Community Chat

[Mersha]

I cannot imagine having a monarchy bring in tons of tourist dollars, except in the event of a royal wedding, funeral or coronation (very rare occasions).

People would travel there for many reasons, especially younger generations, but for a monarchy????? 

On the off chance you may be seeing them in person for some reason, I just don't think so.

[Trailrun23]

The PM and Parliament need to address the healthcare needs of the citizens. The monarchy is indeed a separate set-up. The jewels and other trappings that represent the royals are historic heirlooms passed down for generations. 

[beckyb1012]

Taken from the https://www.visitbritain.org/value-tourism-england

The value of tourism in England 

Generating £100.8 billion a year. Employing over 2 million people. Supporting thousands of businesses. Making up over 80% of the UK's total visitor economy, England's tourism sector is vibrant and vital.

Tourism works hand in hand with a wide range of sectors across England, including farming, transport, retail, sport, museums and the arts.

The numbers listed in the article are for 2019 but tourism is a big money maker in England.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@Mersha wrote:

I cannot imagine having a monarchy bring in tons of tourist dollars, except in the event of a royal wedding, funeral or coronation (very rare occasions).

People would travel there for many reasons, especially younger generations, but for a monarchy????? 

On the off chance you may be seeing them in person for some reason, I just don't think so.

---

@Mersha 

ITA ....  I don't think they bring in nearly as much money as their propaganda machine says they do.  After all, England has never not had a monarchy in modern times ....   so how can they accurately compare their tourism value both with and without them?

I've been to England three times and the royals never factored into anything I did there.  

Perhaps if the monarchy was abolished, and the palaces were completely open to the public .. now THAT might increase tourism.  Otherwise, nah.

[Trailrun23]

One of the pillars of the monarchy is tradition....it will be interesting how far he moves away from some of the centuries-old traditions. I don't think he will do away with as many things as some may be predicting.  

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@grandma r wrote:

Since the Monarch is also considered the head of the Church of England, how can a divorced person (who also admitted to adultry) be crowned????  His Uncle David chose to abdicate in order to marry Wallis.

Should the Church decide that Charles can't be crowned, who would be next in line?????  I would think Edward (as the only child of Her Majesty not divorced) may be next in line instead of William.  That would surely send Camilla into a tailspin. 

---

@grandma r 

I don't know much about what their church believes, but how can someone be the head of it and never conduct masses and religious events? 

The Pope conducts mass frequently ... now he is the HEAD of the Catholic church.  Charles doesn't even come close.  In part it's just another title so the royals can collect more money.  They aren't really all that useful, except for the pomp and silliness.

[MG Chris]

I love how all the Americans think they should do away with the Monarchy. It is not up to us. I hate to break it to you, but the UK loves its Monarchy. Look at the Jubilee and the different events they attend. The crowds young and old go wild for them. 

All this hatred and name-calling for Camilla is hysterical. That woman was not the only one in that love triangle. Everyone has sainted Diana and ignores the fact that she had her own set of issues that helped that situation along. Camilla has kept her head down and worked hard for some pretty difficult charities. She has earned her right to be where she is.

[beckyb1012]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@grandma r wrote:

Since the Monarch is also considered the head of the Church of England, how can a divorced person (who also admitted to adultry) be crowned????  His Uncle David chose to abdicate in order to marry Wallis.

Should the Church decide that Charles can't be crowned, who would be next in line?????  I would think Edward (as the only child of Her Majesty not divorced) may be next in line instead of William.  That would surely send Camilla into a tailspin. 

---

@grandma r 

I don't know much about what their church believes, but how can someone be the head of it and never conduct masses and religious events? 

The Pope conducts mass frequently ... now he is the HEAD of the Catholic church.  Charles doesn't even come close.  In part it's just another title so the royals can collect more money.  They aren't really all that useful, except for the pomp and silliness.

---

It is no different than under the Constitution, the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy is the supreme military commander charged with the responsibility of protecting and defending the United States.  

[geezerette]

…The British monarch also serves as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which historically refused to bless the unions of anyone with a living ex-spouse. The church softened its position in 2002 to allow divorced individuals to remarry under “exceptional circumstances.” …

…By the time Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005, Britain’s social climate had changed to the point that the divorced heir to the throne could marry a divorced woman who had long been his lover. But the couple did not marry in a church, choosing instead a civil ceremony at the Windsor Guildhall, which is outside the grounds of Windsor Castle.

In another compromise, Charles’ mother, the queen, did not attend the ceremony, at least in part because of her role as the head of the Church of England, which frowns on divorce. But she and her husband Prince Philip did attend a formal church blessing of the marriage after the ceremony. …

Excerpts from AP article May, 2018

[ROMARY]

I don't have any facts or statistics.....'Still' I think that the Monarchy's and Royal events prompt tourists to visit the country.  

I was there in the late seventies, and I and my friends felt the 'aura' of the Queen and all that she embraced at that time.

Something 'special' about the Queen's presence in her country.  

Well, 'that's just me'.  Maybe others, too.