The comments I made were to a very immature piece of typing. Your hatred for the royals is plain for all to see and I will reiterate once again seeing a you did not get it first time round. The Royals bring in millions of pound on their own both with visitors who do really like to see royalty and Buck house and all the pageantry that goes with it.... Some of the Royals actually do go abroad to drum up business which AGAIN brings millions of pounds in and also creates jobs. As an added note they do pay taxes as well .....
The part where I said you should go back to school is because you obviously did not pay attention to your history lessons when you were there or while you are there whatever the case may be. Books are a good source of knowledge to

That's a bit of an unfair comparison as Flamingo Land brings in mainly visitors from the local area whilst London's heritage including Buckingham Palace brings in overseas visitors with their Dollars and Euros

I think the question is would they still come. After all Buckingham Palace is what they see, not the queen. Without the Queen, you could be making a killing on tours of the entire building all year round. Even people in the UK would probably be up for a trip round Buck Palace.

Its not like the Tower of London has got less interesting to tourists over the years.

In reality, they're pretty much cosmetic, reasonably popular and do no harm with no political power. The only real damage they do is to their own gene pool

I think Charles's secret letters, the ones he fought so hard to hide, are proof he isn't as neutral as he makes out.

Possibly they do, but maintaining a Presidency would probably cost about the same and no one would come to this country just because we have a President. One of the attractions of this country id that it has living history in the form of the monarchy. It's romantic and people like it and it's often a big factor in attracting tourists.

If we have to have a figurehead as Head of State, I'd rather it was HM than some time-serving, grubby, washed up, ex-politician as President.

The benefits of keeping HM and the panoply of monarchy far, far outweigh the advantages of getting rid.

Not sure why, considering your head of state would be someone democratically elected.

I'd prefer choice than Charles.

I'd also argue that she holds almost no relevance to visit numbers. The history wouldn't just disappear if the Monarchy were abolished. In fact, if they were gone, we'd probably see more visitors due to the accessibility of all the residences and Palace's.

It's not like she's that popular that she'll influence people to come here:

[Link]

Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 7.41pm)