BoyBlue_1985 said:johnmc said:BoyBlue_1985 said:I said old lady in big house ;)
Well i see the amount of people that go to Buckingham Palace and Windsor. I dont think anyone would just come to see the Queen or the Palaces but they will spend 2 days of a weeks holiday going around seeing it all. There are grander better looking places than Buckingham Palace in London but they dont get the same amount of people go them. people go because the Queen lives there not because its a lovely building.
I have had 10-12 friends come from Australia and 5 from the USA and the first thing they wanted do was go there regardless of the fact its boring as watching paint dry
They would still be able to look round buckingham even if there wasnt a queen. In fact they could see all of it not a limited amount. Or do they only go because there is a living queen.
Imagine they turned it into a hotel. You could stay in the queens bedroom in return for what it would take to run a hospital ward for a month.
Thats what i just said mate. There are better buildings in London than Buckingham Palace but people go there because its the Queens gaff otherwise its just another big old building in London. It would be state owned for 2 weeks until someone offered them £350 million. Then it would either be someone elses house or a foreign owned hotel.
johnmc said:BoyBlue_1985 said:johnmc said:They would still be able to look round buckingham even if there wasnt a queen. In fact they could see all of it not a limited amount. Or do they only go because there is a living queen.
Imagine they turned it into a hotel. You could stay in the queens bedroom in return for what it would take to run a hospital ward for a month.
Thats what i just said mate. There are better buildings in London than Buckingham Palace but people go there because its the Queens gaff otherwise its just another big old building in London. It would be state owned for 2 weeks until someone offered them £350 million. Then it would either be someone elses house or a foreign owned hotel.
It will always be the queens gaff. Just question whether it mattered that she still lived there.
Ancient Citizen said:nijinsky's fetlocks said:Ancient Citizen said:Dearie me, you sound like some Wat Tyler wannabe. Where the fuck does Obama live? I don't see many shots of him walking out of his tenement in downtown Detroit.
That,in fairness,is a strawman argument.
Nobody would rationally hypothesize that the most powerful man in the world should live in a Detroit ghetto.
The royal family current own huge amounts of both land and property in this country that are totally disproportionate to their needs,and I think in these times of national austerity we should be entitled to ask whether or not these lavish and costly assets are either justified or necessary,as well as trimming the Civil List somewhat.
I agree that nobody would rationally hypothesize Obama should live in a ghetto, but the poster was suggesting the queen shouldn't live in a palace, a ridiculous argument for any head of state. Also, the civil list costs are, and should be, subject to scrutiny by the govt. of the day, but as far as I am aware have not been increased lately. Let's by all means have a discussion but crass suggestions about how equal we all are smacks of the days of the levellers.
johnmc said:BoyBlue_1985 said:johnmc said:They would still be able to look round buckingham even if there wasnt a queen. In fact they could see all of it not a limited amount. Or do they only go because there is a living queen.
Imagine they turned it into a hotel. You could stay in the queens bedroom in return for what it would take to run a hospital ward for a month.
Thats what i just said mate. There are better buildings in London than Buckingham Palace but people go there because its the Queens gaff otherwise its just another big old building in London. It would be state owned for 2 weeks until someone offered them £350 million. Then it would either be someone elses house or a foreign owned hotel.
It will always be the queens gaff. Just question whether it mattered that she still lived there.
WNRH said:johnmc said:BoyBlue_1985 said:Thats what i just said mate. There are better buildings in London than Buckingham Palace but people go there because its the Queens gaff otherwise its just another big old building in London. It would be state owned for 2 weeks until someone offered them £350 million. Then it would either be someone elses house or a foreign owned hotel.
It will always be the queens gaff. Just question whether it mattered that she still lived there.
It's the most important thing. Yanks and other tourists won't spend hundreds of millions coming to a country where Royalty used to live and reign. Get rid of the monarchs and in 50 years London would not be a tourist attraction it is now.
ban-mcfc said:Lucky13 said:ban-mcfc said:yes but why them? why can't my family live in luxury and go travelling in 5 star for a job? what makes them more important or special than anyone else?
equality my arse.
The Queen, 85, works more hours , pays more tax , creates more jobs and raises more money for charity than you , all through an accident of birth , her sense of duty after the death of her father is her motivation.
you've missed my point,
why should she get the opportunity over anyone else? i could be even better than her in that job, you never know.accident of birth? it's still this ridiculous notion that the royal family has been chosen by some made up man in the sky. we all know that's bullshit so why should they have this life of luxury?
and i'm not sure about "working" more hours. has she ever done 7am-5pm in a factory 6 days a week doing manual labour? or has she just gone round visiting loads of places on the back of the tax i pay? there's plenty of 85 year old women that have worked for 60 years and i mean real work and are now living on peanuts, you don't see wanna be middle class sheep waving and snapping pictures at them.
i understand they create money and do a lot of good but my problem is why them? why not bob from next door? it's the same with footballers, you get people saying "oh james milner is such a great guy and a model proffesional"- no he's just a guy who's talented and he realises he needs to get on with his job with minimal fuss just like 90+% of other people who work and considering the money he's on and the fact it's something he enjoys then so he should.
oh and jonny crossan, i'm nobodies loyal subject.