[Liberty4eva]

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

Your Queen owns more land than any other human being on the planet. I'd venture to say she is merely "symbolic" is a bit of an understatement. If all that land was converted into money at market value, she'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. It seems to me she has more influence and power than people in the UK would like to admit. I remember that during the last royal wedding people who planned to protest (peacefully) the royal family were preemptively arrested before even going there.

[MTVN]

Ok well that made things a bit confusing because now the OP is the 7th post in

[Shaun]

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

It makes revenue for the local businesses. Hotels, cafes, shops etc. If we get tourists coming to see the landmarks and famous spots then they spend money while here.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

What about the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10794577

Royal historical sites attract millions of visitors

Overseas tourists spent more than Ł500m visiting attractions associated with the history of the Royal family last year, a report by VisitBritain found.

Of the 30 million tourists in 2009, 5.8 million visited a castle, another five million went to a historic house, while 6.4 million saw a religious monument.

The top tourist spots were the Tower of London, the National Maritime Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace were also among the most visited sites.

'Monarchic heritage'

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 could be a "bonanza" year judging by the popularity of the monarchy among tourists, the organisation said.

The Tower of London was most popular and welcomed about 2.4 million tourists last year, an increase of 11% on 2008.

About 2.37 million tourists visited the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich - part of which is housed in the Queen's House, a former royal residence.

And 2.27 million people went to the Victoria and Albert Museum.

About 987,000 people visited Windsor Castle - a rise of 6.3%, while 402,000 tourists saw Buckingham Palace in 2009, up 2% in a year.

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.

VisitBritain chief executive Sandie Dawe said: "This fascinating research shows Britain's monarchic heritage draws foreign tourists to just about every corner of the country from Scotland to Cornwall.

[MTVN]

To some extent the Royal Family does contribute to tourism, attractions like the Changing of the Guard for instance wouldn't exist without it, and the Royal Wedding drew huge amounts of worldwide interest, especially in America and Germany. But I'm not sure the tourism industry would suffer as much as people make out, because we still have plenty of other attractions like Shaun mentioned and Buckingham palace could probably still be a point of interest even without the Queen.

In principle I'm against the Monarchy but in practice I'm pretty indifferent, they don't do all that much these days and it isn't hugely costly to the taxpayer either so I find it something hard to care about

[lostalex]

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

[Marsh.]

I don't know why the OP is using "you" as though we on this forum could do anything. Lol. If anyone British has said anything about the US it's hardly the opinion of the entire country.

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Again, that's you. There's lots of people that would like to look at the palace and other landmarks.

Just like I'm sure plenty people spend money to see the White House in Washington.

And as another poster said, the Queen harnesses no "real" political power.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Thats just your opinion though.

Lots and lots of people do turn up to see the Queen. I live on the outskirts of London and I've been up to see the changing of the guard at the Palace more times than I can remember and it does draw a big crowd, with a large percentage of them being tourists.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Perhaps for this to be answered, you might want to pose the question on an American forum to your fellow Americans. After all: most of them can't get enough of anything connected to British Royalty.

As for this comment below: no one mentioned 'superior'. The important and crucial word was 'bloodline', and there is nothing racist about it. Good try though

so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say

[Bollo]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Perhaps for this to be answered, you might want to pose the question on an American forum to your fellow Americans. After all: most of them can't get enough of anything connected to British Royalty.

This is true, I saw so many Americans interviewed on the news when the Royal wedding was on that had flown over to the UK specifically to watch it first hand, some had spent thousands on flights & hotel rooms!

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Bollo

This is true, I saw so many Americans interviewed on the news when the Royal wedding was on that had flown over to the UK specifically to watch it first hand, some had spent thousands on flights & hotel rooms!

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

You couldn't understand why tourists would be interested in the royal family for it to earn our country money as you said you were more interested in nightlife and shopping.

They used an example to how that there's plenty people in the world including some of your fellow Americans who do come over for the tours of Buckingham Palace etc. Everyone's different, so people should stop generalising.

