Jump to content

The Royal Family


Genie

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, MNVillan said:

I definitely didn’t travel to England for the weather.

Well that’s silly. Where else do you get so much weather in a day as you do in England? 

To keep it on topic, I’m staunchly republican and find the very principle of monarchy reprehensible. On the other hand, I do quite like Olivia Colman so I’d stop short of the guillotine. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, El Zen said:

Well that’s silly. Where else do you get so much weather in a day as you do in England? 

To keep it on topic, I’m staunchly republican and find the very principle of monarchy reprehensible. On the other hand, I do quite like Olivia Colman so I’d stop short of the guillotine. 

Like in a “she’s  a good actress way”  or like as in I’d like 5 minutes alone with her and this tub of peanut butter ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Like in a “she’s  a good actress way”  or like as in I’d like 5 minutes alone with her and this tub of peanut butter ?

The first one. For the second, see Claire Foy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

We’re you hoping to meet the queen?

No, but tbf the first thing my wife wanted to do (which means it’s the first thing we did) was see Buckingham Palace. The royals were (obviously) not a deal breaker, but a fun thing to see. Mind you, I’m not the one paying for their castles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MNVillan said:

No, but tbf the first thing my wife wanted to do (which means it’s the first thing we did) was see Buckingham Palace. The royals were (obviously) not a deal breaker, but a fun thing to see. Mind you, I’m not the one paying for their castles

That’s what I’d have guessed.

I think a lot of the royalists find it difficult to understand Buckingham Palace won’t disappear if we ask Charles not to be our sovereign king. I think they worry that if they don’t keep believing then it will all literally disappear including the soldiers in big hats and all the palaces and castles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

That’s what I’d have guessed.

I think a lot of the royalists find it difficult to understand Buckingham Palace won’t disappear if we ask Charles not to be our sovereign king. I think they worry that if they don’t keep believing then it will all literally disappear including the soldiers in big hats and all the palaces and castles.

No, it's just lots of people are aware that the Tower of London is also in central London, so the fact they went to visit Buckingham Palace instead (which you can't even go inside most of the time) implies that the interest was in the monarchy rather than buildings in which monarchs used to reside.

Although @MNVillan can probably clear it up best. Do you think your wife would be as interested in seeing the Palace if the monarchy had been abolished and plain old Lizzie Windsor didn't live there any more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

No, it's just lots of people are aware that the Tower of London is also in central London, so the fact they went to visit Buckingham Palace instead (which you can't even go inside most of the time) implies that the interest was in the monarchy rather than buildings in which monarchs used to reside.

Although @MNVillan can probably clear it up best. Do you think your wife would be as interested in seeing the Palace if the monarchy had been abolished and plain old Lizzie Windsor didn't live there any more?

Probably more interested if they started giving tours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MNVillan said:

Probably more interested if they started giving tours

So you think she'd have been more interested in visiting London if we abolished the monarchy and opened the palace up to the public instead? That's interesting. Not the answer I was expecting but always good to hear opinions.

If you time your visit right they do actually do tours of the palace, although the decor on the inside isn't actually as grand as you might think when you look closely at it. Personally I think the Tower of London is much better to visit but perhaps that's just me.

Edited by Panto_Villan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

So you think she'd have been more interested in visiting London if we abolished the monarchy and opened the palace up to the public instead? That's interesting. Not the answer I was expecting but always good to hear opinions.

If you time your visit right they do actually do tours of the palace, although the decor on the inside isn't actually as grand as you might think when you look closely at it. Personally I think the Tower of London is much better to visit but perhaps that's just me.

Frankly if the monarchy vanished and the palaces did with it, I don’t think that would change our decision to visit at all. The Palace was cool, but after two minutes of standing outside the gates you continue on your way.

She was much more interested in the ritzy, high end shops and areas. Same with the food. A bit like visiting NYC. I was interested in pubs and football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for the folks who like having the royals around.

Imagine that we lived in a country that didn't have a monarchy and instead it had some sort of reasonably functioning parliamentary democracy (hard to fine these days I know.)

Can you make the argument for creating a constitutional monarchy and assigning some already wealthy family the role of "royal family." Why would it be a good idea and what would the benefits be for the country overall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we held the beheading at Wembley and sold tickets, how much revenue would that bring in?

Could we do it like that Abba Show and maybe re-run it once a week?

Could we get away with charging Americans double?

It would need to be Carbon Beutral obviously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can’t you simultaneously be slightly less interested in seeing Buckingham Palace when there’s no monarchy in there but still interested enough whilst you’re in London to pay £20 for a nosey around? They’re not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Why can’t you simultaneously be slightly less interested in seeing Buckingham Palace when there’s no monarchy in there but still interested enough whilst you’re in London to pay £20 for a nosey around? They’re not mutually exclusive.

it's already £55 to visit all three venues at Buckingham Palace

Yep, they fleece you to see the stuff they fleeced out of the people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

it's already £55 to visit all three venues at Buckingham Palace

Yep, they fleece you to see the stuff they fleeced out of the people

Blimey, there you go then. Only need 2 million visitors a year at those rates and it’s self sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fightoffyour said:

Blimey, there you go then. Only need 2 million visitors a year at those rates and it’s self sufficient.

Perfectly possible if it was open all year round and not ten weeks

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

This is for the folks who like having the royals around.

Imagine that we lived in a country that didn't have a monarchy and instead it had some sort of reasonably functioning parliamentary democracy (hard to fine these days I know.)

Can you make the argument for creating a constitutional monarchy and assigning some already wealthy family the role of "royal family." Why would it be a good idea and what would the benefits be for the country overall.

 

Bunting, Victoria sponges and looking like a 3 pieced red/white/blue police national database worrier whenever the head of the family fancies waving at plebs from their golden carriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

This is for the folks who like having the royals around.

Imagine that we lived in a country that didn't have a monarchy and instead it had some sort of reasonably functioning parliamentary democracy (hard to fine these days I know.)

Can you make the argument for creating a constitutional monarchy and assigning some already wealthy family the role of "royal family." Why would it be a good idea and what would the benefits be for the country overall.

 

No, not really. However that doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

You wouldn’t invent the Welsh language or Brutalist architecture if it didn’t already exist, yet we go out of our way to preserve those things. Shakespeare is pretty outdated writing by today’s standards too, but history and heritage has inherent value.

Our royal family is interesting in no small part because it is anachronistic. Nobody would want to see a newly established  royal family, they want to see the remnants of a world famous institution that once ruled half the world as they smile and wave like fairground exhibits.

Actually, I tell a lie. I can think of one reason why you might want a non-elected blank slate monarch to be head of state - because if you don’t have one, the head of state is an elected politician.

That means if you do have a big parade or major event, it’d be Boris and Carrie (or Jeremy Corbyn) sitting in the gilded carriage at the front. That’d be way more divisive than having the Queen do it imo. More meritocratic, of course, but I think people would enjoy the pageantry less as a result. It’s useful having a figurehead sometimes.

Your mileage may vary on how much you value that I suppose.

Edited by Panto_Villan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

So you think she'd have been more interested in visiting London if we abolished the monarchy and opened the palace up to the public instead? That's interesting. Not the answer I was expecting but always good to hear opinions.

If you time your visit right they do actually do tours of the palace, although the decor on the inside isn't actually as grand as you might think when you look closely at it. Personally I think the Tower of London is much better to visit but perhaps that's just me.

When I was in Madrid I went to see the Royal Palace there because it was open and you could have a tour.

If the Royal Family still actually lived there and you couldn't go in then there's no chance I'd have gone to see it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â