The Majority Of Brexit's Impact On...
News11 mins ago
To the Tower with them.
63 Answers
http://www.dailymail....e-Morrissey-date.html
Well what can be said about these traitors?
They and those who support them are in the minority, judging by the Multi Ethnic crowds who came onto the streets of Leicester in their thousands to cheer and wave their flags in support of the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cambridge.
So I say to self-haters such as:
Morrissey,and The Smiths.
Roger Waters of Pink Floyd
Jeremy Paxman
and all those others, such as:
Sean Penn
Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner
Portia Simpson Miller, the newly re-elected prime minister of Jamaica
'Rule Britannia'
Well what can be said about these traitors?
They and those who support them are in the minority, judging by the Multi Ethnic crowds who came onto the streets of Leicester in their thousands to cheer and wave their flags in support of the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cambridge.
So I say to self-haters such as:
Morrissey,and The Smiths.
Roger Waters of Pink Floyd
Jeremy Paxman
and all those others, such as:
Sean Penn
Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner
Portia Simpson Miller, the newly re-elected prime minister of Jamaica
'Rule Britannia'
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Phil:
Royal palaces (and other buildings with royal connections) continue to attract tourists even when there is no current association with monarchy.
Versailles doesn't have a problem attracting tourists despite France not having had a monarchy for over two centuries. Similarly, you'll never see a member of the current Royal family at Hampton Court but it's still one of the UK's most-visited attractions,
If, as the result of the monarchy being overthrown, Buckingham Palace was to become a public building, it would almost certainly vastly attract MORE visitors than it does now.
Royal palaces (and other buildings with royal connections) continue to attract tourists even when there is no current association with monarchy.
Versailles doesn't have a problem attracting tourists despite France not having had a monarchy for over two centuries. Similarly, you'll never see a member of the current Royal family at Hampton Court but it's still one of the UK's most-visited attractions,
If, as the result of the monarchy being overthrown, Buckingham Palace was to become a public building, it would almost certainly vastly attract MORE visitors than it does now.
Wouldn't dream of calling you anything as such Wharton and I can't see anything in my post that implied as such.
It is suggested that the log book may have been stolen, quite possibly as a souvenir for some lowly matelot, who knows.
http://hansard.millba...ms-conqueror-log-book
The log book itself would have offered very little value in any case to the reported facts of the sinking and the location of both vessels at the time. It's just another factor to add to an already controversial incident.
It is suggested that the log book may have been stolen, quite possibly as a souvenir for some lowly matelot, who knows.
http://hansard.millba...ms-conqueror-log-book
The log book itself would have offered very little value in any case to the reported facts of the sinking and the location of both vessels at the time. It's just another factor to add to an already controversial incident.
So Royal Weddings, State Visits, Changing of The Guard, Trooping the Colour etc would all be abandoned as a result of having no monarchy.
Any idea what those events raise via tourism as a result of a reigning monarch?
The links I provided earlier give some indication. The revenue provided would IMHO drop dramatically if such events no longer existed.
Any idea what those events raise via tourism as a result of a reigning monarch?
The links I provided earlier give some indication. The revenue provided would IMHO drop dramatically if such events no longer existed.
Royal weddings are infrequent.
I was at Somerset House last week, when the Queen was there to open a new wing. There were only about 60 people waiting to see her leave in the royal limo. (Most of those seemed to have been people who were just passing by and who happened to notice all of the police about, and to ask what was going on. Very few, if any, seemed to have been 'Royal fans' who were there specifically because of the Queen's visit).
Yes, people do stand outside Buckingham Palace to watch the Changing of the Guard. But how many more people would go there if they could go inside to explore the building (other than at the very limited times of the year, and in the very limited areas, that they currently can)? Anyway, the protection of the Royal family has more to do with the police officers with sub-machine guns than it does with soldiers marching up and down. They're there 'just for show' and there's no reason why they couldn't continue in the role without the presence of the Royal Family (in the same way that the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London is purely tradition, and nothing to do with the actual security of the building).
