Megxit

[EFLImpudence]

Ok, taking your site, London and New York about the same. Only one has a monarch living in it, so it can't be that - unless that is the only reason for visiting London.

Beaten by Dubai, Mecca, Bangkok, and Singapore.

 

[EddieM]

Ok, taking your site, London and New York about the same. Only one has a monarch living in it, so it can't be that - unless that is the only reason for visiting London.

Beaten by Dubai, Mecca, Bangkok, and Singapore.

But not beaten by any other European country by a wide margin.

 

[JohnD]

No, income which was the stated benefit of a monarchy.

Our Monarch performs various constitutional functions, but we now know that she must do what a politician tells her, even when everybody knows he is lying.

So what's the point?

 

[JohnD]

Additionally some sources suggest London is visited by more overseas visitors than Paris (no idea why though)

Americans, Japanese, Chinese and most Arabs can't speak French.

 

[transam]

What would u replace the monarch with?

Some elected be** end as head of state

 

[EddieM]

Americans, Japanese, Chinese and most Arabs can't speak French.

Americans can't speak English.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But not beaten by any other European country by a wide margin.

So, that means the previously given Paris figure was wrong as well, so who knows which figures are correct?

The other European cities that also have monarchies don't seem to do as well for some reason.

I have been to London many times. On no occasion was it because the Queen was home.

I think attributing tourism to London and the UK to the monarchy is stretching credibility which, of course, is what the supporters would do.

 

[Notch7]

Nope

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-in-international-visitor-spending-worldwide/

Bangkok is visited more than London.

Sex tourism is more popular than the Royals
The knob a bigger motivation

 

[EFLImpudence]

Don't be silly. It's because the King lives there.

 

[Notch7]

People in general would prefer to actually be able to look inside historic buildings (

Nah

Historic buildings are boring
People only want to visit Buckingham palace to see where the Queen has a hefty herman.

 

[Notch7]

Don't be silly. It's because the King lives there.

Maybe

They play the national anthem at railway and tube stations, you have to stand still when it comes on the public address.

And its played at the cinema.

Dont diss the King, you could end up in jail.

 

[EddieM]

So, that means the previously given Paris figure was wrong as well, so who knows which figures are correct?

The other European cities that also have monarchies don't seem to do as well for some reason.

I have been to London many times. On no occasion was it because the Queen was home.

I think attributing tourism to London and the UK to the monarchy is stretching credibility which, of course, is what the supporters would do.

Maybe, who knows? As said not a fan of monarchy.

 

[EddieM]

Nah

Historic buildings are boring
People only want to visit Buckingham palace to see where the Queen has a hefty herman.

Historic buildings are not in the slightest bit boring, they are awesome.

 

[crystal ball]

Maybe

They play the national anthem at railway and tube stations, you have to stand still when it comes on the public address.

And its played at the cinema.

Dont diss the King, you could end up in jail.

We were sat waiting for a bus, wondering why the traffic had gone quiet, a soldier in dress uniform stood nearby clapped his hands and gestured for us to stand as the king whizzed past

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Ok, taking your site, London and New York about the same. Only one has a monarch living in it, so it can't be that - unless that is the only reason for visiting London.

Beaten by Dubai, Mecca, Bangkok, and Singapore.

Who in their right mind would want to visit Dubai and Mecca?