the queen is a good source of income for uk... or london anyway.
makes more money through tourism than she costs.
no we don't need a queen, but it's goo for business.
the queen is a good source of income for uk... or london anyway.makes more money through tourism than she costs.no we don't need a queen, but it's goo for business.
Not correct, are you seriously saying there would be far fewer people visiting London if it wasn't for her?
"makes more money through tourism than she costs"Not correct, are you seriously saying there would be far fewer people visiting London if it wasn't for her?
no way in hell people come to this country to see the queen, that is a load of bullsh8t. Thier is so much to this country that the queen is the last thing in thier mind unless these tourists are the most boring people on earth
no way in hell people come to this country to see the queen, that is a load of bullsh8t. Thier is so much to this country that the queen is the last thing in thier mind unless these tourists are the most boring people on earth
When they scrapped Royal Yacht Britannia as the dimwits said they couldn't justify the 85million expense Britain lost out on a conservative estimate of 750million a year income it generated in swinging deals Britain's way.
That is conservative as that was only estimated for the royal usage not the Government usage in which it played no small part wooing the Saudis in the 1980's who went on to spend 40 billion on British products.
It's the same with the royal family. If we didn't have them our tourism industry would feel a massive dent not only from Americans but also the Japanese. I'm not saying they would all stop coming but if there is less attraction for them they will not stay as long and as such spend teir money elsewwhere.
When they scrapped Royal Yacht Britannia as the dimwits said they couldn't justify the 85million expense Britain lost out on a conservative estimate of 750million a year income it generated in swinging deals Britain's way.That is conservati