Reply to: Unbe * lievable!!!!

[OwlHoot]

That is the most stupid argument to have a Royal Family, besides that; tourist still flock to Paris and Versailles and the French royal family had their heads cut off a long time ago.

They'd probably have even more tourists if the French had a royal family, and imagine how much tours of the Bastille would rake in if the twits hadn't torn it down.

[SueEllen]

People always say that. There is no evidence for it at all and it makes no sense. If you go to the Vatican, do you do so just because the pope lives there or because you want to to see the famous historical buldings, artifacts and artwork, like the Cistine Chapel?

Some people who are religious actually go to see the Vatican just because the pope lives there. They aren't interested in the history and the art work at all or alone.

When the pope came to the UK there were large crowds to see him.

What tourist want to see is the history and the culture. If we took over all the palaces, art and lands now exclusive to the royal family and opened them up to the public, tourism would rise, not fall.

I've actually met a couple of Yanks who made a special trip to the "London" because of the Jubilee. Yes I did have to keep a straight face.

And I have known for a while that the crown has influence over laws as some laws specifically exempt the crown for example as an employer. However I was not aware how they got the exemption written in.

[Doggy Styles]

What do you think of this?

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed | UK news | The Guardian

Why is it unbelievable?

I thought everyone had always known that the head of state has veto over new laws, which is true of most if not all countries as far as I know. That's what a head of state is for.

[MarillionFan]

That is the most stupid argument to have a Royal Family, besides that; tourist still flock to Paris and Versailles and the French royal family had their heads cut off a long time ago.

In a recent study, it was shown that on average visitors to Paris and Versaille where down over 70% since the revolution, with feedback studies stating that visitors had specifically come to glimpse the Sun King.

[Robinho]

That is the most stupid argument to have a Royal Family, besides that; tourist still flock to Paris and Versailles and the French royal family had their heads cut off a long time ago.

Really?

I only go to work because i get paid, is that stupid?

[Paddy]

The Royal family is the biggest tourist trap in the world.

That's why we need them.

That is the most stupid argument to have a Royal Family, besides that; tourist still flock to Paris and Versailles and the French royal family had their heads cut off a long time ago.

[VectraMan]

Oh for a monarch that actually worked for democracy.

Well there's a contradiction in terms.

[xoggoth]

Tat with the Queens face on it brings in £1.2billion a year in taxes to the UK

So what does tat with the Union Jack, Tower Bridge, St Pauls Cathedral etc bring in? Without such relevant comparitive information your figure is meaningless.

In any case, the queen (quite rightly) is a popular lady, I doubt that tat with the Prince of Daftnesses' face on it would bring in too much. He is a total a*rse, as is his brother.

[xoggoth]

I wouldn't worry too much. An Act of Parliament hasn't been vetoed by the Sovereign for over 300 years now.

I really don't think some of you have bothered to read the article. Maybe no bill has been vetoed but that is not to say that the law has not been influenced. Try reading it!

Kirkhope said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent for draft bills was not a mere formality. "The correspondence indicates that the effects of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation," he said. "Departments of state have fought to avoid releasing correspondence which gives some hint of how the process works and the Cabinet Office has resisted releasing details of the guidance which determines whether the prince as Duke of Cornwall is consulted in the first place.

[MarillionFan]

People always say that. There is no evidence for it at all and it makes no sense. If you go to the Vatican, do you do so just because the pope lives there or because you want to to see the famous historical buldings, artifacts and artwork, like the Cistine Chapel?

What tourist want to see is the history and the culture. If we took over all the palaces, art and lands now exclusive to the royal family and opened them up to the public, tourism would rise, not fall.

According to a recent study Tat with the Queens face on it brings in £1.2billion a year in taxes to the UK and that's excluding the image rights for her face by Royal Mail. She's the David Beckham of the royalty set.

[escapeUK]

It's one of those things. The monarch has the right to veto any law, so long as she never actually does so. (If she did it would force a constitutional crisis, and we'd probably end up without a monarchy - instead an elected president with all that that entails ).

What if she did something incredibly popular like veto membership of the EU? Or force a Yes / No referendum? Oh for a monarch that actually worked for democracy.

[xoggoth]

The Royal family is the biggest tourist trap in the world

People always say that. There is no evidence for it at all and it makes no sense. If you go to the Vatican, do you do so just because the pope lives there or because you want to to see the famous historical buldings, artifacts and artwork, like the Cistine Chapel?

What tourist want to see is the history and the culture. If we took over all the palaces, art and lands now exclusive to the royal family and opened them up to the public, tourism would rise, not fall.

[Robinho]

The Royal family is the biggest tourist trap in the world.

That's why we need them.

[VectraMan]

It's one of those things. The monarch has the right to veto any law, so long as she never actually does so. (If she did it would force a constitutional crisis, and we'd probably end up without a monarchy - instead an elected president with all that that entails ).

It shows how completely redundant a monarchy is. Even when they do have a function, they don't exercise that function.

If the monarchy serves no purpose, why do we need a president if we don't have a monarch?

[NotAllThere]

It's one of those things. The monarch has the right to veto any law, so long as she never actually does so. (If she did it would force a constitutional crisis, and we'd probably end up without a monarchy - instead an elected president with all that that entails ).