The Royal Family (GB and Commonwealth)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll get to that little "I have English ties" part later. Firstly, it costs you nothing. So basically you'd vote to keep something just because you like it from a distance, for no justifiable reason, even though it costs a lot to people who don't give a shit? You see how bad a view that is, right? Not popping at you personally, infact I'm surprised you hold such a dreadful view, because most of your posts I enjoy reading.

About history: All the true great history of this country, my city, it's all overlooked in favour of a stupid building that a pointless old woman lives in. People would rather go see Buckingham Palace because they think that's as good as it gets. There's a church down the road from me that has way more historical significance and interest than that place. Nobody will ever really know because people have your kind of attitude.

If you're gonna love the history, love the right stuff. Not the stuff that doesn't matter and doesn't represent England in a way it deserves to be represented. This is all coming from me, someone who hates patriotism. I love my city because I've GROWN to love it. Not because I feel I have to.

They don't have any relevance to the history that matters. The fact that they are from Germany does matter, though. Why? Because if your blood ties are why you claim you love them, then you're being silly. They're not Australian or English. Nor have they done anything that truly matters, they've just been around DURING important times. They didn't do anything during them.

"The Queen's Mother lead our country through world wars." No she didn't. She was around at the time shouting "Go us! I hope we win!" just like every other person.

-AC

I'm more then prepared to admit it's a horrendous view, often one of surprise and wonder to my friends. I guess it's a bit of a character flaw - but then that's it, a personal view. I just like the Royal family (or some of them at any rate.)

You point about history and culture being overlooked is one that I agree with entirely. As a person who loves their history immensely there is little more painful to me then seeing worthy artifacts, structures and the like overlooked by people preferring the glitz and glamor of popularised history. It's a terrible shame, and in no way does my like of the Royal Family indicate that I think they should be looked at or appreciated before many of the marvels. In fact, when I talk to people planning trips to the grand old Isle, there are a plethora of things I advocate seeing well before a thought of standing in a line to look at a bit royal paraphernalia should ever enter ones head. So I agree it's a terrible thing that people focus on the Royals so much, to the detriment of others things. But that doesn't make me wish them gone any more or less. After all even if they weren't there, well, there is always something less worthy that will draw attention, be it the Royals, or a tree Elvis Presley planted on a tour getting loads of US tourists while an amazing art gallery is as silent as a tomb.

However, in terms of history, you are mostly right, once again they didn't really do anything, and once again I'll say they don't really do anything now. I've agreed that it's a shame about there dominance of the cultural and historical landscape - but the fact remains, fairly or not (mostly unfairly) - the Royal family is a part of England's cultural identity, and historical identity. They didn't have to be native to the nation, or do anything (though Royals hundreds of years ago played a part in shaping it) - but like happens so often, as Grand Moff Gav implied in his first post, they can still sometimes be seen as hand in hand with English history by non-English. Is this right? Not really, but it happens. Once again I emphasize the point that their claim to fame is indeed questionable, but they have been integrated the cultural/historical strata that every single nation possesses.