The Trooping of the Colour would probably attract just as many people as a purely historical ceremony as it does with the monarch present.
I was at Somerset House last week, when the Queen was there to open a new wing. There were only about 60 people waiting to see her leave in the royal limo. (Most of those seemed to have been people who were just passing by and who happened to notice all of the police about, and to ask what was going on. Very few, if any, seemed to have been 'Royal fans' who were there specifically because of the Queen's visit).
Yes, people do stand outside Buckingham Palace to watch the Changing of the Guard. But how many more people would go there if they could go inside to explore the building (other than at the very limited times of the year, and in the very limited areas, that they currently can)? Anyway, the protection of the Royal family has more to do with the police officers with sub-machine guns than it does with soldiers marching up and down. They're there 'just for show' and there's no reason why they couldn't continue in the role without the presence of the Royal Family (in the same way that the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London is purely tradition, and nothing to do with the actual security of the building).
The Trooping of the Colour would probably attract just as many people as a purely historical ceremony as it does with the monarch present.
That's all just supposition though Chris, truth is we'll never know while we have a reigning monarch and I don't expect that situation to change anytime in the next 50 years.
Let's not forget too that the vast majority of those events mentioned involve the participation of our Armed Forces, and guess who they swear an oath of allegiance to and many Regiments have as their Colonel In Chief?
Notwithstanding the fact that two of her granchildren are at present Servicemen with a decidedly high profile and if current public opinion is anything to go by are deemed to be serving their country to the utmost of their ability and appear to be hugely popular.
No, I don't see the monarchy or constitution changing too much in the near or distant future and I'm sure the UK tourist industry will continue to benefit hugely from the status quo.
Let's not forget too that the vast majority of those events mentioned involve the participation of our Armed Forces, and guess who they swear an oath of allegiance to and many Regiments have as their Colonel In Chief?
Notwithstanding the fact that two of her granchildren are at present Servicemen with a decidedly high profile and if current public opinion is anything to go by are deemed to be serving their country to the utmost of their ability and appear to be hugely popular.
No, I don't see the monarchy or constitution changing too much in the near or distant future and I'm sure the UK tourist industry will continue to benefit hugely from the status quo.
All the opposition to the monarchy has nothing to do with how much they cost the country, or how attractively different our lives would be without them.
No the sole purpose of all this royal bashing is because of the dreaded 'Green Eyed Monster', that being jealousy and envy of their material riches.
But given the chance to trade places, how many would wish their whole lives to be taken up in servitude to their country and it's peoples?
No the sole purpose of all this royal bashing is because of the dreaded 'Green Eyed Monster', that being jealousy and envy of their material riches.
But given the chance to trade places, how many would wish their whole lives to be taken up in servitude to their country and it's peoples?
"Its one of the main obstacles to their complete takeover of this country"
Erm, how, exactly? How exactly is the queen battling against sinister European conspiracies?
"No the sole purpose of all this royal bashing is because of the dreaded 'Green Eyed Monster', that being jealousy and envy of their material riches. "
So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence of that on this thread whatsoever. Putting aside admittedly odd comments about the fate of the last Tsar, Chris and Philtaz have been having a perfectly good discussion on the relative merits and demerits of monarchy. Your weighty contribution to this is apparently just to say 'well, all anti-monarchists are just jealous'.
I'm a little disappointed that the rather sympathetic and interesting response to this thread is starting to turn into some kind of cyber-dungheap for badly thought out opinions.
Erm, how, exactly? How exactly is the queen battling against sinister European conspiracies?
"No the sole purpose of all this royal bashing is because of the dreaded 'Green Eyed Monster', that being jealousy and envy of their material riches. "
So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence of that on this thread whatsoever. Putting aside admittedly odd comments about the fate of the last Tsar, Chris and Philtaz have been having a perfectly good discussion on the relative merits and demerits of monarchy. Your weighty contribution to this is apparently just to say 'well, all anti-monarchists are just jealous'.
