Winky and Bliar not invited to wedding. Thatcher and Major are.

[Gogoplata]

Life Saab Itch said:

No, they will survive because the revenue brought into the country by asian and american tourists alone more than covers what they cost to keep.

They are a profit making asset for the country.

So would nobody come to the country if we didn’t' have the Royals? How much money do they actually bring in compared to other tourist attractions?

[Zaxxon]

Gogoplata said:

So would nobody come to the country if we didn’t' have the Royals? How much money do they actually bring in compared to other tourist attractions?

Just out of interest, what English tourist attractions are there that don't have links with Royalty?

Attractions that someone would travel 1000's of miles to see?

I can't think of many.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

Life Saab Itch said:

colonel c said:

They would be lost without a birth, death or glitzy marriage every few years to keep the public interest. They survive mainly because of the real life soap opera aspect, rather than a sincere nationwide belief in constitutional monarchy.

No, they will survive because the revenue brought into the country by asian and american tourists alone more than covers what they cost to keep.

They are a profit making asset for the country.

I guess only a hard of thinking Laborite would see otherwise.

[Caulkhead]

colonel c said:

whoami said:

I think they'll survive.

They would be lost without a birth, death or glitzy marriage every few years to keep the public interest. They survive mainly because of the real life soap opera aspect, rather than a sincere nationwide belief in constitutional monarchy.

Complete bks.

[Gogoplata]

Zaxxon said:

Just out of interest, what English tourist attractions are there that don't have links with Royalty?

Attractions that someone would travel 1000's of miles to see?

I can't think of many.

Chesterfield Tesco ?

Other countries have vacated castles & palaces that tourists travel to see, it’s not like tourists don’t go to France because they don’t have a Royal family. Do people really expect to meet the Queen when they come over here or something?

Shirley Britain has more to offer tourists other than just the Royal family.

[Zaxxon]

Gogoplata said:

Shirley Britain has more to offer tourists other than just the Royal family.

Mine was serious question. I can't think of anything that would make an American or Chinese tourist drag their family over, unless it is linked to the Windsors in some way.

Yorkshire Moors and Dartmoor? No
Alton Towers? Definately not
London Eye? No
Houses of Parliment? Doubt it

Other than sporting events, I can't think of anything.

And yes there are people in foreign countries that think that it is possible to see or meet the Queen. When I was in Virginia Beach I was asked if I had known Princess Diana.
Love them or loathe them, they are the best know Royal Family in the world and quite a few other countries wish that they could have them or something like them.

[DJRC]

Gogoplata said:

Chesterfield Tesco ?

Other countries have vacated castles & palaces that tourists travel to see, it’s not like tourists don’t go to France because they don’t have a Royal family. Do people really expect to meet the Queen when they come over here or something?

Shirley Britain has more to offer tourists other than just the Royal family.

A large part of the London tourist industry is built around the Royal connections. Paris is based on a different model, nobody for instance goes to Paris just to see Versailles. As we have a successful model around them, why go blundering about changing it when experience has shown that our beloved Powers That Be arent actually any good at changing things? Ive never quite understood those who want to change the system on the basis of "but its the principle of the thing, we shouldnt have to be subject to a priviledged family" etc. No, it isnt the principle of that at all, its the hard nosed political and financial facts that we have found a system that works, earns us dosh and humans are notiously crap at changing their political systems. The country is skint enough as it is, lets not go sodding up another revenue stream for kicks and jollies.

