You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Queen in Manchester today
- Thread starter Henry Chinaski
- Start date
dannybcity
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today
By that logic nobody would ever visit the pyramids or the Coliseum or New York...etc
WNRH said:johnmc said:WNRH said: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.
How do you know this? How many of them see any of the royal family on their visits.
Thousands visit Manchester, York, bath, Edinburgh etc with no royal palaces to see. And as I've said the palaces would still be there to visit.
Their are many cities all over the world that do not have living monarchs that welcome many visitors.
Prague for example has former royal palaces you can look round. Can you say that people don't visit as their isn't a living queen living there.
Why would they come to London? The weather? A big clock? They come because of the aura of a living monarch that is famous around the world. I bet if you were to do a survey of why are you going to London or why did you go to London and the answer "because that's where the queen lives" or "to see the queen" would come out on top by the vast majority.
In 50 years time will people still visit the Cavern Club and Liverpool in their thousands like they do now?
By that logic nobody would ever visit the pyramids or the Coliseum or New York...etc
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today
'They come because of the aura of a living monarch'?
Fuck me - what a pile of steaming horseshit.
About ten years ago,the London Tourist Board did a survey asking Americans arriving at Heathrow what the reasons were for their visit.
They asked nearly 14.000 people.
Take a wild stab at how many of these even mentioned the monarchy?
A massive 17.
This argument is clearly nonsense.
Do Brits going to Amsterdam go to see if Queen Beatrix is playing out?
Or do they go for the drugs,booze and prozzies?
Do drunken chavs go to Benidorm to witness Queen Sofia?
Or do they go to get wasted on cheap Sangria and have unsafe sex with secretaries from Luton?
By all means support the monarchy if you wish,but for fuck's sake purleese come up with a more credible reason to do so than this.
WNRH said:johnmc said:WNRH said: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.
How do you know this? How many of them see any of the royal family on their visits.
Thousands visit Manchester, York, bath, Edinburgh etc with no royal palaces to see. And as I've said the palaces would still be there to visit.
Their are many cities all over the world that do not have living monarchs that welcome many visitors.
Prague for example has former royal palaces you can look round. Can you say that people don't visit as their isn't a living queen living there.
Why would they come to London? The weather? A big clock? They come because of the aura of a living monarch that is famous around the world. I bet if you were to do a survey of why are you going to London or why did you go to London and the answer "because that's where the queen lives" or "to see the queen" would come out on top by the vast majority.
In 50 years time will people still visit the Cavern Club and Liverpool in their thousands like they do now?
'They come because of the aura of a living monarch'?
Fuck me - what a pile of steaming horseshit.
About ten years ago,the London Tourist Board did a survey asking Americans arriving at Heathrow what the reasons were for their visit.
They asked nearly 14.000 people.
Take a wild stab at how many of these even mentioned the monarchy?
A massive 17.
This argument is clearly nonsense.
Do Brits going to Amsterdam go to see if Queen Beatrix is playing out?
Or do they go for the drugs,booze and prozzies?
Do drunken chavs go to Benidorm to witness Queen Sofia?
Or do they go to get wasted on cheap Sangria and have unsafe sex with secretaries from Luton?
By all means support the monarchy if you wish,but for fuck's sake purleese come up with a more credible reason to do so than this.
emptypockets
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 1,090
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today
London's top 10 attractions in order of popularity based on visitors in 2010:
1. British Museum
2. Tate Modern
3. National Gallery
4. National History Museum
5. London Eye
6. Science Museum
7. Victoria and Albert Museum
8. Madame Tussauds
9. Royal Museums Greenwich (nothing to do with the royal family anymore, by the way)
10. The Tower of London (run by Historic Royal Palaces*)
Out of of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, Windsor Castle is the only Royal residence in the list (#17).
*Historic Royal Palaces - "an independent charity that looks after the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, the Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace. Although the palaces are owned by The Queen on behalf of the nation, HRP receive no funding from the Government or the Crown, so we depend on the support of our visitors, members, donors, volunteers and sponsors"
...pretty funny...multimillionaires having their properties maintained by a charity...
WNRH said:johnmc said:WNRH said: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.
How do you know this? How many of them see any of the royal family on their visits.
Thousands visit Manchester, York, bath, Edinburgh etc with no royal palaces to see. And as I've said the palaces would still be there to visit.
Their are many cities all over the world that do not have living monarchs that welcome many visitors.
Prague for example has former royal palaces you can look round. Can you say that people don't visit as their isn't a living queen living there.
Why would they come to London? The weather? A big clock? They come because of the aura of a living monarch that is famous around the world. I bet if you were to do a survey of why are you going to London or why did you go to London and the answer "because that's where the queen lives" or "to see the queen" would come out on top by the vast majority.
In 50 years time will people still visit the Cavern Club and Liverpool in their thousands like they do now?
London's top 10 attractions in order of popularity based on visitors in 2010:
1. British Museum
2. Tate Modern
3. National Gallery
4. National History Museum
5. London Eye
6. Science Museum
7. Victoria and Albert Museum
8. Madame Tussauds
9. Royal Museums Greenwich (nothing to do with the royal family anymore, by the way)
10. The Tower of London (run by Historic Royal Palaces*)
Out of of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, Windsor Castle is the only Royal residence in the list (#17).
*Historic Royal Palaces - "an independent charity that looks after the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, the Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace. Although the palaces are owned by The Queen on behalf of the nation, HRP receive no funding from the Government or the Crown, so we depend on the support of our visitors, members, donors, volunteers and sponsors"
...pretty funny...multimillionaires having their properties maintained by a charity...
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
It's odd to think now, when you see the family after generations of inbreeding, but at one time the Windsors were the best fighters, rapists and bastards in all the land.
TheMightyQuinn said:It's odd to think now, when you see the family after generations of inbreeding, but at one time the Windsors were the best fighters, rapists and bastards in all the land.
They're not really the Windsors though. They changed their name from their German name Saxe-Coburg to sound more English.
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
stony said:TheMightyQuinn said:It's odd to think now, when you see the family after generations of inbreeding, but at one time the Windsors were the best fighters, rapists and bastards in all the land.
They're not really the Windsors though. They changed their name from their German name Saxe-Coburg to sound more English.
It does distress me to know I'm a 'subject' of a German monarch.
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
The problem I have with the Royal family is that, unlike other useless rich twats who are only liked by the simple-minded, you don't even get a sex tape out of them.
In this day and age, I just think that this is unnacceptable.
In this day and age, I just think that this is unnacceptable.
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
ElanJo said:The problem I have with the Royal family is that, unlike other useless rich twats who are only liked by the simple-minded, you don't even get a sex tape out of them.
In this day and age, I just think that this is unnacceptable.
Apart from that new one, 'Kate', there's no way you'd want to see any of them naked let alone fucking!
Besides, they're cold blooded reptilians, they're way too clever to get caught out having a sneaky fumble on video.
ElanJo said:The problem I have with the Royal family is that, unlike other useless rich twats who are only liked by the simple-minded, you don't even get a sex tape out of them.
In this day and age, I just think that this is unnacceptable.
Do you really want to watch a tape of Prince Edward getting bummed by Andrew Lloyd Webber?