|
#3
●
07-22-2013, 04:16 PM
| ||||||||
| So Fucking Banned Poster Rank:333 Male Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,852 Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Quoted: 750 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Duchess Gives Birth to Baby Boy - Future King
technically, republics have the biggest scroungers. Who visits countries like the US, France etc for the presidents? They see the monuments yes but thats architecture. Now who goes to European countries to see royalty? Let me see here, oh wait! Lots of people, its called tourism. I'll take the royals over the corrupt bastard presidential governments anyday of the week. |
|
#5
●
07-22-2013, 04:32 PM
|
|
Re: Duchess Gives Birth to Baby Boy - Future King
Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred 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. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination. The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue. |
|
#8
●
07-22-2013, 04:48 PM
|
|
Re: Duchess Gives Birth to Baby Boy - Future King
Cool! It's too bad Diana didn't live to see him or the wedding. She would have been so proud I should have bet since everyone was betting on a daughter named Alexandra. I thought boy, but, I didn't have a name. I would have guessed 8 lbs., 2 oz., but, I'm glad Kate is doing well |
|
#10
●
07-23-2013, 07:43 AM
| ||||||||
| So Fucking Banned Poster Rank:333 Male Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,852 Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Quoted: 750 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Duchess Gives Birth to Baby Boy - Future King
Are you taking the fucking piss? Are you seriously? How many foreign people came to England to see Royalty on show such as the wedding? Let me guess, wait, go to youtube and look yourself. How many people look around Buckingham Palace? Thousands upon thousands. More than your crummy white house shitfest tour. We have royal estates spread throughout the UK, all are visited by tourists. Do you even think beyond your own stupid republic opinions? Nobody visits the USA to see Barack Obama, thousands of people from different countries visit England to see the Royal family, to deny this is just typical republic scum propaganda. Just because your ideal republic is boring, with no tradition to bring in tourists doesn't mean we're like that. Now go fuck yourself and get your facts right. Peasant. |