Originally Posted by
orbitmic
The point I make is a very simple one is a specific a claim that while I keep hearing that, I have seen no convincing empirical evidence that Monarchy makes a strong contribution to the UK tourist attractiveness.
A casual search turns up quite a bit of data on this, so it could just as easily be argued that no strong evidence is available to the contrary either. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than to spend ages on this point. It clearly consumes you, so why don't you go and examine the data instead of complaining about the lack of evidence?
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
The 'reasoning' that follows is 'all over the place' as you say because it tackles, one by one and specifically
Your perception of the strength of your own arguments ("tackle specifically") is quite a distance from reality I have to say. I really can't be bothered with this, but I don't have strong opinions/feelings about this issue, yet you singularly fail to convince me on all accounts. Lots of text, not much substance.
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
but for Germany, it is not obvious to me at all why we do less well. I could add that relative to population, countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic or Hungary seem to do rather well too. Hence my mentioning this.
In the case of Germany, it's got plenty of stuff to do and see, actually, plus ski offerings in winter, so I am not surprised by that.
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
On (2) Buckingham palace is the 4th main tourist attraction in London. But then, whether it would be any less without the Monarchy is dubious. Fontainebleau's royal forest is the 4th tourist attraction in the whole of France, which is a Republic, and the park of Versailles' castle is the 7th, Schoenbrunn palace is the top visitor attraction in Austria which is a Republic, etc., the Royal Castle is the top visitor attraction in the Czech Republic which is a Republic, etc. So again, I don't see this as evidence that the Monarchy per se is the attraction.
I'm going to be in a coma soon, god this is tedious. An equally valid way of looking at the above is that
monarchy does sell, it doesn't need to be a
living one is all you seem to demonstrate.
The rest of your novel length post doesn't seem to add anything further than "I disagree". I suspect a lot of it is arguing from an established anti monarchist position rather than a noble fight for evidence based internet forum debates, but I have other things to get on with!
As I said, I am neither pro or against monarchies or republics, it's not the sort of thing that I can get myself worked up about...