the superior you of course, you are above those who enjoy these things.

Royals don't need justification. They bring in a lot of cash, not just from tourists. Plus they're major employers. All the infos already online if people are truly interested and not just flogging the republican line. I could go on but I feel like I already have in threads actually about royals.

Any other system such as a president would also employ a lot of staff, so that is a zero argument.

Everyone says, we don't want a blair or a boris as president, and that may well be true, but many people don't want a charles or a william either, but they are stuck with it. At least a president can be booted out after 4 years, we cant do that with charles

You say "many". I say "some".

Ahh an exhaustive look into the things that matter when justifying the existence of an active monarchy.

1) Tourist income
2) Jobs for servants

Well, that's that then. A full social and economic analysis of the value of the monarchy. "There's tourism and they give some people jobs carrying their silver platters and picking their hats and stuff."

I'm 100% convinced now. Why could I not see it before? They're an unproblematic gold mine!

Your sarcasm is not humorous... in case you think it is.

I'm not looking for chuckles.

Sigh......

Always a bizarre argument the money they bring in, as if we wouldn't make more money from getting rid of them, and opening up their houses for the public to go round and visit Buck palace for £200 a pop. The septics and Japanese would flock through to see all the history.

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

Pyramids were not houses, they were burial chambers

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

There could have been a small wooden house at the top, it would have disintegrated over time... you weren't there...

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum :worry:

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

Surely not... surely even Charles wouldn't get up to hanky panky in his dead mum's bed... D:.

welcome to The Travel Lodge

The jaw - dropping Palace of Versaille in France, no Royals present, has an emergency fund page looking for donations from the public to keep it open. :whistle:

My mind went straight to druggy Harry and Megsie. :laugh:

It isn’t. You and SB could research the many benefits of constitutional Monarchies, but then you would find out facts that you would really prefer not to know. :hmph:

Pray tell...

at the moment there are only 2 or 3 palaces that living royals actually inhabit. The remaining huge number are funded via trusts or public donations and they are doing perfectly fine. Venues like the tower of london and leeds castle get millions of visitors without a living royal in sight

Pray google....You could start here, just the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.princestrustglobal.org/home

One extract from the site:

The Princes Trust group Annual Report

During 2021/22, together with our partners, we supported almost 82,000 young people across 21 countries to gain the skills they need to access the jobs of tomorrow, including in the green economy.
This included 60,000 young people in the UK, and almost 22,000 across the following 20 countries: Australia, Barbados, Canada, Egypt, Ghana, Greece, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Rwanda, St. Lucia, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda. We also continued to build our presence in the USA.

We also supported hundreds of military veterans in Australia and Canada, helping them to set up their own business after leaving the armed forces; and we enabled the development of a range of exemplary built environmental projects in Australia.

Brand Finance finds the Monarchy will deliver a £958 million economic benefit to the UK
this year

David Haigh, Chairman of Brand Finance, said:

“As King Charles is crowned, he faces the challenging task of adapting the
Monarchy and making it relevant to a new and sceptical audience in a rapidly
changing social and political landscape. Fortunately, there is strong evidence
that the Monarchy continues to deliver a huge benefit to the UK economy.”

https://brandfinance.com/press-relea...ts%20declining.

People don't have to 'see' the Royals. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that a current, living Monarchy doesn't greatly boost visitor numbers.

They're not in decline though right jet? Right LT? ...right? They're not losing popularity since Elizabeth II died like ol' SB said are they fellas?

... are they? Are the year on year numbers available anywhere guys?

...guys?

The visitors the Monarchy attracted for The Queen’s Platinum jubilee and her funeral, both in 2022 accounted for the gross uplift in that period.

You really sound quite delirious SB. Check your temperature. :worry:

The Royals are doing just fine. :cool:

The Times 2023
Prince William was the most popular member of the British Royal Family, according to a survey conducted among adults in Great Britain in June 2023. Prince William's wife, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge was the joint-second most popular Royal, along with Princess Anne, with 73 percent of respondents having a positive opinion of those two royals. By contrast, Prince Andrew was by far the least-popular member of the Royal Family with just seven percent having a positive opinion of him.

In the last years of her reign, the Queen was generally viewed in a positive light by the British public, despite some significant swings in opinion for other members of the Royal Family. In particular, Prince Harry, previously once one of the most popular Royals has seen the share of Britons who view him favorably fall from 71 percent in 2019, to just 26 percent by January 2023. The Duchess of Sussex stands at 21%.
The current monarch, King Charles III, has gradually become more popular during the same time period, with 62 percent viewing him positively in June 2023, compared with 58 percent in 2020.

Yes the queen's jubilee and funeral.

Charles' CORONATION was this year jet. Where was the uplift? Absent, because no one likes Charles, they liked The Queen. You're going to have to face reality at some point :joker:.

You're going to have to explain to me how an opinion survey of adults in the UK means anything at all in terms of what value the monarchy represents in attracting tourism.

Come on jet you usually at least somewhat engage your brain.

I like the Travel Lodge.

But funny post.:laugh:

I honestly don't get the appeal of William, he comes across unlikable imo.

And the 7% that have a positive opinion of Andrew need to be put on a watchlist.

Not uncommon after her kids have had their mates round

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/b...484_0001_5.jpg

Was the change of subject too taxing for you?
It's about their individial popularity, obviously, not value. Where did I say it was? Not everything is about money. :nono:

2 big events (involving the wonderful QUEEN) versus 1.
We don’t know if there was no uplift 2023 so far as we only have 2022 to compare it with. Maybe you can find the figures, do some research yourself. I’m not a Charles fan (though I like him well enough and admire the amazing ventures he has set up and been involved with over the years) and of course he isn't as liked as the Queen was, but to say NO - ONE likes him is just plain stupid.
That poll has him at 62% positivity rating. Time will tell if he blows it or not.

Regardless of public opinion or the rights and wrongs of the monarchy, they make more than they cost, so there's no real reason to remove them.

LT shared them above, they're right there, the projection is that they're not even close, i.e. declining which is literally all that I said.

Not that they are "wildly unpopular" - but that their popularity is declining. Global interest is declining. These are just facts, that LT helpfully backed up with some figures.

Declining doesn't mean "low", it doesn't mean "less than 50%", it just means less than before. And that trend is highly likely to continue.

Global interest in Charles will have been at its peak with his coronation - it's not going to suddenly increase next year. Interest in Wiliam was because of the allure of the "young, modern" prince with a young family. Who is swiftly becoming a bald, middle-aged prince with teenagers. You're just lying to yourself in not seeing that the monarchy is on a gradual, but steady, decline (with a major downwards bump when Liz died).

Massive over-simplification; there's no way to accurately quantify either.

So there's not a strong argument for abolishing :D