Now as to my blood ties, well, my mentioning of them was more to express my view that could have been, but hasn't been, shaped by family. Now, it terms of the Australian commonwealth - mostly, as I pointed out, people here really don't mind either way. In Australia the Queen and her Governor General are purely figure heads. The question of getting rid of her is purely symbolic - changing from a symbolic queen to a symbolic president. Dispensing with my long windness I should have just said I prefer the monarchy figure heads. If I lived in England still, however, my view might very well be different - as it's a more relevant question there. As I should probably have said "I'm a staunch Commonwealth monarchist" - simply because the way we view the Royals is different from the way a citizen of England views them. Essentially we get all the perks - as I mentioned the pomp and pageantry, admission into Commonwealth games, travel for our politicians between commonwealth states etc - without any of the bad things - that is, the upkeep of them. We here have no reason to want them gone, except a symbolic cultural one. Once again I agree with you, it might seem quite wrong from Australians to not mind having a queen simply because we don't have to pay and appreciate her from affair, but it's once again a cultural thing - after all we plan to one day spend millions of tax payer dollars on a proper cricket museum simply so the English will let us take the ashes urn home when (if) we win them. And we don't have to like the Royals, we don't have to hate them. We are usually just apathetic on the subject. So it's kind of rare for people to really get excited and go "Yes, They have to be removed now!" or "We like them, they should stay!" And it is with some strangeness I ended up in third group - I could just not give a toss (majority), want them gone (minority) or want them to stay (minority.) These groups aren't decided by patriotism, but simply personal preference.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But that doesn't make me wish them gone any more or less. After all even if they weren't there, well, there is always something less worthy that will draw attention, be it the Royals, or a tree Elvis Presley planted on a tour getting loads of US tourists while an amazing art gallery is as silent as a tomb.

True enough, but you are saying you are very much for them. If you have even the slightest love of this country, you'd realise that loving them and loving England are two different things. On one hand you're appreciating what deserves to be appreciated because you are genuinely interested. On the other you're loving a family that you have absolutely zero (factual) connection with or reason to love. Justifiable reason anyway. It's like, so many Americans learn about our history (or parts of) in school and then they come over and miss all the best stuff in favour of that BS. Them being gone means people aren't paying for them to be there, it also means, as an aside, that history getting overlooked will have less chance. At least with Big Ben you can go right up to it. Why go and stand many feet away from a building that really isn't all that spectacular anyway, just to stare at it from behind a big fence?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
However, in terms of history, you are mostly right, once again they didn't really do anything, and once again I'll say they don't really do anything now. I've agreed that it's a shame about there dominance of the cultural and historical landscape - but the fact remains, fairly or not (mostly unfairly) - the Royal family is a part of England's cultural identity, and historical identity. They didn't have to be native to the nation, or do anything (though Royals hundreds of years ago played a part in shaping it) - but like happens so often, as Grand Moff Gav implied in his first post, they can still sometimes be seen as hand in hand with English history by non-English. Is this right? Not really, but it happens. Once again I emphasize the point that their claim to fame is indeed questionable, but they have been integrated the cultural/historical strata that every single nation possesses.

Yes, but it's not right that this has happened, as we can both agree. It has happened, it won't be changed, but it's wrong. So on that note, you like them because of some other inexplicable reason then? You like the mystery and elegence they have in myth, but don't actually have in reality. Doesn't that ring any bells? It's like being a fan of Ashlee Simpson because of the talent and good looks she's supposedly got, when we all know she has none of either. They are false icons of our cultural and historical strata, so therefore, liking them in connection with it is illogical. You like them for purely superficial and non-existing reasons, yet you'd vote to keep them and resultantly keep people paying FOR them, just for these reasons. That's wrong.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now as to my blood ties, well, my mentioning of them was more to express my view that could have been, but hasn't been, shaped by family. Now, it terms of the Australian commonwealth - mostly, as I pointed out, people here really don't mind either way. In Australia the Queen and her Governor General are purely figure heads. The question of getting rid of her is purely symbolic - changing from a symbolic queen to a symbolic president. Dispensing with my long windness I should have just said I prefer the monarchy figure heads. If I lived in England still, however, my view might very well be different - as it's a more relevant question there. As I should probably have said "I'm a staunch Commonwealth monarchist" - simply because the way we view the Royals is different from the way a citizen of England views them. Essentially we get all the perks - as I mentioned the pomp and pageantry, admission into Commonwealth games, travel for our politicians between commonwealth states etc - without any of the bad things - that is, the upkeep of them. We here have no reason to want them gone, except a symbolic cultural one. Once again I agree with you, it might seem quite wrong from Australians to not mind having a queen simply because we don't have to pay and appreciate her from affair, but it's once again a cultural thing - after all we plan to one day spend millions of tax payer dollars on a proper cricket museum simply so the English will let us take the ashes urn home when (if) we win them. And we don't have to like the Royals, we don't have to hate them. We are usually just apathetic on the subject. So it's kind of rare for people to really get excited and go "Yes, They have to be removed now!" or "We like them, they should stay!" And it is with some strangeness I ended up in third group - I could just not give a toss (majority), want them gone (minority) or want them to stay (minority.) These groups aren't decided by patriotism, but simply personal preference.

