Kate Middleton

[RedinSweden]

They bring a shit load of money in via tourism. I'm not sure though if they bring in more than it costs to keep them going. I personally feel apathetic with regard to them. We've had a couple of bank holidays this year off them which is great, the next 9 months will be annoying though.

 

I don't buy this tourism lark. As if they are the only reason people come to London. People would still go to the Palace if it was empty. Better still vote on which irritating celebrity should live there for a year, sell off the tv rights for the programme. Middleton might get to live there for a year if she releases a sex tape or something.

 

It's the future.

[Karl_b]

The tourism thing is twaddle. People don't visit Paris, look at all the sights and think "This is all well and good, that Tower's alright like and there's some nice enough buildings but what this city lacks is a monarchy."

[ODZ]

As a previous tourist to London I can categorically say that the Buckingham palace guards are a much bigger attraction to the outsider than the royal family. You can fuck the family off, leave the buildings and the guards alone and not a penny would be lost in tourism.

It seems to me that the sole purpose of this archaic establishment is to fill gossip pages read by very bored housewives. I can also see the special attraction among males in witnessing the tits of the wife to the "heir apparent's son", as lacking in prominence as they are.

 

The tourism thing is twaddle. People don't visit Paris, look at all the sights and think "This is all well and good, that Tower's alright like and there's some nice enough buildings but what this city lacks is a monarchy."

 

Repped.

[Scooby Dudek]

I work abroad, a lot of the time I wish I was back home with my loved ones. Today is a good day to work abroad. Just need to arrange it so I am away when the little parasite is hatched.

[Champ]

I work abroad, a lot of the time I wish I was back home with my loved ones. Today is a good day to work abroad. Just need to arrange it so I am away when the little parasite is hatched.

 

Oh, I think its going to be pretty much like this until, until, who can say....

[Champ]

The tourism thing is twaddle. People don't visit Paris, look at all the sights and think "This is all well and good, that Tower's alright like and there's some nice enough buildings but what this city lacks is a monarchy."

 

We might wish it otherwise but I think it is why a lot of foreign visitors come to London. The dont go to Paris thinking that because they have no expectation of finding it there but I think the Royal Family and all the ceremony that goes along with it is one of the Unique Selling Points of London. Try asking the hordes of American and Japanese tourists who come here

[JoeyJones65]

Re : the claim that the monarchy bring money into the Uk via tourism :

 

Republic | Tourism

 

Tourism

 

The debate about Britain's constitution should not be cheapened by the promise of a few extra tourist dollars, yet the myth of the monarchy's tourism value is persistently promoted by monarchists. Let's be clear: tourism would thrive in a British republic.

Monarchists tell us, as if this is the killer argument, that the monarchy is great for British tourism. It is sad that we have to include tourism as a subject of our campaign. This question should simply have no place in any debate about our constitution. As former Economist editor Bill Emmott observed: "This [argument] is embarrassing because it suggests we should maintain a constitutional arrangement for purely commercial reasons." In other words, monarchists seem to believe we should sell our democracy for the price of a postcard.

 

Unfortunately this argument is repeated too often for us to simply ignore it. So let's take it on face value and answer the claim that monarchy is good for tourism.

 

Quite simply there isn't a single piece of evidence to support the claim. The question that monarchists cannot answer to their advantage is this: would tourism suffer if the monarchy were abolished? We can't tell the future, but we can point to a number of facts, statistics and arguments which allow us to safely conclude that tourism would not only continue successfully in a British republic - it would probably benefit from the abolition of the monarchy.

 

The 'tourism argument' for a republic

A simple piece of reasoning is a good place to start.

 

Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.

 

In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.

 

Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.

 

Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

 

This point is demonstrated by contrasting the success of the ex-royal Tower of London with Buckingham palace.

 

Buckingham palace is falling down and the palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. As a tourist attraction it doesn't even make it into the top 20 in the country. The Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants and the tourist revenue they bring in allows them to maintain the buildings to a high standard, while providing tourists with an exceptional experience.

 

VisitBritain, the body responsible for researching and promoting Britain as a tourist destination, surveyed 26,000 people about what attracted them to Britain. The monarchy was well down the list. A spokesperson from VisitBritain said the palace is: "one of those iconic photo destinations and we try to discourage 'tick-box tourism' - just going and having your photo taken somewhere and moving on." So even though people may go to see the sights, the monarchy is of limited value to the tourist industry as it does not generate revenue and is not the reason people visit Britain.

 

Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

 

As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue.

 

Finally let's speak up for the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of ordinary people in this country. It is our heritage, our culture, our attractions that people want to come and see. We don't need the Windsor family to lend a helping hand for us to bring in tourists. We're doing pretty well without their help and would do better still if they handed the palaces back to the people who paid for and own them.

[VladimirIlyich]

Re : the claim that the monarchy bring money into the Uk via tourism :

 

Republic | Tourism

 

Tourism

 

The debate about Britain's constitution should not be cheapened by the promise of a few extra tourist dollars' date=' yet the myth of the monarchy's tourism value is persistently promoted by monarchists. Let's be clear: tourism would thrive in a British republic.

