Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Today's faux royal wedding

Posted by: gel Oct 12 2018, 09:40 AM

That Wedding:

Disgraceful that TV Police (TV Taxpayers) facing costs estimated at £4m to indulge the
arrogant Prince Andrew's offspring.
Most definitely come out of his fortune not from public purse.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 12 2018, 10:59 AM

Basically benefit scroungers without the track suits.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 15 2018, 06:39 PM

And continuing to breed I see.

Posted by: SirWilliam Oct 15 2018, 07:46 PM

You are an ungrateful lot. Costs a lot of dosh playing golf with those nice chaps from the middle east and when ones daughter suddenly decides to get hitched in granny's back yard it throws a few spanners in the old cash flow conundrum.
What's the point in being a member of royalty if you can't indulge in the odd perk.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2018, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 15 2018, 07:39 PM) *
And continuing to breed I see.



Most couples do, so no surprise.

A few bob will be brought to the UK as a result in due course.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2018, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 12 2018, 11:59 AM) *
Basically benefit scroungers without the track suits.



If I recall, he wore a military uniform and flew helicopters protecting British ships in 1982.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 16 2018, 08:22 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Oct 15 2018, 11:08 PM) *
If I recall, he wore a military uniform and flew helicopters protecting British ships in 1982.

So what? I am sure he got paid for it. That was a long time ago, and I wasn't being specific about him, I would throw them all into that grouping. Now I am a republican, and think they are completely unnecessary. However, I will say that if you are going to have a royal family, ours is a pretty good one.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 16 2018, 08:23 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Oct 15 2018, 11:05 PM) *
Most couples do, so no surprise.

A few bob will be brought to the UK as a result in due course.

Will it? How does that work then?

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 16 2018, 06:46 PM

Foreign tourists don't come here to see the Royal family anymore than we go to Sweden to see theirs.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 16 2018, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (The Hatter @ Oct 16 2018, 07:46 PM) *
Foreign tourists don't come here to see the Royal family anymore than we go to Sweden to see theirs.

VisitBritain reckons that tourism linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year.

And a consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

Posted by: newres Oct 17 2018, 06:32 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Oct 16 2018, 10:03 PM) *
VisitBritain reckons that tourism linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year.

And a consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

I reckon if we kicked the royals out of Buck House, Windsor Castle et al. and opened 'em up to tourists we'd get a lot more revenue from 'em. I call that "win, win"!

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 17 2018, 06:43 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Oct 16 2018, 10:03 PM) *
VisitBritain reckons that tourism linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year.

And a consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.


The truth is that they came to see the historic buildings and the history. Just as the Russians found, the draw is the Hermitage, not the Czar. A lesson for us wink.gif

Posted by: Strafin Oct 17 2018, 07:52 AM

It's very hard to work out if they are an asset or not but for every report that suggests they are, there is one that says there isn't.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-biggest-myth-about-the-queen-her-contribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 17 2018, 08:08 AM

QUOTE (The Hatter @ Oct 16 2018, 07:46 PM) *
Foreign tourists don't come here to see the Royal family anymore than we go to Sweden to see theirs.

I think they do?

Posted by: Strafin Oct 17 2018, 08:19 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 17 2018, 09:08 AM) *
I think they do?

They're not generally very accessible so I don't think you can! You might get as glimpse if there is a big royal event but it's not like you can pop over and have tea with them!

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 17 2018, 06:49 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 17 2018, 07:32 AM) *
I reckon if we kicked the royals out of Buck House, Windsor Castle et al. and opened 'em up to tourists we'd get a lot more revenue from 'em. I call that "win, win"!

Except of course they are both already open to tourism. See what I did there? called using fact not biased opinion.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 17 2018, 06:50 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 17 2018, 08:52 AM) *
It's very hard to work out if they are an asset or not but for every report that suggests they are, there is one that says there isn't.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-biggest-myth-about-the-queen-her-contribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html

But there is no doubt that the older generation of Royals are extremely hard working.

Posted by: newres Oct 17 2018, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Oct 17 2018, 07:49 PM) *
Except of course they are both already open to tourism. See what I did there? called using fact not biased opinion.