I'm a little disappointed that the rather sympathetic and interesting response to this thread is starting to turn into some kind of cyber-dungheap for badly thought out opinions.
"Its one of the main obstacles to their complete takeover of this country"
Erm, how, exactly? How exactly is the queen battling against sinister European conspiracies?
because luckily, the majority of the people in this country still see the queen as the true head of state and will not accept servitude to a european president
Erm, how, exactly? How exactly is the queen battling against sinister European conspiracies?
because luckily, the majority of the people in this country still see the queen as the true head of state and will not accept servitude to a european president
And what exactly does 'head of state' mean in a British context? Not much. Whether they do so positively or negatively, your average person (rightly) perceives the monarch as an important cultural artefact and not much else.
Even leaving that aside, the President of the European Council is not a head of state. Every member of the European Union has the same head of state that they did before the position existed. France and Germany, for instance, both have presidents who are heads of state - in Germany, the role of the President is very similar to that of the monarch here, though with perhaps less cultural capital. Are these 'obstacles' thwarting cartoonish European conspiracies too? No. Because they're completely irrelevant.
Even leaving that aside, the President of the European Council is not a head of state. Every member of the European Union has the same head of state that they did before the position existed. France and Germany, for instance, both have presidents who are heads of state - in Germany, the role of the President is very similar to that of the monarch here, though with perhaps less cultural capital. Are these 'obstacles' thwarting cartoonish European conspiracies too? No. Because they're completely irrelevant.
bazwillrun
Sorry - so you REALLY think that without the royal family we would be subsumed by the all powerful European superstate?
What about parliament? House of Lords?
I am completely ambivalent about the royals and whoever it was who claimed that antipathy for the royals is built on jealousy, I think you're wrong. Most of us are very happy with our anonymous lives. We can schlep to the paper shop on a Sunday wearing our pyjama bottoms, we can tell off colour jokes, we can have ill-judged snogs at Christmas parties without it being splashed all over the tabloids.
Sorry - so you REALLY think that without the royal family we would be subsumed by the all powerful European superstate?
What about parliament? House of Lords?
I am completely ambivalent about the royals and whoever it was who claimed that antipathy for the royals is built on jealousy, I think you're wrong. Most of us are very happy with our anonymous lives. We can schlep to the paper shop on a Sunday wearing our pyjama bottoms, we can tell off colour jokes, we can have ill-judged snogs at Christmas parties without it being splashed all over the tabloids.
Finally - if I were to swap lives with someone rich and famous, I'd prefer to swap with someone who is famous for a reason - a talent: Stevie Wonder, Ella Fitzerald, Morgan Freeman, Clint Eastwood or Sir David Attenborough.
The royal family as individuals deserve no more respect than Paris Hilton. Sheer luck of birth.
This is different from respecting the institution of the royal family.
The royal family as individuals deserve no more respect than Paris Hilton. Sheer luck of birth.
This is different from respecting the institution of the royal family.
Paris Hilton?
I have respect for two young men who despite their highly privileged background want to serve their country, one who has done his utmost to serve (and wishes to return) on the front line alongside his soldiers, the other a Search & Rescue helicopter pilot, but then I'd have the same admiration for any other person who did the same, regardless of status or background.
That these two do it in light of their status within the fabric of this nation is to their credit.
I have respect for two young men who despite their highly privileged background want to serve their country, one who has done his utmost to serve (and wishes to return) on the front line alongside his soldiers, the other a Search & Rescue helicopter pilot, but then I'd have the same admiration for any other person who did the same, regardless of status or background.
That these two do it in light of their status within the fabric of this nation is to their credit.
Latest Posts
Crosswords63 mins ago
Crosswords66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
Strands #247 “More Than Just...
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