Monarchists tell us, as if this is the killer argument, that the monarchy is great for British tourism. It is sad that we have to include tourism as a subject of our campaign. This question should simply have no place in any debate about our constitution. As former Economist editor Bill Emmott observed: "This [argument'] is embarrassing because it suggests we should maintain a constitutional arrangement for purely commercial reasons." In other words, monarchists seem to believe we should sell our democracy for the price of a postcard.

 

Unfortunately this argument is repeated too often for us to simply ignore it. So let's take it on face value and answer the claim that monarchy is good for tourism.

 

Quite simply there isn't a single piece of evidence to support the claim. The question that monarchists cannot answer to their advantage is this: would tourism suffer if the monarchy were abolished? We can't tell the future, but we can point to a number of facts, statistics and arguments which allow us to safely conclude that tourism would not only continue successfully in a British republic - it would probably benefit from the abolition of the monarchy.

 

The 'tourism argument' for a republic

A simple piece of reasoning is a good place to start.

 

Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.

 

In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.

 

Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.

 

Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

 

This point is demonstrated by contrasting the success of the ex-royal Tower of London with Buckingham palace.

 

Buckingham palace is falling down and the palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. As a tourist attraction it doesn't even make it into the top 20 in the country. The Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants and the tourist revenue they bring in allows them to maintain the buildings to a high standard, while providing tourists with an exceptional experience.

 

VisitBritain, the body responsible for researching and promoting Britain as a tourist destination, surveyed 26,000 people about what attracted them to Britain. The monarchy was well down the list. A spokesperson from VisitBritain said the palace is: "one of those iconic photo destinations and we try to discourage 'tick-box tourism' - just going and having your photo taken somewhere and moving on." So even though people may go to see the sights, the monarchy is of limited value to the tourist industry as it does not generate revenue and is not the reason people visit Britain.

 

Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

 

As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue.

 

Finally let's speak up for the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of ordinary people in this country. It is our heritage, our culture, our attractions that people want to come and see. We don't need the Windsor family to lend a helping hand for us to bring in tourists. We're doing pretty well without their help and would do better still if they handed the palaces back to the people who paid for and own them.

 

Doesn't the building,Buck House,belong to the taxpayer anyway?

[Bobby Hundreds]

If we removed the royal family wouldn't we just end up with one mega rich family who Own shit loads of land who can now do as they please. They are where they are because their ancestors were the biggest psychopaths, we could end up with comic book like villain family. Careful what you wish for.

[The Flâneur]

I hope Freeborn John rises from his grave and eats whatever cousin-fucking, chinless alien™ gets lifted from her womb.

[ElishaScottBC]

Middleton might get to live there for a year if she releases a sex tape or something.

 

It's the future.

 

whens the release date?

[Preston Red]

Mentioned on Twitter today:

 

She's only pregnant because she hasn't got tits that are worth finishing on.

[DPW]

I hope it's black.

 

The baby is black!

 

[YOUTUBE]--Rf7Ph_C18[/YOUTUBE]

[Anubis]

If we removed the royal family wouldn't we just end up with one mega rich family who Own shit loads of land who can now do as they please. They are where they are because their ancestors were the biggest psychopaths, we could end up with comic book like villain family. Careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

It's all about how you remove them.

 

 

[bigbak]

Why do people in England care? What is the value of the royal family? What do they do, other than spend your taxes on their luxurious' lives?

 

Is it one of those "tradition" things people get hung up about, similarly to the Americans' obsession with their constitution and libertarianism?

 

They make old people happy. It's possible they bring in tourists, but I'd love to see how many people would come here anyway.

There's a statue of Captain Manwaring where I live and idiots come to have their picture taken with it so I imagine we don't need a proper royal family.

[barosrocks]

She might actually get tits that are worth taking a picture of now.

[Kevin D]

How come these alleged new pictures haven't been posted yet?

[Anubis]

Looks more like she's had a good meal than a baby bump.

 

[joeyk]

Not a fan of the Windsors. Don't mind her though. Well fit.

[Champ]

The Royal birth. What a lot of stuff and nonsense. An extended BBC news and then a special programme to follow.

Nauseating

[GR10 LFC]

On the plus side, this now officially makes her a MILF

[Bjornebye]

Pilf

 

and soon.... a Quilf

[Jairzinho]

Is the sprog ginger? Please be ginger.

[Faustus]

Has the little parasite been named yet? How about Dodi? Dodi's a good name.

[dennis tooth]

Britons urged to enjoy last few hours before explosion of baby bullshit

22-07-13

 

BRITONS have been advised to enjoy life in the final hours before a million-megaton blast of bullshit is unleashed.

 

‘Babypocalypse’ experts have told Britons to leave work immediately and go with their loved ones to a beauty spot where they can spend these last fleeting moments of normality in quiet contemplation.

 

Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: “We can’t say for sure how your life will change after today, but change it will and not for the better.

 

“This birth is like the Cuban missile crisis, except it’s not going to be averted.

 

“Once that child comes out of that vagina, nothing will be the same again.

 

“Leave work immediately. Visit or phone the people you care about.

 

“You might want to spend your ‘final hours’ in a calm, reflective state – or just go nuts with shagging, drugs and maybe some light destruction of property.

 

“If you are single, perhaps find an attractive stranger and ask them if they fancy doing it on the roof of a bus.

 

“The impending doom will make millions of us into wanton sexual libertines.

 

“But whatever you do today, make it count.”