Hey, dumb dumb, I went to the Tower of London when I was in London and i can assure you that it had nothing to do with whether there currently was a sitting monarch ... just like I would go see all the castles on teh romantic road if given an opportunity, even tho there is no sitting monarch in Germany ... just like I've visited many of the ruins in rome, even tho, their is no roman emperor or republic.<quoted text>
News flash (two words incidentally) you care to back that up with something or is the word of a blow hard like yourself acceptable?
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .
Tourism is the third-biggest industry in the U.K., the tourism board claims, and supports about 2.6 million jobs -- or about one in 12.
So, to say that you need a sitting monarch and need to support them with taxes so that people will visit these very interesting historical places is disingenuous. People would visit these things regardless whether the monarchy exists or not is completely irrelevant.
Now, if you said millions of folks pay a ton of money to visit the Queen of England and have an audience with her, you might have a point, but no one is meeting royalty when they go to these places, rather they are visiting historical places.