It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by aivlas
I put the 6 billion figure up. It comes from Bloomberg tv thi morning and the expert giving the breaddown is Mat(?) Gotkine. I don't know how to post a link but if you goog bloomberg tv uk you can pick it up there - something about will the Royal Wedding damage the UK's ecomony.
There are estimates that the royal wedding will be the most expensive security event in U.K. history at the equivalent in pounds of about $30 million. For the wedding, I've seen estimates of $80 million in revenues to hotels in London and retailers selling souvenirs such as dishes, pillows, and playing cards. Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion.
Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Lynda101
Ok well I posted that link I think and it says
There are estimates that the royal wedding will be the most expensive security event in U.K. history at the equivalent in pounds of about $30 million. For the wedding, I've seen estimates of $80 million in revenues to hotels in London and retailers selling souvenirs such as dishes, pillows, and playing cards. Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion
So many estimates it's not even funny..
www.bloomberg.com...
Sorry, I messed up on formatting there.
Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by aivlas
Hi, its not the right link. www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/bloombergs-gotkine-says-royal-wedding-may-hurt-erconomy-video html
Eliot Gotkine.
Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by budski
Sorry, I messed up on formatting there.
yet you accused me of being a liar this afternoon when I did the same?
Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by budski
Back on topic
Do you really think that this wedding cost £50 billion ?.........or even the £6 billion you were banding about earlier?
Originally posted by Lynda101
Tourists, like us only get rare glimpses of the Royals at ceremonies or at play somewhere. Buckingham Palace may have had 50,000 but that's nothing compared to the 3,000,000 that visit just the Royal chateau in Versailles, without taking into account the visitors that visit all the other French and German beautiful castles and palaces,which they can actually afford to run because they don't maintain any Royals.
We are given a figure of 66p pp to maintain the royals. That actually adds up to considerably more than the £7 million odd the Government admits they cost. Presumably that comes from the Civil List which pays for their staff, execs, admin, catering,hospitality,housekeeping,furnishings, ceremonial functions, sundres and spending on assets - (which does not include gambling bills that the Queen Mother ran up). What it does not cover are thing like security etc which comes out of the Armed Forces and Police budgets. We will probably never get to the real figure but it will be huge.
The Media are the ones that have given the wedding the hype it has had and every opportunity has been taken
to try to stir up the public about this wedding. However I suspect its actually less than 20% of the public are actually fans. Diana's death has damaged them deeply.
People seem to think that the Royal Family are 'one of us'. They are not. They come from old, quite secretive land-owning Royal European families, whom only ever intermarried other royal houses thereby keeping their assets and power intact. They often ended up ruling over peoples they had no personal relationship to. Queen Victoria's first language was German, not English. As most countries rumbled and then kicked out their royals the marriage market became less populated and they have over the last few of generations married from the lower eschelons.
The Queen is cousin to the then US President Bush and David Cameron, even Obama appears to have some weird link to her through a supposed Egyptian line and William has married a distant cousin. So its still all in the family despite appearances. These links are very handy for protecting 'one's interestboth on internal and foreign policy.
The Queen still has the power of Veto and has probably bargained with it to avoid paying tax for years. It was not that long ago that an investigative journalist, rare today, managed to reveal the phenomenal extent of her wealth, things like part of Times Square etc. Anyone who thinks the Queen has no hand in government is actually a fool. She receives every day except Christmas and New Year Despatch Boxes which update her with affairs across the world. A Red Box contains The Page of the Presence which holds Cabint, Foreign and Commonwealth documents which she has to sign. The Prime Minister visits her every week to take her instructions. She still governs and obviously helps select favoured personages into selected jobs. Cameron would never have made PM without Buck House's help.
Personally I would like a chance to vote for a proper democracy, I doubt in this day and age we would retain our royalty if the public actually realised the serruptituous stranglehold around the world our Royals actually hold. However they understand the value of eliteism and maintain an honours list which most would sell their principles to get on