People moaning about the Royal Baby

KxMx

TopQuark wrote: »

No. I live in Switzerland and work for a large international, inter-governmental organisation. Almost all of my colleagues are from other parts of the world and I can honestly say that not a single person is 'fascinated' with our royal family - they are almost never a topic for discussion.

When I lived in the far east it was exactly the same. People were more interested in David Beckham and football clubs than the royals. One possible exception was Americans.

Only in this country is there an 'absolute fascination' . I can't really understand it myself as I find it impossible to have much respect for a family that believes they are better than me and mine, that their lives are worth more. Which of course is absolute nonsense.

As for tourism, France gets the most, with Paris the most visited city in the world. As we know, they guillotined their royals centuries ago :T

The UK journos couldn't believe the numbers of media staff from abroad this week, had never known there be so many. Some had been camped outside St Mary's for weeks. All those networks sending over journalists must have felt there was reasonable interest to do so.

These old arguments do make me laugh! We know France does not have royals and gets plenty of tourism. I can't see people coming here though for the Eiffel tower if we got rid of our monarchy, or calling London the most romantic city :rotfl:

If we got rid then London real estate being what it is, the palaces would be torn down for flats, shopping centres or as a weekend retreat for a Russian Billionaire. I don't honestly think they would all stay there for tourists to visit before someone trots out the equally tired "France has empty palaces and tourists go there".

Every country has something different for the tourists. Just because those without royals get high numbers does not mean we would get a comparable amount without our royals. Why do anti-monarchists utterly refuse to see the revenue they generate through the Crown estates and tourism?

Britain has many attractions. Like it or not, the Royals are one of them.

It's like when we have snow and people moan that Canada cope so why shouldn't we.

Chalk and cheese as with this tired old argument over tourism!

TopQuark

TBH, I couldn't really care about the tourist thing, I was responding to an earlier post. My problem is more with this bit;

'a family that believes they are better than me and mine, that their lives are worth more'

Nobody is better than me, absolutely nobody. Equally, I'm no better than anyone else either. Except that the Royals and their sycophants believe that they ARE more worthy than others. That they were born better, just by....well, being born.

FatVonD

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

This news story has made me laugh my socks off

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23452815.

News: cabbie picks up parents of woman who had a baby. Come on BBC! Surely you can do better than this.

I have a better one, my cabbie hubby picked up waity Katie in his cab and she was announcing herself (to someone on her mobile phone) as Kate Windsor even then... and it was before they were even engaged :eek:

FatVonD

KxMx wrote: »

If we got rid then London real estate being what it is, the palaces would be torn down for flats, shopping centres or as a weekend retreat for a Russian Billionaire. I don't honestly think they would all stay there for tourists to visit before someone trots out the equally tired "France has empty palaces and tourists go there".

That hasn't happened to Hampton Court Palace, I pass it regularly and it's always heaving with visitors despite Henry VIII not living there any longer. It's part of history, and so should the monarchy be.

pollypenny

Excellent article in the i today.

Mark Steele suggest that anyone who really cared for this baby would want the monarchy abolished. Then that baby could look forward to a normal life.