If you're apathetic to them then you shouldn't vote either way, quite honestly. If you had the option to vote for or against keeping them, you should vote neither. Why? Because your apathy in conjunction with your rather petty and indirectly superficial love of the non-existent pagentry of the monarchy, is costing those who really don't care. It's like giving a US presidential vote to someone in England.

"I think Bush, his slip-ups and misfortunes, plus his idiocy, are all funny. Therefore I'm gonna keep him in. Doesn't bother me as I'll watch it from afar."

People in the US still have to deal with him. Granted, the Queen is very much the different ball game, but the principle is the same. If you like the monarchy and admit that it's an absurd view, that's fine although I DO also think it's ridiculous and horrendous. You can't logically say you'd actively try to keep them in out of apathy though. That's both contradictory and careless.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
True enough, but you are saying you are very much for them. If you have even the slightest love of this country, you'd realise that loving them and loving England are two different things. On one hand you're appreciating what deserves to be appreciated because you are genuinely interested. On the other you're loving a family that you have absolutely zero (factual) connection with or reason to love. Justifiable reason anyway. It's like, so many Americans learn about our history (or parts of) in school and then they come over and miss all the best stuff in favour of that BS. Them being gone means people aren't paying for them to be there, it also means, as an aside, that history getting overlooked will have less chance. At least with Big Ben you can go right up to it. Why go and stand many feet away from a building that really isn't all that spectacular anyway, just to stare at it from behind a big fence?

Yes, but it's not right that this has happened, as we can both agree. It has happened, it won't be changed, but it's wrong. So on that note, you like them because of some other inexplicable reason then? You like the mystery and elegence they have in myth, but don't actually have in reality. Doesn't that ring any bells? It's like being a fan of Ashlee Simpson because of the talent and good looks she's supposedly got, when we all know she has none of either. They are false icons of our cultural and historical strata, so therefore, liking them in connection with it is illogical. You like them for purely superficial and non-existing reasons, yet you'd vote to keep them and resultantly keep people paying FOR them, just for these reasons. That's wrong.

If you're apathetic to them then you shouldn't vote either way, quite honestly. If you had the option to vote for or against keeping them, you should vote neither. Why? Because your apathy in conjunction with your rather petty and indirectly superficial love of the non-existent pagentry of the monarchy, is costing those who really don't care. It's like giving a US presidential vote to someone in England.

"I think Bush, his slip-ups and misfortunes, plus his idiocy, are all funny. Therefore I'm gonna keep him in. Doesn't bother me as I'll watch it from afar."

People in the US still have to deal with him. Granted, the Queen is very much the different ball game, but the principle is the same. If you like the monarchy and admit that it's an absurd view, that's fine although I DO also think it's ridiculous and horrendous. You can't logically say you'd actively try to keep them in out of apathy though. That's both contradictory and careless.

-AC

Yes, I forgot about that bit. I don't think the royal family are an embodiment of being British, not one in the same in the least, though some people do.

