emma royd Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 So without the Royals tourists wouldn't come? No-one would still want to visit Buck Palace or The Tower of London for example? We could still sell teddy bears dressed as Beefeaters and tat like that without there having to be actual royals. France had the best idea, they still somehow manage to attract tourists. I think it is about numbers. I'm sure some folks would still go to Alton Towers without the rides. Just not as many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I think it is about numbers. I'm sure some folks would still go to Alton Towers without the rides. I'm sure some people would go to Buckingham Palace if it was opened up as a tourist attraction, and not a big house for someone we didn't vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottf Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 You do know they don't belong to her personally, don't you? Yes.. and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Actually the royal family are paying for the wedding- we are just paying for the security as per normal? Don't start saying things like that the trots won't have anything left not to be interested in.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missymoo73 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Some of your taxes goes towards paying for prisons... :hihi: good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Yes.. and? Then there is no reason not to show the Crown Jewels. The Tower of London is an historical site anyway, it's full of history. The cell scribbled with graffiti from 500 years ago. It's interesting in its own right. It doesn't need a monarch to justify its tourist appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottf Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Then there is no reason not to show the Crown Jewels. The Tower of London is an historical site anyway, it's full of history. The cell scribbled with graffiti from 500 years ago. It's interesting in its own right. It doesn't need a monarch to justify its tourist appeal. Well the crown actually owns the crown jewels (i guess the clue is in the name right?) so without the monarchy there wouldn't be any to show. 500 year old graffiti? Wow- your right, that will have them queing round the block! Its funny that your argueing for the preservation of something that, without the same thing your trying to get rid of, wouldn't exist. Or is the historical value of the royal family ok- you just don't like the current lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Well the crown actually owns the crown jewels (i guess the clue is in the name right?) so without the monarchy there wouldn't be any to show. 500 year old graffiti? Wow- your right, that will have them queing round the block! Its funny that your argueing for the preservation of something that, without the same thing your trying to get rid of, wouldn't exist. Or is the historical value of the royal family ok- you just don't like the current lot? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/11/17/us-britain-wedding-retail-idUSTRE6AG1HL20101117 (Reuters) - The marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton next year could give a 620 million pound ($985 million) boost to the British economy, retail researchers Verdict said on Wednesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Well the crown actually owns the crown jewels (i guess the clue is in the name right?) so without the monarchy there wouldn't be any to show. Would they vanish? You need to learn your history. The House of Hanover (George I) was invited to be our King, and has no claim on any possessions. They do not own any of the Crown possessions. The Estates, the Palaces. They are State owned essentially. It's a mad system of government, and you certainly can't use it to justify keeping them. "We've got to have a Queen because we gave her a crown. Look, it's all shiny and everything." Take the bloody thing back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 you just don't like the current lot? I don't mind them. Lizzy is alreet. Her husband is an arse, her son is an arse. William and Harry didn't deserve to lose their mother. Ideologically, I dislike the monarchy very much. How am I 'argueing for the preservation of something that, without the same thing your trying to get rid of, wouldn't exist'? Liz'll pack it up and take it with her if she leaves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.