So if I understand what you're saying, you reckon he shagged her. Right? So all the pizza parlour and not sweating stuff were all lies. Right?
Its more than likely the tourist attractions would still have lots of visitors whether or not we still continued with the anachronistic institution of the Royals. Empty National Trust stately homes and gardens still have lots of visitors. Buck House, Balmoral etc would probably have more paying visitors if people could traipse around them everyday, gawping at how the other half lived.
But that's the operative word. There's still much attraction in seeing how the Royals live (even if you don't get to see the bits they actually live in).
Buckingham Palace doesn't bring in any money, as far as I know, and it's a pretty dreary building tbh.
Could be knocked down? Build some affordable housing for key workers who cannot afford to live in Central London and have to commute?
I’m the same. The whole concept is one I the most bizarre things about humanity. Royal blood ? What the feck is that. I even hear ‘ they work really hard for good causes’. Other people get benefit sanctioned for just the same thing. Tourists visit Versailles. Not needed and I’d say the concept is disempowering. People say the EU shouldn’t be in charge and yet pay corrupt elitist *****philes to live in palaces while we struggle on and let them oversee our nation. Weirdest thing ever as you say.
Pretty much every human society, at least since the introduction of agriculture, that has ever existed has had some kind of hierarchical system. Even in the so-called 'Communist' countries, certain individuals have held more power than others, with some even being venerated on an almost mythical basis. I'd have said that we've achieved the perfect system whereby our 'Big Man'/chieftain/monarch has been reduced to a purely ceremonial role, with no role in government, that we use to entice tourists and Middle Eastern investors to spend their money here.
As I stated the tourism thing doesn’t really wash. Versailles was packed when I went there as a kid, so is Paris, Berlin, you name it. I agree that history is littered with weird behaviours creating god like figures out of humans. I’d also say it almost always ends in abuse and huge inequality. Andrew’s abuse of a minor being one, the treatment of Diana after being with an Egyptian male, Harry and the racism towards his wife from British people and the media because of her lack of whiteness and Britishness, the removal of ownership rights for residents of the Duchy of Cornwall being but a few. It’s time we modernised. I’m not one for blaming the people but the land and the wealth needs to reinvested in the empowerment of the people not in the maintenance of elitism.
I disagree about the tourism. As I've stated several times the presence of a high profile extant Royal family is a (fairly) unique selling point for the UK. I am also unsure that there's any evidence for racism being the motivating factor in the dislike of the Duchess of Sussex. Indeed, some members of the Royal family have done reprehensible things and that has been the case throughout history. None of that detracts from the position of the monarchy as a symbol and icon of the character of the nation. Pretty much every country wastes money on national symbols and icons. Someone said earlier it costs the taxpayer something like 1.29 each and much of their wealth is their own, rather than the taxpayer's As I said previously, that's all they really are- a symbol, an icon and that's what they should be seen as. If we didn't have them we'd have some other symbolic head of state that would also cost the taxpayer money.
I respect your opinion... even when its wrong... If the only reason for perpetuating the royal family is tourism... thats nonsense!
https://www.statista.com/statistics...-tourism-destinations-by-number-of-bednights/ Marginal difference between London and Paris but even Istanbul does well with tourism. We don’t need the royal family. What’s your view on the wider royal family and land ownership? If we said they stayed as an icon but we redistributed their land wealth to an independent body tasked with levelling up and reducing poverty or for example gave it to the national trust to open places like Sandringham as (affordable) visitor spaces. Land wealth and ownership of ground in cities is a national disgrace- duke of Westminster etc etc Scotland are working on a model of the people owning the land.
Aye. Tea at Versailles with Macron, who'll be gone in a few years, or tea with Liz at Windsor, who's been knocking about since Churchill. I'm not sure about racism and Meghan either tbh. It seems like a convenient cover for her refusal to soldier. All the people who were called racists for suggesting that her previous behaviour indicated she would cause trouble and flounce off with her pockets full rather than help bring the family into the 21st century were proved absolutely right.
Well her husband thinks it and I was more focusing on how many people have responded eg the perception that to be royal is around white british(German) has resulted in racist campaigns and comments. That perception of white superiority is harmful and unnecessary. Did you see the Louis Theroux documentary on the alt right America First movement ? Worth a watch (though awful to watch). But it made me think that the ‘majority must be white’ has a foothold in the USA and here and it made me think of the ‘icons’ we aspire to - white, elite, immovable, public school, participate in wars, own land, queens English, elite sports, banquets. If they are our icons we have to start changing the icons. The first black/ mixed race / non English one has felt unwelcome. Something has to change. Alex Ferguson does well and people want Scottish managers. What we look up to shapes our behaviours and I’m not sure it’s making England a welcoming egalitarian place.
It really is a mess mind. Certainly the view from the public side shows windows that look as if no one has been in them for years. My old mam would have fainted at the clip of them!
