|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Dogbyte
(Post 7100788)
She may have, in some eyes,become outdated,but what 'she' represents is tradition and history. Both of which bring much needed revenue to the country.
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Dogbyte
(Post 7100788)
I find your comments concerning our head of state quite offensive.:frown:
You may not like her offspring but she has kept a certain stability to our home country for a considerable length of time.She may have, in some eyes,become outdated,but what 'she' represents is tradition and history. Both of which bring much needed revenue to the country.She also brings some hope to some people that there is a buffer to the irresponsible Government's we have had.:frown: As for being a 'buffer', though - let's be realistic - if she tried to interfere in the workings of the government, she'd simply be legislated out of the process. |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Manc
(Post 7100813)
I find a non elected head of state and self professed head of a church to be highly offensive.
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7101185)
US has Disneyland, UK has the Royal Family. Whatever works.
We're screwed! :rofl: |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by ironporer
(Post 7099065)
Nah, they just hired the ex Soviet Stalin embalmers, and a couple of Disney animatrinix experts to make it see so,
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7101185)
Like I said, as long as she's a tourist attraction, she's ok with me! US has Disneyland, UK has the Royal Family. Whatever works.
========================== "The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today." ========================== From http://www.republic.org.uk/ Yes, you can quibble about the source being biased if you want. I won't argue with you. |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by tonrob
(Post 7099054)
Slapper.
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by nettlebed
(Post 7102196)
But the value of the tourism that the Royal Family brings to the country is nothing compared to the amount of money that could be brought in if all the royal residences and establishments were open to tourists all year round.
========================== "The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today." ========================== From http://www.republic.org.uk/ Yes, you can quibble about the source being biased if you want. I won't argue with you. |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7103526)
Cool, I won't argue with that! So kick 'em out then, because they don't deserve to live there for any other reason!
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7103526)
Cool, I won't argue with that! So kick 'em out then, because they don't deserve to live there for any other reason!
--- |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by chartreuse
(Post 7098594)
We just watched Her Majesty on TV. She rules. Literaly.
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by willmore
(Post 7105114)
Oh please give me a break. We turned her off CBC......;)
But it was beautiful... ;) |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7099352)
What could she possibly have to say that has any relevance to anyone? As long as she brings in the tourist dollars I'm not against her staying in her role, but that's the one and only purpose she serves. She can kiss my ass otherwise. Lady Di was the only one I had any respect for and they knocked her off ...
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by chartreuse
(Post 7105307)
It was old
But it was beautiful... ;) |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
(Post 7105333)
She's more interesting, and more respectful, than the Pope and billions listen to him! :lol:
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:31 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.