Community Chat

[Venezia]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I don't understand the fascination some Americans have with royal families from other countries. They have nothing to do with us, they don't even rule these countries anymore, but are just a figurehead , like the British royals. 

---

ITA ....  the British royals are merely wealthy parasites .....  they did nothing to earn their position or wealth.   What is even more sad is that they are self-appointed "aristocrats"  who keep an antiquated class system in place .... and make the taxpayers pay for it!

These glorified ribbon cutters could be abolished tomorrow and the country would be better off without them.   

---

Not into politics, but the Michelle can spend tens of millions going on unnecessary trips etc. (38 so far)....with 2 years left.  

---

I have no idea what you think qualifies as an "unnecessary trip", but there is an allotted budget, and all expenses are subject to scrutiny.    

Do you have any specifics you can give us?

---

Do you have "any specifics" you can give us about your claims concerning the British Royal Family?

[Toppers]

---

@straykatz wrote:

It's refreshing to see family pics where the women are elegantly stylish without exposing everything or flashing the size of their behinds.  

Thanks for sharing.  

---

I was thinking how very beautiful the brides all looked in those wedding gowns. The gowns were all so beautiful. They weren't overdone in any way, in my opinion. 

[Q4u]

I think the photos are gorgeous and the family is gorgeous... same with other royal families.  Thank you for posting .... 

My husband is Swedish and Norwegian.  I am English and Scots/Irish and I'm a bit of and Anglohile.  I enjoy following the history of royal families.  I can't believe the reaction you received, but not surprised.... tough room.  Ignore.....  

[Q4u]

Anglohile = Anglophile (keys stick once in awhile... )

[NoelSeven]

---

@Q4u wrote:

I think the photos are gorgeous and the family is gorgeous... same with other royal families.  Thank you for posting .... 

My husband is Swedish and Norwegian.  I am English and Scots/Irish and I'm a bit of and Anglohile.  I enjoy following the history of royal families.  I can't believe the reaction you received, but not surprised.... tough room.  Ignore.....  

******************************

I am a bit of an Anglophile, also.  Half Welsh, 1/4 Irish, and a Cornish great-grandmother.

---

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

THE FACTS: HOW THE UK MAKES BIG MONEY OFF OF THE ROYALS

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year.

About 80 percent of Britons approve of the monarchy fairly consistently.

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue,

Baby Cambridge is set to boost consumer spending even more, according to Britain's Center for Retail Research, to the tune of $383 million.

A British firm called Brand Finance, which evaluates "intangible assets," said the royal wedding alone boosted London's economy by 107 million pounds ($165 million) through "accommodation, travel, and nightlife," even while factoring in the economic drag of time off work.

The Atlantic

---

I can see that you take those numbers as "gospel".    And what do you expect the Brit tourism agency to say? .....  that the royals mean nothing?   I doubt that would ever happen.

The problem here is, magazines and agencies can print any estimated figure they like regarding what the royals supposedly attract in "tourism revenue" ..... but there's no way to substantiate it because it's not compared to anything.     

If there was a time when there wasn't a monarchy, then the tourism numbers could be compared in those years to tourism when there is a monarchy .... but that's an impossible comparison.

I spent a few days in London and I was there for the architecture ... they royals had no bearing whatsoever.     Of all the people who could be considered "tourists",  just how many of them would you guess expect to be invited to lunch or meet with the royals?    The royals don't care about tourists.   Most people I know who've been to London didn't go because of the royal family .... but Brits want you to believe that it's true.   

Actually, I think it's possible England's tourism would go UP if the monarchy was abolished and people had more access to the castles and estates ..... and could see the excess and wasted taxpayer dollars first hand.   JMO

[RainyDayGal]

I'd much rather have real royals than those that are here pretending they are. We just have a bunch of wannabes. I loved Princess Di, I love watching Wills and Kate and their beautiful children.  Classy. 

[MyGirlsMom]

Funny thing @Tinkrbl44, when I've gone to London, I DID go because of the Royal family - all of them, past and present. 

The various Castles, Palace's, Tower of London, various Gardens , etc are a part pf the Royal family lineage. 

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I don't understand the fascination some Americans have with royal families from other countries. They have nothing to do with us, they don't even rule these countries anymore, but are just a figurehead , like the British royals. 

---

ITA ....  the British royals are merely wealthy parasites .....  they did nothing to earn their position or wealth.   What is even more sad is that they are self-appointed "aristocrats"  who keep an antiquated class system in place .... and make the taxpayers pay for it!

These glorified ribbon cutters could be abolished tomorrow and the country would be better off without them.   

---

Not into politics, but the Michelle can spend tens of millions going on unnecessary trips etc. (38 so far)....with 2 years left.  

---

I have no idea what you think qualifies as an "unnecessary trip", but there is an allotted budget, and all expenses are subject to scrutiny.    

Do you have any specifics you can give us?

---

Do you have "any specifics" you can give us about your claims concerning the British Royal Family?

---

See post #76.    

As I previously stated .....  just how can anyone possibly confirm how much royals supposedly help tourism if there is nothing to compare it to?  

Any numbers provided are simply estimates, nothing more.

[NoelSeven]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

I can see that you take those numbers as "gospel".    And what do you expect the Brit tourism agency to say? .....  that the royals mean nothing?   I doubt that would ever happen.

The problem here is, magazines and agencies can print any estimated figure they like regarding what the royals supposedly attract in "tourism revenue" ..... but there's no way to substantiate it because it's not compared to anything.     

If there was a time when there wasn't a monarchy, then the tourism numbers could be compared in those years to tourism when there is a monarchy .... but that's an impossible comparison.

I spent a few days in London and I was there for the architecture ... they royals had no bearing whatsoever.     Of all the people who could be considered "tourists",  just how many of them would you guess expect to be invited to lunch or meet with the royals?    The royals don't care about tourists.   Most people I know who've been to London didn't go because of the royal family .... but Brits want you to believe that it's true.   

Actually, I think it's possible England's tourism would go UP if the monarchy was abolished and people had more access to the castles and estates ..... and could see the excess and wasted taxpayer dollars first hand.   JMO

---

***********************************

I take statistics seriously, and there are numerous statistical studies showing the facts I posted.

You have nothing in the way of evidence.  You and I have gone 'round on this before, and I gave you facts then.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your anger comes from your mother's experiences or memories as a child, no?    Time for us to move on, the Welsh were also mistreated, that was 50 to 100 years ago, it's not the same now.  That was then, this is now.