And interesting and good points. I will begin on my Australian stance. As much as I care for England, Australia is where I live. The apathy doesn't stand for me. I was talking about Australians in general on the subject. Now we can have the Queen, or we can give her the old heave hoe, the question is whats best? Now a few years ago the republican group got motivated, and managed to get a referendum begun - to declare our independence entirely, to leave the Commonwealth, to remove the queen. In the place of the Governor General we would get a President. Essentially a figure head position meant to represent the state, but with no real powers - different in this way from the US presidency, which combines head of state with Head of Government. The referendum revealed that kind of apathy in a good many Australians. Now, I was to young at that point to vote in it, but if I had been able to I would have voted to remain a part of the commonwealth, not out of apathy - but personally because I prefer the Monarchy as our symbolic figure head and secondly because such a change is not needed - from an Australian point of view. It's always struck me as an absurd debate, and as such my view does seem silly to me - essentially as the question comes down personal preference. It's not like voting in a political party. More like voting in a state mascot (as comedian Will Anderson said quite succinctly at the time.)

But Grand Moff question was both to citizens of the England, and the Commonwealth. And views will differ - ultimately if we had voted the queen out, it wouldn't have effected England in the least, only us - you'd still have her.

A vote to leave the commonwealth would have led to a period of bureaucratic juggling, a fair bit of money spent changing things, a long off period in parliament as wording was changed on the constitution and in laws. All for a simple cosmetic change. As a result you are right - I am very much for them in a Commonwealth sense. Simply because of aesthetic (read personal preference) and because of the absurd bureaucratic paperwork that follows such things. Practically speaking being in the Commonwealth has been fine and dandy for Australia. Changing brings no real benefits and a period of confusion and wasted time and money while i's are dotted and t's are re-done. Thus, I will remain interested and apathetic, and vote in any far off future referendums to retain the monarchy for the simply reason I like them better then the alternative, because such a change is not necessary, and the benefits are not out weighed by the negatives. So while my personally preference is a part of this in the commonwealth sense, I also think it's more practical. Yes, I like some of them. I don't love them. And that like for some of them tips the balance when it comes to Australian and the Monarchy. And true - if there was a practical reason for dropping the Queen in Australia I would support doing so. The good of the state and all. But there isn't really, and the image of the Queen is slightly more appealing then the image of President John Howard (who incidentally is a true Staunch English Monarchist who would stick with the monarchy no matter what.) In the end the vote went against the Republicans by a pretty large margin. Australians, who don't mind what we have at the moment, when asked the question of what they would prefer, went with the Royal family, for either practical reasons, or because they like them, or liked them better then the alternatives. Is it greedy of Australians? Most Australians would say no, and I think that if we keep her we should contribute to her upkeep (which would quite likely shake a good number out of their apathy)

Yet it is different for English citizens, as I said in my first post, if the best thing for England was to dissolve the Royal family, then it should be done, and I wouldn't be devastated or even disappointed. It might have a knock on effect for Australia similar to what I described before, but that to would have to acceptable. And as I care a great deal about England, I would be very happy if they did something that was good for them as a state and culture.

And I loved your example using Ashlee Simpson, and I agree with what your saying. And yes, while I like the Royal family, I agree they shouldn't be in the limelight, strangling culture and becoming false icons. I would vastly prefer if they had to exist being a bit more like the Royals of other nations who are far less obvious, far less mainstream, less overt and self important - realising of course that monarchy and feudalism are a bygone governing systems and that they are little more then artifacts of a bygone time - essentially museum pieces. Living pieces, but still pieces.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And interesting and good points. I will begin on my Australian stance. As much as I care for England, Australia is where I live. The apathy doesn't stand for me. I was talking about Australians in general on the subject. Now we can have the Queen, or we can give her the old heave hoe, the question is whats best? Now a few years ago the republican group got motivated, and managed to get a referendum begun - to declare our independence entirely, to leave the Commonwealth, to remove the queen. In the place of the Governor General we would get a President. Essentially a figure head position meant to represent the state, but with no real powers - different in this way from the US presidency, which combines head of state with Head of Government. The referendum revealed that kind of apathy in a good many Australians. Now, I was to young at that point to vote in it, but if I had been able to I would have voted to remain a part of the commonwealth, not out of apathy - but personally because I prefer the Monarchy as our symbolic figure head and secondly because such a change is not needed - from an Australian point of view. It's always struck me as an absurd debate, and as such my view does seem silly to me - essentially as the question comes down personal preference. It's not like voting in a political party. More like voting in a state mascot (as comedian Will Anderson said quite succinctly at the time.)

