04-04-2013, 11:26 AM
|
#21
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Sad statement that the number one tourist attraction is sweaty betty.
I would have said, Stonehenge or Hadrians Wall, York Cathedal
|
You can wish it were those (and I agree they're more preferable), but the fact is it's the Queen and now Kate.
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 11:28 AM
|
#22
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
|
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't. I really don't mind the Monarchy one way or the other, but you're off the Westboro deep end here...
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to worth For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 11:30 AM
|
#23
|
|
GOAT!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by worth
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't. I really don't mind the Monarchy one way or the other, but you're off the Westboro deep end here...
|
Toss him out with this morning's bubble and squeak!
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 11:31 AM
|
#24
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
If we must have a monarchy, let's qualify our monarchs in a reality show contest, not by heredity.
|
Are you saying that Boston Rob and Carrie Underwood should be King and Queen?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 11:48 AM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
The whole argument in that video seems to revolve around the notion that the hereditary right of royalty is just (it's their land, so they are entitled... blah blah blah). It's not a money thing to me. It the hypocrisy of the institution. Their property belongs to the people.
Britain can keep them. Canada should move on.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 04-04-2013 at 12:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 11:58 AM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
No, but the do come to go to an incredibly underwhelming palace simply because the Queen lives there.
The British Monarchy brings in a massive amount of tourism dollars, that's not even debatable.
|
Buck Pal is one of a plethora of places they go. Not saying nobody goes because the Royalls are there, but people will go to see the buildings even without the Royals. Buck Pal is busiest for things like changing of the guard and crap like that.
On the contrary, there is a debate to be had. People go to see sights, they'll still be there regardless of the Royal family.
Besides I'm not so sure tourism is a solid base for a Head of State and a crappy system of Government
Last edited by Barnet Flame; 04-04-2013 at 12:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:14 PM
|
#27
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On your last nerve...:D
|
Meh. I like the royals well enough.
If I go to England though, it's not necessarily for that purpose. I love the history of the place - heck, it's why I'd go there and Europe in the first place. Very interesting histories that I loved learning about in school. Would I stop at Buck Palace? Sure, why not? My husband went years ago on a school trip and if we were in England, he'd want to show me all the places they went on their trip, and Buck Palace was one of them. But I want to see the bridges and the cathedrals and the colleges and the architecture of some of these ancient buildings. I want to see Dover. I want to go to Wales.
So eh. Doesn't bother me any. We pay athletes ridiculous amounts of money. We pay lots of people ridiculous amounts of money for stuff without batting an eye, so this is really neither here nor there, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:36 PM
|
#28
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns
You can wish it were those (and I agree they're more preferable), but the fact is it's the Queen and now Kate.
|
How does on sight see a royal? I have been to London, 4 times, Buck Pal (to qoute Barnet Flame) twice. I have seen 0 royals.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:37 PM
|
#29
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by worth
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't. I really don't mind the Monarchy one way or the other, but you're off the Westboro deep end here...
|
How so?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:48 PM
|
#30
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
Buck Pal is one of a plethora of places they go. Not saying nobody goes because the Royalls are there, but people will go to see the buildings even without the Royals. Buck Pal is busiest for things like changing of the guard and crap like that.
On the contrary, there is a debate to be had. People go to see sights, they'll still be there regardless of the Royal family.
Besides I'm not so sure tourism is a solid base for a Head of State and a crappy system of Government
|
Well if the Queen had any actual power as head of state that would be a legitimate point, as it is she does not and is hardly to blame for the system of government.
Whether people would still see those sights without an active Royal Family is certainly debatable, but that's not the point I made. The point I made is that the Monarchy brings in a massive amount of tourism dollars. That is a fact. I'm not certain what impact the lack of an active Monarchy would have, but I can't imagine it would be a positive one in terms of tourism dollars. You'd have to balance any loss with decreases in spending to justify it, and that's just a small factor to be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:51 PM
|
#31
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
How does on sight see a royal? I have been to London, 4 times, Buck Pal (to qoute Barnet Flame) twice. I have seen 0 royals.
|
I've been about a half dozen times and have seen the Queen 3 times. I wasn't royal sightseeing, she just happened to be at events I was walking by.
If you want an example of how one 'sight sees a royal' just take a look at the Jubilee and the recent Royal wedding. People traveled from all over the world to stand at the side of a parade route.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:53 PM
|
#32
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
I've been about a half dozen times and have seen the Queen 3 times. I wasn't royal sightseeing, she just happened to be at events I was walking by.
If you want an example of how one 'sight sees a royal' just take a look at the Jubilee and the recent Royal wedding. People traveled from all over the world to stand at the side of a parade route.
|
So millions must be spent for get tourists?
I often wonder if Monarchists really believe in divine rights.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 12:56 PM
|
#33
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
So millions must be spent for get tourists?
I often wonder if Monarchists really believe in divine rights.
|
Huh? You do understand that tourism brings in an absolute #### ton of money right?
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:02 PM
|
#35
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Huh? You do understand that tourism brings in an absolute #### ton of money right?
|
Really, does it really?
So you think that if the British were to #### can their monarchy, people would no longer go to the UK?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:04 PM
|
#36
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns
|
Perhaps you could qoute the line item for staff picked by god........
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:07 PM
|
#37
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Really, does it really?
So you think that if the British were to #### can their monarchy, people would no longer go to the UK?
|
Yes, tourism does generate a ridiculous amount of money. This is not a new concept.
Eliminating the monarchy would certainly impact tourism revenue, the question is whether the degree of impact would be offset by any other savings.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:08 PM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Perhaps you could qoute the line item for staff picked by god........
|
WTF are you even talking about? This is what was being alluded to earlier, just random babbling aimed at some perceived injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:10 PM
|
#39
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
WTF are you even talking about? This is what was being alluded to earlier, just random babbling aimed at some perceived injustice.
|
Perceived.......right
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2013, 01:10 PM
|
#40
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On your last nerve...:D
|
I don't think it's highly likely at this point, that the monarchy will be abolished, so it's a moot point. Pissing into the wind, as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.
|
|
