Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2007/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
implications of future events
Under the arguments against the monarchy was the following statement: "The UK is one of the most secular and religiously appathetic countries in the world, yet has a Christian head of state. In the future, this is likely to be even more discriminatory as the demise of religion in the United Kingdom becomes greater." As the last sentence is speculative at best and biased at worst, I have removed it. Current trends away from religion are not enough to suggest those trends will continue. Ærin (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tourism?
Has there ever been a study on the amount of money the Monarchy brings into the British ecomomy by being a tourist magnet? If so, should something about that be added to the "arguments for the Monarchy" section? Blueboar 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant because France has no monarchy and Paris brings in 3 times as many tourists as London does. I doubt if there was no monarchy there would be a drop in tourists as tourists could go in and see the places that are now off-limits due to them being occupied. Tremello22 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- As irrelevant and silly a point it is (and debatable if other countries have not problem), it is also one of arguments often made by monarchists (although precisely why the best system of government for a country should be determined by tourist revenue is beyond me...) and probably should be covered as it is one of the issues in the debate. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)