The British Monarchy

You see I just dont get this Royalty thing, why should Prince Andrew or Edward be a more important person than....oh I dont know, Blue Mist or Kaz or some charitable voluntary worker, the concept is outmoded and goes against modern equality, and why does one family need 3000 or so rooms in various castles and estates with bucket loads of servants paid for by Joe public ? Is it purely tradition, or tourist income, if thats the case why not have the worlds biggest and best theme park or something ?
The concept of a common tourist attraction surely diminishes the apparent majesty and reverence of their Royal highnesses.
And why/how do they bring all this income in ? Tourists dont have tea with Princess Anne or Camilla do they, in fact they dont see the Royal family, surely they would come to see the buildings, like they do in Paris...Tower Of London. The Mall, Horse Guards Parade etc, Windsor Castle and Buck Palace could be opened to the public, admittance fees, earning millions and still have the changing of the guard etc. Paris has more tourists than London and no Royals.
 
Bill Walker said:
You see I just dont get this Royalty thing, why should Prince Andrew or Edward be a more important person than....oh I dont know, Blue Mist or Kaz or some charitable voluntary worker, the concept is outmoded and goes against modern equality, and why does one family need 3000 or so rooms in various castles and estates with bucket loads of servants paid for by Joe public ? Is it purely tradition, or tourist income, if thats the case why not have the worlds biggest and best theme park or something ?
The concept of a common tourist attraction surely diminishes the apparent majesty and reverence of their Royal highnesses.
And why/how do they bring all this income in ? Tourists dont have tea with Princess Anne or Camilla do they, in fact they dont see the Royal family, surely they would come to see the buildings, like they do in Paris...Tower Of London. The Mall, Horse Guards Parade etc, Windsor Castle and Buck Palace could be opened to the public, admittance fees, earning millions and still have the changing of the guard etc. Paris has more tourists than London and no Royals.
Click to expand...
The suggestion that the paedo Prince is more important than @kaz7 is outrageous.
 
Bill Walker said:
You see I just dont get this Royalty thing, why should Prince Andrew or Edward be a more important person than....oh I dont know, Blue Mist or Kaz or some charitable voluntary worker, the concept is outmoded and goes against modern equality, and why does one family need 3000 or so rooms in various castles and estates with bucket loads of servants paid for by Joe public ? Is it purely tradition, or tourist income, if thats the case why not have the worlds biggest and best theme park or something ?
The concept of a common tourist attraction surely diminishes the apparent majesty and reverence of their Royal highnesses.
And why/how do they bring all this income in ? Tourists dont have tea with Princess Anne or Camilla do they, in fact they dont see the Royal family, surely they would come to see the buildings, like they do in Paris...Tower Of London. The Mall, Horse Guards Parade etc, Windsor Castle and Buck Palace could be opened to the public, admittance fees, earning millions and still have the changing of the guard etc. Paris has more tourists than London and no Royals.
Click to expand...

en.m.wikipedia.org

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Once you take that away, the result is a bit like Christianity after Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution.

Incoherently muddling along.
 
20211025_164327.png

Pre pandemic top 100 tourist attractions in 2019, sort of dispells the myth they bring in masses of tourism, all 3 royal sites bring in just more than legoland .
 
urban genie said:
View attachment 28732

Pre pandemic top 100 tourist attractions in 2019, sort of dispells the myth they bring in masses of tourism, all 3 royal sites bring in just more than legoland .
Click to expand...
That list sort of proves that it doesnt matter if the RF is in those buildings, visitors would still go to see the buildings and grounds, Chatsworth got more visitors that Buck Palace.
 
urban genie said:
View attachment 28732

Pre pandemic top 100 tourist attractions in 2019, sort of dispells the myth they bring in masses of tourism, all 3 royal sites bring in just more than legoland .
Click to expand...

The top four (at least) are free entry, Buckingham Palace was about £40 eight years ago.
Revenue generated per venue is what matters, this is meaningless.
 
urban genie said:
Tbf the Stuarts were usurpers also so his claim is a bad as the present lot

The earl of louden has a better claim
Click to expand...
George 1 was 56th inline for the throne - but the 1st non-catholic
William 1st had no real claim to the throne other than beating Harold. Henry V11's claim was very tenuous. Richard 111 by murdering his nephews.
Inheriting the the throne was mainly down to battles, murder or religion.
 
WNRH said:
Paid attractions.
Click to expand...

No you're mistaken.

National portrait gallery has an entrance fee and so do parts of the Royal Museums Greenwich. Both in top 20 on the list.

That’s also true of many of the "free" museums in London, when I went to the Science museum in 2019 there were at least 3 or 4 exhibits that had an additional cost (between £3 and £6 each from memory), then there is money made in the gift shop, cafes and restaurants and additional novelties like coin press machines, commerative coin vending machines and photos taken by staff.

I went to the Natural history museum last month and there was an exhibit to see the creatures from fantastic beasts. I didn't go in but can remember adult tickets are £22.

And we haven't even got to the tourist money spent in hospitality and retail in the area around the Museums in South Kensington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top