[Countdown]

2009 Tourism figures from Wikipedia

1 Tower of London London 2,389,548
2 St Paul's Cathedral London 1,821,321
3 Westminster Abbey London 1,449,593
4 Roman Baths Bath 1,196,481
5 Canterbury Cathedral Canterbury 1,013,118
6 Stonehenge Amesbury 990,705
7 Palace of Westminster London 963,362
8 York Minster York 797,100
9 Chatsworth House Chatsworth 652,969
10 Leeds Castle Maidstone 646,801
11 Hampton Court Palace London 541,646
12 Blenheim Palace Woodstock 537,120
13 Portsmouth Historic Dockyard Portsmouth 532,158
14 Stourhead Mere 356,816
15 Beaulieu Palace House and Abbey Beaulieu 351,975

Plenty of countries have healthy tourist industries without a Royal family. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[Zaxxon]

Countdown said:

Plenty of countries have healthy tourist industries without a Royal family. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Plenty of countries are also known to have good weather, excellent hotels, great beaches, are renowned for their food, are renowned for their hospitality.

Were not

[tinman0]

So Blair gatecrashes 2 Royal funerals and promotes himself unmercifully, and he suddenly expects to be invited to a Royal wedding?

As for Brown, probably best we write him out of history.

[Lost soul]

DJRC said:

A large part of the London tourist industry is built around the Royal connections. Paris is based on a different model, nobody for instance goes to Paris just to see Versailles.

Just as nobody is in London just to see Buck house

[Countdown]

Zaxxon said:

Countdown said:

Plenty of countries have healthy tourist industries without a Royal family. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Plenty of countries are also known to have good weather, excellent hotels, great beaches, are renowned for their food, are renowned for their hospitality.

Were not

We have museums, galleries, heritage sites, and thousands of years of history. In fact, plenty of things that don't need a Royal Family. I'm not bothered one way or the other, just that it would be interesting to see what the costs of the Royal family are compared to the income they are generate from tourism.

[phil-sti]

The royal are most of our history. i like the fact we have a royal family, it reinforces the "Great" in great britain.

I love all the history of our kings and queens, how they link with royal families from europe, the tudors, the war of the roses, queen victoria.

our history is what make us different.

[Gogoplata]

Countdown said:

I'm not bothered one way or the other, just that it would be interesting to see what the costs of the Royal family are compared to the income they are generate from tourism.

Exactly, I keep on hearing the argument that they bring in more revenue than it costs to keep them, but I've not seen any reliable figures to back this argument up.

[JagLover]

colonel c said:

Despite the childish bigotry dished out on PH this oversight or snub is not good for our democracy. One can only imagine that the Queen is 'not amused' at this development.
The father of the groom and perhaps the happy couple themselves should be weary that in the not too distant future they could find themselves going cap in hand to a prime minister from the party that they appeared to have publicly humiliated.

Particularly as Blair was always a defender of the monarchy during his time in office. It would be a different scenario if he had been some closet Republican.

[Trommel]

William hates Blair (for indiscretions in his book amongst other things), that's supposedly why he isn't invited.

Seems reasonable to me.

[johnfm]

Gogoplata said:

Exactly, I keep on hearing the argument that they bring in more revenue than it costs to keep them, but I've not seen any reliable figures to back this argument up.

Have you tried a PH or google search?

It was done to death on here last year.

The information is readily available via google or any of the main newspaper sites.

[johnfm]

Gogoplata said:

Exactly, I keep on hearing the argument that they bring in more revenue than it costs to keep them, but I've not seen any reliable figures to back this argument up.

Have you tried a PH or google search?

It was done to death on here last year.

The information is readily available via google or any of the main newspaper sites.

[Lost soul]

Trommel said:

William hates Blair (for indiscretions in his book amongst other things), that's supposedly why he isn't invited.

Seems reasonable to me.

How do you know that ?

[M3333]

Looking at the facts for a second, various Royals and the Queen worked with Blair and Brown over a 13 year period. Personally i do not fall for the 'title' argument. If the Royals had any sort of good and trusting friendship with the previous premiers they would have easily been invited to such a high prominent wedding. I really wouldnt want Cherie Blair at my wedding, would you?

Also Kates Parents are both very sucessfull having built a business from scratch - i am sure they are no fan of Blair or the Labour years.

Totally snubbed imho and bloody wonderful to see