The Royal Baby
Comments
-
Well putting aside that the data is probably slightly more reliable than "I've got English pals...Ask anyone in the world" presumably if people are visiting London because of "The Queen or The Royals" then abolishing the monarchy would actually be beneficial because we could then convert Buckingham Palace and the other Royal proprties - none of which are properly open to tourists - into a proper tourist destinations that would generate income - similar to the Palace of Versailles which has higher tourist numbers than any attraction in the UK.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?0 -
But the statistics you shared are wrong mate and on a totally different subject, regardless of what you think of what I said.se9addick said:
Well putting aside that the data is probably slightly more reliable than "I've got English pals...Ask anyone in the world" presumably if people are visiting London because of "The Queen or The Royals" then abolishing the monarchy would actually be beneficial because we could then convert Buckingham Palace and the other Royal proprties - none of which are properly open to tourists - into a proper tourist destinations that would generate income - similar to the Palace of Versailles which has higher tourist numbers than any attraction in the UK.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
0 -
Anecdotal.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
2 -
From The Atlantic website on the birth of The Duke and Dutchess's first child:
Baby Cambridge is set to boost consumer spending even more, according to Britain's Center for Retail Research, to the tune of $383 million. (Commemorative tea cups or iPhone covers, anyone?) The chief U.K. economist at the consulting firm IHS Global Insight also predicts that the birth would have an "overwhelmingly positive" economic impact.
1 -
Sod tourists and all that bollox
We are a nation that has centuries of tradition a fantastic country full of history and wonderful beautiful places that over the centuries have been influenced and carved from the reign in what ever it's form from the royal family and the way it became how it is today
In ww1 and ww2 many lives were lost fighting for this wonderful island, small in size huge in terms of fight and resolve,
Many of those people and those lost in wars before done so for the history and traditions that made then proud of their identity and what they believed in
On speaking to my own relatives that fought in one of those wars and whose family members were directly impacted by the other, their love of the monarchy and what it stood for alongside their love of their own family was what drove their courage to defend with the real realisation that they will probably die doing so
At a time where life may be difficult and at times feel quite dark,
Remember that your life you live today was built from their pain and suffering and fight
If that can't install an ounce of reluctant respect to the reason our monarchy is important and not based on a notion of all should be equal then nothing will
God save the Queen
God bless the royal family
For it is a part of this great country and always should and will be2 -
But there's no way of quantifying what you've said ? If the Royals are such a huge tourist draw then how can you prove it ?brogib said:
But the statistics you shared are wrong mate and on a totally different subject, regardless of what you think of what I said.se9addick said:
Well putting aside that the data is probably slightly more reliable than "I've got English pals...Ask anyone in the world" presumably if people are visiting London because of "The Queen or The Royals" then abolishing the monarchy would actually be beneficial because we could then convert Buckingham Palace and the other Royal proprties - none of which are properly open to tourists - into a proper tourist destinations that would generate income - similar to the Palace of Versailles which has higher tourist numbers than any attraction in the UK.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
The actual, objective, data suggests that people are more interested in our museums and art galleries (essentially our culture, that Sadie suggested we have "very little of in comparison" to France) and even if they are coming to experience some of the history of our Royalty we can, ironically, commodotise that better by abolishing the Royal family and pimping out their former residences.
Like I said, I've got not problem with people wanting to retain the monarchy and it's the majority position of most people in this country without question, but the tourism argument is a non-starter.1 -
Okay, that was anecdotal, I knew that when I was posting it, but it's worth no less than SE9's figures.ShootersHillGuru said:
Anecdotal.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
They cost the TAX PAYER around 65pence per year, surely it's worth that just to shut the likes of me up! FFS
; )0 -
I ain't putting stuff up for a bite , it's called an opinion. Not expecting people to agree with me . As far as royalty goes I don't agree with it but my problem is more with the people that get excited about what happens to them rather than the royals themselves.0
-
Exactly thanks Rob that's what I was getting at, have loads of relatives in Canada and Cyprus apart from family the main things they want to see when they come to England are Buckingham palace and towers of London etc. they also all watched the royal wedding and were all in awe of both royal births. The royals keep people interested in England all over the world and keep us in the world press.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?0 -
But then that's their opinion too thoughbuckshee said:I ain't putting stuff up for a bite , it's called an opinion. Not expecting people to agree with me . As far as royalty goes I don't agree with it but my problem is more with the people that get excited about what happens to them rather than the royals themselves.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
nla, all your opening comments are true. Our heritage is important. As important as Kings and Queens have been in shaping our society and great buildings the Catholic Church was just as important. Then The Church of England. You don't need the Pope to want to visit Westminster Abbey or any of our great cathedrals.
Hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers gave their lives and not all to fight for the King. Just as many if not more in order to protect their loved ones and their country.
3 -
I do not aspire to be an equal of a Millwall hooligan nor The Oystens.ShootersHillGuru said:
We are all equal. We must aspire to that statement surely.nth london addick said:There goes the hook and line let's see who eats the bait eh buckshee, shouldn't be long before that little morsal gets sucked in for a bite
Some love them shg some don't, I just don't get the need for those who don't like or love them to tell people why they don't based on some romantic we are all equal notion
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, especially in Putin's Russia.
1 -
You can offer an opinion without being in need of attention surely,
0 -
But the point is, the data you shared wasn't anything to do with the reason why foreign tourists visit the UK which is the point being debated.se9addick said:
But there's no way of quantifying what you've said ? If the Royals are such a huge tourist draw then how can you prove it ?brogib said:
But the statistics you shared are wrong mate and on a totally different subject, regardless of what you think of what I said.se9addick said:
Well putting aside that the data is probably slightly more reliable than "I've got English pals...Ask anyone in the world" presumably if people are visiting London because of "The Queen or The Royals" then abolishing the monarchy would actually be beneficial because we could then convert Buckingham Palace and the other Royal proprties - none of which are properly open to tourists - into a proper tourist destinations that would generate income - similar to the Palace of Versailles which has higher tourist numbers than any attraction in the UK.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
The actual, objective, data suggests that people are more interested in our museums and art galleries (essentially our culture, that Sadie suggested we have "very little of in comparison" to France) and even if they are coming to experience some of the history of our Royalty we can, ironically, commodotise that better by abolishing the Royal family and pimping out their former residences.
Like I said, I've got not problem with people wanting to retain the monarchy and it's the majority position of most people in this country without question, but the tourism argument is a non-starter.0 -
No - the original point that I responded to was from Sadie, who said "our little old island has very little in comparison (to France) apart from our royal history" the data shows that we have plenty of attractions that draw tourists which aren't dependent on the Royals.brogib said:
But the point is, the data you shared wasn't anything to do with the reason why foreign tourists visit the UK which is the point being debated.se9addick said:
But there's no way of quantifying what you've said ? If the Royals are such a huge tourist draw then how can you prove it ?brogib said:
But the statistics you shared are wrong mate and on a totally different subject, regardless of what you think of what I said.se9addick said:
Well putting aside that the data is probably slightly more reliable than "I've got English pals...Ask anyone in the world" presumably if people are visiting London because of "The Queen or The Royals" then abolishing the monarchy would actually be beneficial because we could then convert Buckingham Palace and the other Royal proprties - none of which are properly open to tourists - into a proper tourist destinations that would generate income - similar to the Palace of Versailles which has higher tourist numbers than any attraction in the UK.brogib said:
Those figures are for visitors to the attractions, it don't say if they are foreign tourists does it, I mean, I've got English pals, who live in England, who are always taking their kids to The British Museum or The Natural History Museum ets.se9addick said:
I'm sorry but it's simply not true. People can be in favour of maintaining a Royal Family if they like, but the tourism thing is nonsense;sadiejane1981 said:I stand by what I said. AFKA hit nail on the head, CWLC was out of order regardless of what anyone thinks of the royals a baby should never be referred to using the C word. But I'm glad it is now edited out. Buckshee I'm not biting. SELR the French bring in tourists for different reasons they have historical buildings and land marks and oodles of culturist spots, our little old island has very little in comparison apart from our royal history, the British royal family is known globally and all buildings and landmarks associated with them presently or historically attract visitors from all over the world, I for one am proud of our royals and England wouldn't be England without them, God save the Queen!
