To those of the UK and commonwealth: Opinions of our shared "head" of state

[Which Tyler]

This argument is an absolute nonsense. Versailles has more annual visitors than any British tourist attraction, including the Palace in London where you can stand outside and hope for a glimpse of someone who is your social better by virtue of birth getting into a blacked out Range Rover. The Tower of London, which the spongers have long since vacated, also enjoys more visitors than Buckingham Palace.

Incase you haven't guessed, I say sack this monument to state funded inequality, and hopefully get rid of all the fawning and deference that goes with it.

I thought it was generally considered poor form to debunk the obvious with nothingness, except an irrelevant comparison?

You're right, no tourists like anything to do with the royalty; you can tell by the way no-one ever turns up to watch the changing of the guards, etc etc.

Versailles is, of course, about as relevant to this debate as saying that Monaco is a more popular tourist destination than Blackpool.

France has about 3x the number of overseas tourists visiting than Britain; Paris about 5x the number of London. It's neither shocking, nor relevant that a Parisien tourist attraction is more popular.**

Beyond that, of course, is the bloody obvious fact that visitors to Buck Palace =/= visitors who like to gawk at the trappings of royalty.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Royalty adds value to Britain as a tourist destination. Consequently, there is no doubt whatsoever that they earn tourism dollars for the country. What is utterly impossible to measure is how much that is.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion; and in terms of getting rid of the aristocracy*, it's one I share; but please, don't let that bias your opinion of facts.

* - getting rid of the monarchy is pretty useless in achieving anything; getting rid of the landed gentry (including royalty) far more useful; re-distirbution of wealth, far more desirable; and still a flea-bite in comparison to getting rid of the current electoral system (party politics and FPTP)

** ETA - sorry, looks like that's in terms of Euros spent, not visitor numbers

[Oberyn Out]

I thought it was generally considered poor form to debunk the obvious with nothingness, except an irrelevant comparison?

You're right, no tourists like anything to do with the royalty; you can tell by the way no-one ever turns up to watch the changing of the guards, etc etc.

Versailles is, of course, about as relevant to this debate as saying that Monaco is a more popular tourist destination than Blackpool.

France has about 3x the number of overseas tourists visiting than Britain; Paris about 5x the number of London. It's neither shocking, nor relevant that a Parisien tourist attraction is more popular.**

Beyond that, of course, is the bloody obvious fact that visitors to Buck Palace =/= visitors who like to gawk at the trappings of royalty.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Royalty adds value to Britain as a tourist destination. Consequently, there is no doubt whatsoever that they earn tourism dollars for the country. What is utterly impossible to measure is how much that is.

Although France enjoys more overseas visitors overall, London enjoys more visitors per annum than Paris. I don't know where the hell you have gotten Paris having 5x the number of visitors to London from, but it's not Forbes, the Telegraph, the Mastercard Global Cities Index report, the Office of National Statistics, the Daily Mail, CNN, etc. etc. etc. - all of which place London firmly above Paris in recent years.

I doubt that many Royalty gawkers come to Britain because of Royalty, and I doubt many would be put off by the prospect of visiting a Britain where there are fewer velvet ropes around Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace. I also note that you appear to have side-stepped the point that more people visit the Tower than any locations in which the present-day Royals actually reside. The guards can always still fanny about for President X if that keeps the tourists happy.

I could buy that Rome would see fewer tourists if the Pope moved house as he puts the work in by doing his waving and magic tricks in public on a regular basis, but I really can't believe that the extremely remote chance of catching a glimpse of the Queen has the same sort of pull for people.

Pointless anecdote time; I was caught up in Edinburgh when Prince Billy was getting some 'Order of the Thistle' nonsense from his Gran, doubtless because he is excellent at chivalry. All of the tourists with whom I spoke seemed to be in Edinburgh anyway because of the Castle (where there is nary a Royal to be found), the museums, the historic old town, and thought they might as well have a gawk at the pomp and ceremony as it happened to be happening. There didn't seem to be any general increase in visitors, any problems getting hotel rooms, dinner reservations or anything else (although there was an issue with getting into the court where I worked every day in case I intended to blow them all up and just happened to have typed up a summons and applied Her Majesty's signet to it as a cover story.)

[Woofless]

The other issue is: who is the best Head of State? The person born and raised for the job, like it or not? Or the person who will do whatever he can, at whatever cost, to get the job?