[Bollo]

Originally Posted by lostalex

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

You said that you didn't understand the idea that the Royals bring tourists, so I was giving an example of how they do, which included your fellow country people. Also I have quite a few American friends and relatives who when they stay here go and visit Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Hampton Court etc and they most certainly do not like "The Kardashains"

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Bollo

You said that you didn't understand the idea that the Royals bring tourists, so I was giving an example of how they do, which included your fellow country people. Also I have quite a few American friends and relatives who when they stay here go and visit Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Hampton Court etc and they most certainly do not like "The Kardashains"

I understand the concept of celebrity, so why can't the royals be elected and be celebrities?

Plenty of people come to washington DC to go to the white house, and capitol building, and we don't have a monarchy, all of the people in those buildings are there based on elections.

the idea of a bloodline living off of their parents celebrity is repulsive, just like Paris Hilton. people should not be judged based on their parents status.

[Scarlett.]

And lets not forget all the merchendise

[Tom4784]

Americans put too much weight on the 'power' of the Royal Family, any power they possess is purely symbolic and like others have said in the thread the royals are merely figureheads for tourists to go mad over. The Queen's titles haven't had any significant meaning since long before we were all born.

You can't really bemoan us for an old system that has lost all relevance in today's world when in America for someone to stand a decent chance of getting elected President they have to be Christian. I'd say that's more of an issue then a figurehead institution.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Americans put too much weight on the 'power' of the Royal Family, any power they possess is purely symbolic and like others have said in the thread the royals are merely figureheads for tourists to go mad over. The Queen's titles haven't had any significant meaning since long before we were all born.

umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

There isn't really a point to it, it's just there out of tradition really and because the Royals are a profitable business.

[Harry!]

One's Queen is staying! Thanks!

Originally Posted by 08marsh

On homophobia, there's been rumours about certain people's sexuality in the royal family lol but if they abdicate the throne passes down. Monarch's have abdicated in the past, such as Edward when he fell in love with a divorced woman. That was against the "rules" so he gave up his position. That's how the current Queen came to the throne.

Shameless plug but M's new movie W.E. will cover this from Wallis point of view, in cinemas soon!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

Tradition. The Royal Family no longer have the power they once had in years gone by but are still there as tradition and symbolism.
And can I ask, why enter into a debate like this when you have no idea of the facts? If you needed an explanation you should have asked for it in the first place.

On another note, I'll be all for abolishment if Charles becomes King and takes that Camilla woman as Queen. lol

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Tradition. The Royal Family no longer have the power they once had in years gone by but are still there as tradition and symbolism.
And can I ask, why enter into a debate like this when you have no idea of the facts? If you needed an explanation you should have asked for it in the first place.

On another note, I'll be all for abolishment if Charles becomes King and takes that Camilla woman as Queen. lol

but what does it symbolize and what is the tradition based on if you really ackowledge history?

The idea that some people are genetically superior to others? Surelly you see how that is offensive to some people. The first born male, First of all it's racist, because everyone of the royals is white, Second, it's homophobic because if any royal male falls inlove with another man, they'd have to abdicate the thrown, Third, it's prejudice against religions, because the royal is REQUIRED to be the head of the Anglican church.

So an institution that is so discriminatory on SO many levels, how do they get away with it?? It's incredible.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

but what does it symbolize and what is the tradition based on if you really ackowledge history?

The idea that some people are genetically superior to others? Surelly you see how that is offensive to some people. The first born male, First of all it's racist, because everyone of the royals is white, Second, it's homophobic because if any royal male falls inlove with another man, they'd have to abdicate the thrown, Third, it's prejudice against religions, because the royal is REQUIRED to be the head of the Anglican church.

So an institution that is so discriminatory on SO many levels, how do they get away with it?? It's incredible.

Most religious people tend to inherit their beliefs or religion from family. So, if the Royals are a part of the Church of England then their children will be raised with it.

On homophobia, there's been rumours about certain people's sexuality in the royal family lol but if they abdicate the throne passes down. Monarch's have abdicated in the past, such as Edward when he fell in love with a divorced woman. That was against the "rules" so he gave up his position. That's how the current Queen came to the throne.

I think the "first born male" rule is changing, so it would be eldest child. The most you could say is sexist, not racist.

The Royals are all white because if white people have sex you tend to have white children.