Not readily. Certainly not the living quarters.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 17 2018, 10:49 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 17 2018, 08:20 PM) *
Not readily. Certainly not the living quarters.



That's not a problem, that is a right of privacy.

What do you want to do? hand her majesty the toilet roll? tongue.gif

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 17 2018, 11:41 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 17 2018, 08:20 PM) *
Not readily. Certainly not the living quarters.

Ah, pretty readily, walk up, stump up a few quid and walk in. Or is the too difficult for you?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 18 2018, 06:05 AM

If our Royal family did really deliver the claimed numbers of tourists it's rather surprising that Buckebury is still undisturbed and no one has had the nouse to run coach tours from Newbury.

Posted by: Andy1 Oct 18 2018, 06:15 AM

QUOTE (On the edge because I'm a Knob @ Oct 18 2018, 07:05 AM) *
If our Royal family did really deliver the claimed numbers of tourists it's rather surprising that Buckebury is still undisturbed and no one has had the nouse to run coach tours from Newbury.


Maybe because she doesn't live with her pedants anymore. You only have to look at the faces of the public, here and abroad when they see the new Royals. Or maybe they've be ordered at pain of death to pretend.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 18 2018, 06:48 AM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Oct 18 2018, 07:15 AM) *
Maybe because she doesn't live with her pedants anymore. You only have to look at the faces of the public, here and abroad when they see the new Royals. Or maybe they've be ordered at pain of death to pretend.


Yes, agree about the faces of the people when they see the Royals; exactly the same expression as those who stand outside theatres etc. to see their favorite entertainment stars.

Almost to prove the point about Bucklebury, there are popular Coach tours around the districts where even quite old TV shows were made; Last of the Summer Wine, Dads Army, Coronation Street etc, etc.

Still, it's a bit of fun, but let's not pretend the Monarchy is a massive economic benefit.


Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2018, 08:14 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 17 2018, 09:19 AM) *
They're not generally very accessible so I don't think you can! You might get as glimpse if there is a big royal event but it's not like you can pop over and have tea with them!

i was counteracting the statement that "Foreign tourists don't come here to see the Royal family anymore than we go to Sweden to see theirs."
Also they may not come to see the family per-see, but to see all that is associated with the.
Buckingham Place, Windsor Castle, Queen's Guard etc.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 18 2018, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 18 2018, 09:14 AM) *
i was counteracting the statement that "Foreign tourists don't come here to see the Royal family anymore than we go to Sweden to see theirs."
Also they may not come to see the family per-see, but to see all that is associated with the.
Buckingham Place, Windsor Castle, Queen's Guard etc.

I completely agree, but those things would be there without the family living in them. As I said before I don't really want a monarchy, I don't see a benefit that equals the cost but I do agree that the queen is a good one, and I don't think it's all negative.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 18 2018, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 18 2018, 09:20 AM) *
I completely agree, but those things would be there without the family living in them. As I said before I don't really want a monarchy, I don't see a benefit that equals the cost but I do agree that the queen is a good one, and I don't think it's all negative.


Wholly agree.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 19 2018, 04:35 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 18 2018, 09:20 AM) *
I completely agree, but those things would be there without the family living in them.

Yes they would but, be honest, they wouldn't have quite the same attraction to tourism would they?

Posted by: newres Oct 19 2018, 05:41 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 19 2018, 05:35 AM) *
Yes they would but, be honest, they wouldn't have quite the same attraction to tourism would they?

I think the attraction would be greater as there would be more access to the palaces.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 19 2018, 07:35 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 19 2018, 05:35 AM) *
Yes they would but, be honest, they wouldn't have quite the same attraction to tourism would they?

There's only one way to know that for sure though. And it would be an irreversible decision - referendum anyone?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2018, 03:36 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 19 2018, 08:35 AM) *
There's only one way to know that for sure though. And it would be an irreversible decision - referendum anyone?


There is another way, much more fun and it is reversable, as Cromwell's lad discovered.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 19 2018, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 19 2018, 06:41 AM) *
I think the attraction would be greater as there would be more access to the palaces.

Too difficult for you is it? Put your hand in your pocket and walk in. Sheesh!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)