Duty? Or Desire?

Think about it ;)

The £1.50 or whatever it is it costs me per year to protect us from meglomaniacs taking control is well worth it in my opinion.

Totally agree.

And how much, if any, tourist bucks would a president bring in?

[Rorshach]

Can't really believe I'm replying - I'll develop an opinion on the royals after all :P

Like it or not, and I don't, Märtha is part of the package. The fortuitous fact that she's fourth in line (according to wiki) must be the only time, by sheer happenstance, that state-sponsored sexism has worked out for the better. (She's the firstborn, but males had primogeniture until a more recent, non-retroactive resolution.)

Also, I couldn't reply to your post until this morning. The thought of Per Sandberg as president would have given me nightmares. :P

Yeah, Märtha is part of the royal family. In my mind, though, she's as important as princess Astrid - that is, not important at all. The way she's going, she's more of a performance-artist :)

I am indeed sorry for possibly giving you nightmares about Per Sandberg, but I dare you to claim he's not a man of the people! :P

Actually, if we should elect a President today, I reckon king Harald would win in a landslide. He may certainly have come to his profession in an anacronistic manner, but he's doing it well.

[Oberyn Out]

Totally agree.

And how much, if any, tourist bucks would a president bring in?

Given we haven't established that the monarchy bring in any money at all, the question is pointless. So, £47,000,000,000.00 imo.

Re the post quoted by the above, the best head of state is one chosen from the people, by the people, for the people. Not the first white male to appear from a particular inbred Protestant woman's vagina. Although worryingly, these days the British people seem to like electing Etonian overlords when they are given a choice.

[Darzin]

So random question, how exactly is the commonwealth organized? Is it a personal union or still kind of an empire? Also would it be possible for the queen to move her seat? Like say to New Zealand because if I was a British royal I would want to rule from there,screw the rest of the common wealth.

Also more on topic why do you need a president to cut ribbons? Why not let the prime minister do all t

[Pebble thats Stubby]

The Commonwealth is a loose political union more than anything else. Member countries have a mix of the British Monarch as the head of State, or Thier own Monarch or are a republic. but I think they where all once part of the British empire or one of its colonies or dependants.

At the moment and until the Queen deis/abdiactes she is the ceremail head of the commonwealth.

Current rules mean that when she dies the 50 something member countries choose who inherits.

[Denvek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

The Royal Family is actually a net gain for the British government, as income from the Crown Lands is quite a lot larger than the Civil List money.

[paddington]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

The Royal Family is actually a net gain for the British government, as income from the Crown Lands is quite a lot larger than the Civil List money.

The goverment also took over payment of the civil services which George III was paying before. Also ownership of the Crown lands is not quite as straighforward as it's not the Queen private property. I think alot of it is also sea-bed.

edit:- I'd guess the estates are owned by the crown and not the monarch. The crown being a instuite of the UK and not an individual, so are kind of owned by the nation.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Also would it be possible for the queen to move her seat? Like say to New Zealand because if I was a British royal I would want to rule from there,screw the rest of the common wealth.

Liz (since 1974) has been Queen of New Zealand separately from Queen of the United Kingdom. If the UK became a republic, she'd still be NZ's Head of State.

And, yes, there is nothing stopping her moving to New Zealand if she wants. It'd make the NZ Governor-General redundant, but you'd need to have a British Governor-General instead.

[paddington]

Also more on topic why do you need a president to cut ribbons? Why not let the prime minister do all t

Well the prime minster has a role in the day to day running of the country, an elected president wouldn't, there primary role would be cutting ribbons and shaking hands with foreign leaders. Not sure the PM could take the extra duties, and I am not sure I'd be overly keen on someone screwing both roles up.

[Gneisenau]

So if one could find a person and show that they would bring in more tourist dollars as head of state, does that mean they should be head of state ?

[TrueMetis]

The goverment also took over payment of the civil services which George III was paying before.

Didn't George also technically get tax revenue at the point as well though?

[Lord of Oop North]

All of you are forgetting about the shadowy-but-secretive lobby of the commemorative plate industry. These folks have held up the monarchy from the shadows, and used the absurd profits to fund their secret wars across the globe. Bringing down the Monarchy will mean bringing them down too, and I suspect they won't die easily. Plate collectors could be anyone, or anywhere. Even in YOUR house. Do you want to fight that kind of terror?