Reality can prove your point wrong.
The sole fact that royalty even exists, is proof that some people want and ask to be dominated by a female genital organ.
There’s no other way to spin it. Reality is real. Deal with it.
It would be quite simple, though, to have the tourist attractions without the royal family. Hell, get rid of the royal family and it would actually open up far more of the royal properties to tourism dollars.
Not many tourists to Britain actually see the royal family themselves, but plenty visit one or more of the royal residences. I’m no royalist, but i’ve been to Windsor Castle. Many of those residences are only open for short periods each year, or not at all. Clarence House, the home of the Prince of Wales, is only open for 1 month in 2011.
I don’t really care either way about the royal family, but i’m not convinced that their absence would have an especially serious impact on tourism.
Oh I’m sorry. I thought I might have appropriate cognitive ability to be able to converse at your level. My mistake. Carry on.
Reality is real. Sheer genius. Must remember that one. How can you argue with it? Brilliant.
I disagree. Former royal stuff is two a penny throughout Europe. Buildings, old knick knacks etc. What gives people that certain frisson about the English stuff is that it is all still being used. Don’t give a shit, myself, but I’m pretty sure that if you got rid of the actual people so that it was all just a museum display, the pulling power would slowly die.
How do you “get rid of” the royal family anyway? They didn’t do anything to deserve it. It’s not their fault they were born into it. Why should they be stripped of the things they have inherited?
Am I the only one who finds imperious commands to “discuss” some half-baked idea obnoxious? I’m not a trained monkey, godammit.
As for royalty, I rather like Keith Richards’ supposed response when asked if he would accept a knighthood: “I get on my knees for no one.”
You might be right. It’s always seemed to me, though, that people don’t generally visit Britain specifically for the royals, or even for the castles, for that matter. While i might visit Windosr Castle (or whatever) on a trip to England, i don’t really consider that my reason for going.
Bolding mine.
You could just as easily argue that they did nothing to deserve having all that unearned wealth. Six of one…
Yep, all that people that visited England for the recent wedding were not looking at just museum pieces. IMHO the very second the royals do not pull in tourists and the money they bring, that will be the end of them and I would not complain if that would take place.
Back in 1992 there was a risk that the people would get rid of any support to the British royals thanks to the bad economy back then, the Queen saved the institution by agreeing to also pay taxes like all commoners, so that is also what I mean when I talk about “the money they bring”.
When people talk about “getting rid of the royal family,” I don’t think they mean to turn them out into the cold dressed in rags. (Generally speaking, that is. I can’t vouch for what Captain Ladyparts up there wants to do with them.) Rather, they just mean removing them from their position as head of state - a position which (per Wikipedia) does cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of 8 million pounds a year. If that were my tax money being spent, I might be a bit chafed about it. But then, if that were my tax money being spent, I’d be British, and the royal family might actually mean something to me.
That explains this mess on the carpet, then.
8 million pounds is not a hell of a lot, and then they pay income tax anyway, so that’s a bit of a “taking with the left, giving with the right” situation.
There are plenty of people who go to England to see the royal family as part of the experience of visiting England. The chance that you might see Charles while you’re poking around Buck palace is a large draw for a number of people.
And there are still monarchists in the Commonwealth as well. Mostly they are older generations, like my great-grandmother was, but there are still some alive. The royals are a huge draw for them, getting a letter from Queen Liz on her 100th birthday was my great grandma’s dream.
I do not understand what this actually means, but I would like to volunteer to find out.
OP, can you please elaborate on this and provide cites? I mean what does genitalia have to do with it?
Ah, the classic “I declare reality to agree with me, therefore there is NO POSSIBLE COUNTERARGUMENT” tactic. Always a sure sign of a productive and interesting exchange of ideas.
PS. Also, the Queen’s cooter is MAGNIFICENT!
8 million pounds a year doesn’t seem much to provide a head of state. We don’t need to pay for elections every handful of years, for one thing, just a coronation (and now and then a wedding) every so often.
Howls in impotent rage, then shits the carpet. Again.
[QUOTE=Naxos]
some people want and ask to be dominated by a female genital organ
[/QUOTE]
Me too.
I thought it was all about the tits.
Presumably this means that male royals also have female genitalia, or something.
Social sciences, hell, we need a biologist in here. Have you seen Peter North?
Or Ron Jeremy, for that matter.
Don’t let Naxos bother you. He is an ignorant asshole with delusions of adequacy.
Vive le Roi!
What spiffy keen locale do you hail from, Naxos? Obviously it’s above reproach as you seem to find societal fault in every direction imaginable.