So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

Looks like Prince Joachim’s opinion in this matter was not considered.

Where does it say that? The only one I hear complaining is his ex wife.

Try reading the news-it’s all over the papers and prince joachim is publicly pissed and saying he was only given 5 days notice before his kids titles were taken away

Zzzzzzz. Don’t care.

Yet you’re reading and posting.

I care about Charles - the topic of the thread. I don’t care about some whiny entitled second son in Denmark or wherever.

This seems to think that Charles cares, though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

100%. I feel braindead reading these genuinely unintelligent justifications. Yes, because poor France is just down short on tourist dollars ever since they got rid of their royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles licensed the heck out of Highgrove. There’s a Highgrove product for everything. At least he’s trying to earn money for himself/his charities. I was a bit surprised to learn this because it seems a bit tacky but different strokes.

It does make me wonder why the ire around his son wanting the same (before earning off of tell-alls).

The Queen had her own brand of gin; Princess Michael writes / sells books as “Princess Michael of Kent”; the Duke of Kent recently published his biography; Princess Anne’s son did at least one milk commercial. And Prince Charles had his own tell-all. Pretty much everything that raised “ire around his son” was lauded when other family members did similar things.

+1

[Anonymous]

I've just never understand why people put so much effort into disliking things online. It seems like a bizarre use of one's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've just never understand why people put so much effort into disliking things online. It seems like a bizarre use of one's time.

There are pps that live to spew bile on the BRF in these threads. Jeff periodically shuts them down when they spiral into name-calling or making fun of children (yes, some of the posters resort to that) until there is maybe one thread remaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles licensed the heck out of Highgrove. There’s a Highgrove product for everything. At least he’s trying to earn money for himself/his charities. I was a bit surprised to learn this because it seems a bit tacky but different strokes.

It does make me wonder why the ire around his son wanting the same (before earning off of tell-alls).

The Queen had her own brand of gin; Princess Michael writes / sells books as “Princess Michael of Kent”; the Duke of Kent recently published his biography; Princess Anne’s son did at least one milk commercial. And Prince Charles had his own tell-all. Pretty much everything that raised “ire around his son” was lauded when other family members did similar things.

+1

Those aren't the thing that raised "ire around his son." Pretty sure that calling the lot of them racist did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

Do your research and give your numbers!

France has beaches and wine. The US has beaches, NYC, LA (Hollywood) and Disney. What does England have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

Do your research and give your numbers!

France has beaches and wine. The US has beaches, NYC, LA (Hollywood) and Disney. What does England have?

London has a lot! It's my son's favorite city and he only spent one day there. He loved the service at the hotel. Walking along the Thames. Speaking in English. People were really nice to him whereas in other places in Europe where they don't speak English his interactions were more limited. He liked how the food was all things he liked. Don't be so down on yourselves, English folks! We love you whether or not you've got the British royal family. You're like a more proper version of us (Americans) and visiting England isn't as stressful as going to France and having people constantly tsk. And the plays are much less expensive than going to shows on Broadway with a very similar experience. The museums are great too (although, coming from DC, that's not really the reason we fly all the way across the pond. I mean, we have good museums here too.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

Do your research and give your numbers!

France has beaches and wine. The US has beaches, NYC, LA (Hollywood) and Disney. What does England have?

I mean the Tate literally is the first thing comes to mind. Stonehenge obviously. Tower of London. But besides those things…you are acting as though everyone who books a Viking Cruise is getting a personal meeting with Charles. Are you seriously arguing that a big chunk of their tourism is people willing to travel to the UK to maybe, potentially get a glimpse of a royal? It’s just not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Once again, the facts of the Sovereign Grant are brushed over and people keep posting based on their ill-informed emotions, as always...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the facts of the Sovereign Grant are brushed over and people keep posting based on their ill-informed emotions, as always...

I assume you are asserting (correctly) that the Sovereign Grant is funded from 15% of the proceeds of the Crown Estate (owned by the British monarchy) and therefore essentially self funding. This is all completely seperate from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall which would make the BRF fabulously wealthy apart from these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

Looks like Prince Joachim’s opinion in this matter was not considered.

Where does it say that? The only one I hear complaining is his ex wife.

Try reading the news-it’s all over the papers and prince joachim is publicly pissed and saying he was only given 5 days notice before his kids titles were taken away

Zzzzzzz. Don’t care.

Yet you’re reading and posting.

I care about Charles - the topic of the thread. I don’t care about some whiny entitled second son in Denmark or wherever.

^^^and the fact that he commented and was all upset about it just further explains why his mom felt the first place. His children should not have their “identity” wrapped up in this - they are so far from the throne.

The parents messed up big time. They should have early on set their kids on the path to be self sufficient and foster an identity beyond the royal family since that was never going to be their future.

All the royals everywhere should do this unless they're expected to take the throne. Anyone in the BRF who isn't Charles, William, or George should have a profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

Do your research and give your numbers!

France has beaches and wine. The US has beaches, NYC, LA (Hollywood) and Disney. What does England have?

Versailles is kingless and has more visitors than Buckingham Palace. The absence of a monarchy means you can have tours which is what tourists like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.

Lol. This is gibberish. Just listing the amount of total tourism that is brought in and assuming 100% of that is due to the BRF is incredibly stupid. You do know that there are tons of museums and other historical and cultural sights in the U.K. Right? Also France and the United States still manage to bring in more tourism revenue than that without a royal family.

Do your research and give your numbers!

France has beaches and wine. The US has beaches, NYC, LA (Hollywood) and Disney. What does England have?

Versailles is kingless and has more visitors than Buckingham Palace. The absence of a monarchy means you can have tours which is what tourists like

The Louvre used to be a palace too.