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605
The only place in the top 10 most visited attractions that could be considered Royal is the Tower and the only inhabited Royal residence that attracts decent numbers is Windsor Castle (about 1.2m a year - so would struggle to make the top 30 of that list).
I wish William & Kate all the best, they seem like a nice, down to earth couple relatively speaking and they'll make fantastic parents for the new Princess.
Ask anyone in the world who wants to visit the UK and London in particular the reason why, The Queen or The Royals would come up in the first 5 reasons, whether they actualy visit the places linked to them is another matter. Have you got a survey for that?
The actual, objective, data suggests that people are more interested in our museums and art galleries (essentially our culture, that Sadie suggested we have "very little of in comparison" to France) and even if they are coming to experience some of the history of our Royalty we can, ironically, commodotise that better by abolishing the Royal family and pimping out their former residences.
Like I said, I've got not problem with people wanting to retain the monarchy and it's the majority position of most people in this country without question, but the tourism argument is a non-starter.
There is no real way of knowing why tourists visit the UK but if it's because they are interested in our monarchy you'd think more would make the trip to Windsor Castle, the only inhabited Royal residence that they can really visit ?1 -
Agreed SHG that's why I said along side their love of family
We spend too long faulting our tradition in this country not you or what you posted
But we have a nation built on history there are so many things we should embrace as a point of pride that includes the royal family
An easy target to many for no real reason other than a romantic notion of equality or just plain jealousy0 -
One of the last bastions of Britishness and people want to do away with it for the sake 65pence a year to the tax payer, makes me sick to be honest3
-
What are the other "bastions of Britishness" that have been done away with ?brogib said:One of the last bastions of Britishness and people want to do away with it for the sake 65pence a year to the tax payer, makes me sick to be honest
I know it looks like I'm digging you out but I'm genuinely interested. I'm very proud to be British but that pride isn't based on the Royal family.3 -
the same people who said about thatcher "knew the price of everything but the value of nothing", oh the irony.brogib said:One of the last bastions of Britishness and people want to do away with it for the sake 65pence a year to the tax payer, makes me sick to be honest
2 -
We'd be worse off without the Royal Family, financially and culturally, and I'm more than happy to have them and proud we have them.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Has the baby got a name yet?0
-
Nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the monarchy as far as I am concerned. It's just an anachronism for me.0
-
They probably thought we should have surrendered to the Germans without putting up a fightbrogib said:
Jokes aside, I've had a couple of heated discussions with French pals who think we shoulda done away with The Monarchy (Literally done away with) years ago.RedChaser said:
Oi, you done a runner from our culture!brogib said:People getting on their high horse defending their culture and history, disgusting. Coz we wouldn't tolerate it from any other culture would we
2 -
Will Kate make William have 'the snip' now?0
-
Nah they look like breeders to me and no doubt the child benefit will come in handy when they and their ilk are sponging off of the state... this really gets my goat! and I would like to make it plain to all on here, a football blog site, that I have no truck with these imperialist lackies and any of the deluded servile hangers on who suck up to such an anachronistic throwback to days gone by... Grrrrrr!smudge7946 said:Will Kate make William have 'the snip' now?
Power to my peephole and all that!0 -
better knock down those old castles and churches too, the cost of maintaining them and all that!ShootersHillGuru said:Nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the monarchy as far as I am concerned. It's just an anachronism for me.
1 -
What part of my saying it's not about the cost didn't you understand ?kentaddick said:
better knock down those old castles and churches too, the cost of maintaining them and all that!ShootersHillGuru said:Nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the monarchy as far as I am concerned. It's just an anachronism for me.
0 -
just think castles are a bit of an anachronism for me. After all, USA, Australia etc do alright with tourism and they don't have any castles.ShootersHillGuru said:
What part of my saying it's not about the cost didn't you understand ?kentaddick said:
better knock down those old castles and churches too, the cost of maintaining them and all that!ShootersHillGuru said:Nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the monarchy as far as I am concerned. It's just an anachronism for me.
0 -
But it's only about 65p a year, SHG!ShootersHillGuru said:
What part of my saying it's not about the cost didn't you understand ?kentaddick said:
better knock down those old castles and churches too, the cost of maintaining them and all that!ShootersHillGuru said:Nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the monarchy as far as I am concerned. It's just an anachronism for me.
; )0
