Quote Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H View Post
I think Princes William and Harry garner significant attention. Also, if you will recall the massive attention the Queen got when she visited the USA a couple of years ago, I would say certain classes of people have a fascination with the whole package, including today's Royals. Incidentally, Zara Philips is considered something of a heroine.

My opinion is that tourists do not visit Buckingham Palace for the History. I think they visit it because of the prestige surrounding the current Royal family.
I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.

So the queen got the attention when she visited USA once. US president gets the attention anywhere he goes and he is not a monarch, but ok, I agree somewhat with you that royal families get some extra media attention. Problem is, that media attention could also bring potential scandals and hurt the image of the country...

As I've said already, I don't think that being a monarchy brings so much more revenues from tourism, and tourism is my trade, btw... When I visited all those places, I thought of queen Elizabeth, queen Victoria, Henry V, Henry VIII etc... and not about present British monarch. I'm not even sure what her name is. Elizabeth, maybe?

The point of being a monarchy is in symbolism and I'm not sure how good of a symbol that is. Someone holds a high position in a country because he/she was born into it and not because it was earned.

Also, having a head of state that isn't allowed to practice politics, means that those parts have to be done by someone else, which again gives more power to that corrupt government you've been talking about...

Of course, in British case, there are other, more practical benefits, like queen of UK is also a head of state of 16 other countries and head of the commonwealth. In British case, it may be best to keep it until some drastic changes, but doesn't change my general dislike of monarchies and what they symbolize...