All of what you're saying here rests upon the belief that getting rid of them isn't needed, a change isn't needed. Since when did England need a mascot? Since when did England need a mascot that isn't even doing anything? Since when did England need a mascot that doesn't do anything, represents false images AND is costing it's inhabitants money? The answer to all those is never. If they wanna be our "mascots" AND at the same time give us lots of money back, as previously said, then fine. I just don't like the idea of them being an unneeded mascot doing nothing but draining. There's no point saying "They don't drain much", because they're still draining SOMETHING. That something IS too much when you're giving nothing back. To some, having the Royal Family as our mascot is enough, I call those people idiots.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But Grand Moff question was both to citizens of the England, and the Commonwealth. And views will differ - ultimately if we had voted the queen out, it wouldn't have effected England in the least, only us - you'd still have her. A vote to leave the commonwealth would have led to a period of bureaucratic juggling, a fair bit of money spent changing things, a long off period in parliament as wording was changed on the constitution and in laws. All for a simple cosmetic change. As a result you are right - I am very much for them in a Commonwealth sense. Simply because of aesthetic (read personal preference) and because of the absurd bureaucratic paperwork that follows such things.

That's why there is so much shit in the world though. Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy, so to claim that a bit of "paperwork" and cost is all for nought when the reputation of a great country is at stake, is rather silly. Especially when the monarchy are costing money for literally nothing. At least all that bureaucratic paperwork would be FOR something. Infact, if the monarchy gave everyone back the money they stole from them I'm sure most people would be willing to chip in toward the cost of getting rid of them. It's all based around "I prefer them there.", which is just BS. You agree they're pointless and you agree on how wrong they are, you are aware that they drain people's money and represent a false image of what this country is, yet you would keep them because you basically like the look of them. That is a disgrace and if you claim to care for this country then so are you for having that opinion. Because you aren't thinking about the country, you're thinking about image. People are being robbed of their money so you can go "Aww, looks lovely."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Practically speaking being in the Commonwealth has been fine and dandy for Australia. Changing brings no real benefits and a period of confusion and wasted time and money while i's are dotted and t's are re-done.

For those of us who give a shit enough to not want our money stolen by false representatives of this country, it's not too much work. So claiming that it's all pointless is silly. You claim apathy but you would make the effort to keep a pointless institution. It's just so far into the field of being illogical that I find myself questioning just how you can sanely believe what you do.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Thus, I will remain interested and apathetic, and vote in any far off future referendums to retain the monarchy for the simply reason I like them better then the alternative, because such a change is not necessary, and the benefits are not out weighed by the negatives. So while my personally preference is a part of this in the commonwealth sense, I also think it's more practical. Yes, I like some of them. I don't love them. And that like for some of them tips the balance when it comes to Australian and the Monarchy. And true - if there was a practical reason for dropping the Queen in Australia I would support doing so. The good of the state and all. But there isn't really, and the image of the Queen is slightly more appealing then the image of President John Howard (who incidentally is a true Staunch English Monarchist who would stick with the monarchy no matter what.) In the end the vote went against the Republicans by a pretty large margin. Australians, who don't mind what we have at the moment, when asked the question of what they would prefer, went with the Royal family, for either practical reasons, or because they like them, or liked them better then the alternatives. Is it greedy of Australians? Most Australians would say no, and I think that if we keep her we should contribute to her upkeep (which would quite likely shake a good number out of their apathy)

Why do you keep saying there's no reason for dropping her? There is. People are paying for them to exist when they are more negative than they are positive. The only positive is "Visually appealing." To who? Not to me. I don't give a shit about the monarchy. All they do is visit places and cost people money. They do NOTHING. There's more counting toward getting rid of them than there is keeping, which is nothing. Your idea of change/confusion is flawed because those of use who give a shit, as I previously said, don't want them there.

You say it's better than the alternatives. So you would rather look at the Queen than John Howard. So? Not my problem. Of course it's greedy of you, you're voting and deciding purely on superficiality in the face of all the negatives that are endured by people of Britain. You would have us pay for them just so you enjoy what you see? Well I believe the phrase I would use to reply rhymes with Duck Blue.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet it is different for English citizens, as I said in my first post, if the best thing for England was to dissolve the Royal family, then it should be done, and I wouldn't be devastated or even disappointed. It might have a knock on effect for Australia similar to what I described before, but that to would have to acceptable. And as I care a great deal about England, I would be very happy if they did something that was good for them as a state and culture.

Knock-on effect? You mean the confusion of Australians everywhere? It's simple. The Queen is gone. Done. Solved.

Dissolving the monarchy would mean people of Britain, as I have continually said, wouldn't be paying for them to remain. Which you seem to be ok with despite admitting that they are pointless, false and unneeded, just so you can enjoy it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And I loved your example using Ashlee Simpson, and I agree with what your saying. And yes, while I like the Royal family, I agree they shouldn't be in the limelight, strangling culture and becoming false icons. I would vastly prefer if they had to exist being a bit more like the Royals of other nations who are far less obvious, far less mainstream, less overt and self important - realising of course that monarchy and feudalism are a bygone governing systems and that they are little more then artifacts of a bygone time - essentially museum pieces. Living pieces, but still pieces.

So now you're saying you wish they were like royals of other countries? This is more superficial than I thought. They are what they are, and what they are is pointless, 100% pointless. Getting rid of them would be fairer to everyone. "Not for us, we like how they look", yeah? Then you pay for them to come live over there. YOU pay their upkeep.

-AC

I also help pay lazy dole-ites £100+ every two weeks. I'd prefer to see them removed from the UK before the Royals.

At least they partake in something LIKE work. 😉

VVD's logic is flawed.

Most of the old woprld has old buildings. The reason the UK gets a disproportionate tourist attendance is because its history is a living institutiion rather than a dead relic.

Be sure- if Britain was a Republic, tourist revenune would fall significantly.

Meanwhile- as people always forget when considering the money issue... first of all, the cost is a relative pittance. Secondly, they are due far more money from their land that they surrender the revenue from to the Government. That's not land they own unfairly- it is simply land that belongs to their family, and there is a whole lot of land in the UK that is owned by various families, and most of them keep all that money, yet no-one complains about them, do we?

We make the Royals give up all that money, and we give them enough back to maintain their estates and live as in some respect befits the concept of Royalty. They are the losers on this one, but they don't mind because it's the concept that is important.

But people still complain on monetary grounds? Insanity.

The Royal Family is a fantastic institution- it is a living monument, a source of continuity for the nation, an area of distinctiveness, and it does also try to do some good.

We would be very much diminished without it.

Very pretty and all that, but I hardly think we'd be 'very much diminished'. I can see what you're saying regarding the financial issue, in fact I wasn't aware that the Royal Family lived on just enough to cover necessities. Just like the rest of us, then?

Why are we paying for them to live? Especially those who don't care for them.

I didn't say the cost wasn't "pittance", I said it was A cost, which is too much for those who quite frankly don't give a shit isn't it? We give them money to live and they give nothing back. If you having them as your "representatives" is enough then let them take your money gladly. They don't represent me and a lot of other people and we're still treated as if we want them there.

There are "dead" relics with much more significance than the royals. Especially in connection to London's history. For one they're actually English.

-AC

Exactly.

As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?

If England were to lose the Royal Family it'd be rendered boring? But you said you find the architecture and rich history appealing... is this only architecture and history related to the Royals?

Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me. The architecture will still be there *cough*stonehenge*cough* but things like castles and buckingham palace just wouldn't feel the same without the royal presence.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

You're aware that the best historical sites in London have zero to do with any royal? Thought not.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?

The Royal family aren't part of British history, they're tag alongs, quite simply. They're the figurehead that every "pompous American" is taught to love, when in actuality there is so much more worthwhile history.

You've never even been to London and you say you'd find our country boring without even knowing how "exciting" it is here WITH the royals? Talk about an uneducated comment. If you came here and had a brilliant time, all without seeing Buckingham Palace, which I guarantee you would, how would it's loss make the country/city more boring? I've lived here all my life and I've been seen Buckingham Palace three times. Once because I had to go past it to get somewhere, second time because it was on a school trip as a kid and third because I took an American friend to see it. Ironically once the surrealness subsides, and it did so quickly, she was quite underhwhelmed. The areas SURROUNDING the palace are better than the actual palace itself. The greenery surrounding it is beautiful, the palace itself is shit. Point being that I've seen it three times in my 20 years of living here. The two times in which the palace was supposed to be seen, it wasn't even the main attraction.

It makes me laugh when people claim they love this country and find it interesting, only to cite the most boring parts of our country as the highlights.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me. The architecture will still be there *cough*stonehenge*cough* but things like castles and buckingham palace just wouldn't feel the same without the royal presence.

What royal presence? She's not standing there waving from the window.

As VVD said earlier, the Tower of London is actually much better than any royal building. There's no one in there, but it's a historic place you are allowed to go into. You stand and stare at Buckingham Palace from far away behind a big black fence. It's a very underwhelming building.

That's the point I made to Samura, the whole part you learn about, all the pagentry and glamour, it's false. There's none of it. All these uninformed views seem to be of the belief that you'd actually be seeing the Queen. You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. It's just a building that the Queen "lives" in. You stand and stare at it. There's no presence besides the one you've been conditioned to have.

They're people, pointless people at that. The mistake everyone makes is to connect the royals with history that can be viewed. You see them on TV, that's it.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?

Excuse my ignorance, but does Elizabeth actually live in Buckingham Palace? 😕

Originally posted by Eis
I don't know a lot about the king's or the queen's role in a country now a days but I think that keeping them so that tourists will keep coming is a silly reason to keep them.

It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Well you will have to admit theat the Queen does create some jobs....althoguh that's probably not sufficent reason.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're aware that the best historical sites in London have zero to do with any royal? Thought not.

Umm...yes, I did mention Stonehenge in my other post.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Royal family aren't part of British history, they're tag alongs, quite simply. They're the figurehead that every "pompous American" is taught to love, when in actuality there is so much more worthwhile history.

Umm...no, we haven't been taught anything. It is the image YOU guys have presented to the rest of world. We fallen in love with your princess Diana and the royal family saga that even after her death we still want to know more.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You've never even been to London and you say you'd find our country boring without even knowing how "exciting" it is here WITH the royals? Talk about an uneducated comment. If you came here and had a brilliant time, all without seeing Buckingham Palace, which I guarantee you would, how would it's loss make the country/city more boring?

And there are countless other places I've never been visited. And I may have a "boring" impression of them. Until I visit them then my mind will change. Uneducated? I'm not sure...Unaware maybe.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What royal presence? She's not standing there waving from the window.

Unless American Television is lying to me (another bag of tricks I'm not going to endulge) I've seen her giving speaches in her palace. Believe it or not...If I'm in England I'd love to hear them. Curiosity kill the cat.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B]As VVD said earlier, the Tower of London is actually much better than any royal building. There's no one in there, but it's a historic place you are allowed to go into. You stand and stare at Buckingham Palace from far away behind a big black fence. It's a very underwhelming building.

That is his opinion on what maybe a better place. I'm the tourist...I'm the one paying to see...I want my money's worth. Even if it is a crappy tour I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

-WD

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

-WD

Anyone else found that amusing?

Not really, it's been done...