Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

It's The Queens Birthday Day.

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    Unless the OP is British, why refer to her as the Queen?
    Monarchs are usually referenced by the country/jurisdiction.
    For example the King of Saudi, King of Spain, British Queen/Queen of Britain!

    I wonder did they stick on the home movie of them all doing Nazi salutes?


  • Options
    #273
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Orwell was also a fierce critic of Socialism and the nature of power.
    Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it."
    -George Orwell

    Congrats on making yourself look ignorant.


  • Options
    #274
    line console zero
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭line console zero


    George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.


  • Options
    #275
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    line console zero wrote: »
    George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.

    So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?


  • Options
    #276
    youreadthat
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭youreadthat


    topmanamillion wrote: »
    Unless the OP is British, why refer to her as the Queen?
    Monarchs are usually referenced by the country/jurisdiction.
    For example the King of Saudi, King of Spain, British Queen/Queen of Britain!

    I wonder did they stick on the home movie of them all doing Nazi salutes?

    The same reason Brits don't specify 'Dublin, Ireland' every time they mention it. How many people will think you meant Dublin, Indiana?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A lot less would visit.

    Also as has been pointed out the Queen's cost is taken from the revenues generated by her own inherited property which are placed under government control.

    If the Queen were to be removed the new President would need to be paid for without these revenues.

    Nonsense, France hasn't had a monarchy for a long time, plenty of people still vising Versailles. If you honestly think people will visit a country because they have a monarch then i don't no what to say to you.


  • Options
    #278
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?

    He's 100% correct about the dangers of investing too much power with government.


  • Options
    #279
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    Nonsense, France hasn't had a monarchy for a long time, plenty of people still vising Versailles. If you honestly think people will visit a country because they have a monarch then i don't no what to say to you.

    Well the monarchy isn't going anywhere so I guess we'll never know eh? ;)


  • Options
    #280
    line console zero
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭line console zero


    karma_ wrote: »
    line console zero wrote: »
    George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.

    So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?
    For some cultures totalitariansim works. For others Western democracy works. What has been proven without a doubt is that true socialism does not work.


  • Options
    #281
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    The royal family in place is a massive cause of tourist interest, excitement and they spend a fortune. Don't believe me? Go hang around outside Windsor castle, Edinburgh castle & Buckingham palace and listen. People come from all over the world to visit these places (amongst others in Britain) they hang around outside watching the spectacle that accompanies a royal family in residence ( most haven't a clue whether a royal is there or not) but guards being changed, flags on display, etc and they watch for twitching curtains on balconies, ponder over no entry signs and then fork out for guided tours of dungeons and jewels and suits of armour. It's all part of the same attraction. They damn near wet themselves if a limo passes by.

    The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise. Tourism is a massive income for the uk and the royal family are a central theme of most tourists visits both directly and indirectly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    He's 100% correct about the dangers of investing too much power with government.

    You'll have no bother backing up where Orwell says this?


  • Options
    #283
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    You'll have no bother backing up where Orwell says this?

    Sure, he mentions it in a few writings but if you start on the first page of 1984 and work your way to the last page what's between them is probably the best known warning on the existence of big government ever written.

    Stalinism, nationalism, collectivism, patriotism and war are all trashed.


  • Options
    #284
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Sure, he mentions it in a few writings but if you start on the first page of 1984 and work your way to the last page what's between them is probably the best known warning on the existence of big government ever written.

    Stalinism, nationalism, collectivism, patriotism and war are all trashed.

    Except that we were talking about socialism and it takes a special kind of stupid to bring up Orwell in defence of the monarchy and in an attack on socialism itself. You're just misrepresenting the man.


  • Options
    #285
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Except that we were talking about socialism and it takes a special kind of stupid to bring up Orwell in defence of the monarchy and in an attack on socialism itself. You're just misrepresenting the man.

    Except I've done no such thing.

    Orwell was a socialist, he fought as a private in the Spanish civil war but it's clear his work for the British Ministry of information during WW2 made him weary of big government and the intoxicating effect of nationalism on a person's mind. Viscount Bracken was basically O'Brien.

    He was also probably a little gay for Bracken. :p


  • Options
    #286
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    BBDBB wrote: »
    The royal family in place is a massive cause of tourist interest, excitement and they spend a fortune. Don't believe me? Go hang around outside Windsor castle, Edinburgh castle & Buckingham palace and listen. People come from all over the world to visit these places (amongst others in Britain) they hang around outside watching the spectacle that accompanies a royal family in residence ( most haven't a clue whether a royal is there or not) but guards being changed, flags on display, etc and they watch for twitching curtains on balconies, ponder over no entry signs and then fork out for guided tours of dungeons and jewels and suits of armour. It's all part of the same attraction. They damn near wet themselves if a limo passes by.

    The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise. Tourism is a massive income for the uk and the royal family are a central theme of most tourists visits both directly and indirectly


    I doubt that very much.

    Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html


  • Options
    #287
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    I doubt that very much.

    Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html



    It's part of the package though, it's part of the appeal

    Put yourself in the mind of tourists, they visit places to sample the "culture", not the real culture, but some romanticised picture they've got from tv and the imagination of the countries tourist board and travel companies. Most don't distinguish what's genuinely Royal and what's historic when it comes to Britain.

    Like it or loathe it the thing that Britain can do with some gloss over their imperialism is the pomp and ceremony bit and there is money to be made in it. Central to that is a real life royal family



    Ps I had to laugh at the daily mail list including avenham & Miller park at number 42. Whichever stats compiled to make that possible has to be taken with a pinch of salt


    Pps just taking a second look at that top 50 tourist attractions in Britain, what's interesting about its accuracy/ credibility is what's not in the top 50, none of the following made that top 50
    Windsor castle, Edinburgh Warwick castle, Leeds castle
    Eton
    Oxford, Stratford upon Avon, Bristol, Cambridge
    Legoland, Alton towers, chessington, Madame Tussaud's
    Cheltenham, Bath, cheddar gorge, Stonehenge, the Cotswolds, Yorkshire moors, Dartmoor moors, Cornwall
    Seaside resorts like Blackpool, Southend, Skegness,


    That list is full of gaping holes, something is definitely iffy about it


  • Options
    #288
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,383 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    I doubt that very much.

    Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html

    Slightly misleading. Many tourists simply show up outside Buckingham Palace and take photos and videos, as well as watching the Changing of the Guard every day.

    That list refers to paying customers at tourist attractions. There's no way Buckingham Palace is behind Cadbury World and Merseyside Maritime Museum in terms of tourists.


  • Options
    #289
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    BBDBB wrote: »
    It's part of the package though, it's part of the appeal

    Put yourself in the mind of tourists, they visit places to sample the "culture", not the real culture, but some romanticised picture they've got from tv and the imagination of the countries tourist board and travel companies. Most don't distinguish what's genuinely Royal and what's historic when it comes to Britain.

    Like it or loathe it the thing that Britain can do with some gloss over their imperialism is the pomp and ceremony bit and there is money to be made in it. Central to that is a real life royal family



    Ps I had to laugh at the daily mail list including avenham & Miller park at number 42. Whichever stats compiled to make that possible has to be taken with a pinch of salt

    I doubt the removal of the current royal family would make any difference to tourism.What you mention is all history it's the same reason the old west attracts tourists to the USA even though there aren't any Cowboys and Indians around any more (or in the way people are interested in them anyway).The current royal family don't make a huge amount of difference, the palace at Verailles being one of Europe's top tourist destinations despite France not having a royal family for 300 years is evidence of the negligible impact the present day British royals have on tourism in the UK.

    Lots of tourists are interested in history and the history is what attracts most tourists not the present day incarnation of the royals in Britain.


  • Options
    #290
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The palace of Versailles is open to the public, Buckingham Palace is not.
    That makes a big difference to the number of visitors who go into those palaces.


  • Options
    #291
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    I doubt the removal of the current royal family would make any difference to tourism.What you mention is all history it's the same reason the old west attracts tourists to the USA even though there aren't any Cowboys and Indians around any more (or in the way people are interested in them anyway).The current royal family don't make a huge amount of difference, the palace at Verailles being one of Europe's top tourist destinations despite France not having a royal family for 300 years is evidence of the negligible impact the present day British royals have on tourism in the UK.

    Lots of tourists are interested in history and the history is what attracts most tourists not the present day incarnation of the royals in Britain.

    An ongoing history adds to the historic value you rightly identify and to the added flavour that adds, especially in today's world of paparazzi and celeb magazines. The existence of a current royal family and all the vacuous gossip and intrigue that surround them add a piquancy over and above a ruined castle, a gilded room of paintings or a good ol fashioned gen-u-wine ranch. The merchandise those other places produce and sell is not based on the current state of the place or its current function, it's based on the history of when France used to have a royal family, and when Cowboys and Indians were around and in conflict as depicted by the cinema


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,434 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Are Gerry and Martin going to give her the bumps this year?

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #293
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    karma_ wrote: »
    -George Orwell

    Congrats on making yourself look ignorant.

    Democratic Socialism of the 40's and 50's. Not modern day Socialism which is Marxist or the AAA-PBP kind which would have us all living in a modern day Cuba.

    If he were alive today, he would be scathing in his writings about the regressive left and its thought police.
    So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot


  • Options
    #294
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    karma_ wrote: »
    That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

    That's what makes it so nauseating when the most 'libertarian' 'free market' shillers spout nonsense like 'it's only 53p!' It's the fúcking principle.

    And as for the argument about them bringing in more revenue, it's a moot point, for the security figures have never been made public.

    Send me your bank details and I'll pay your 53p. **** it I'll send you a quid if it'll cheer you up a bit.


  • Options
    #295
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    I thought the dole thread was bad with sucking money from taxpayers. She lives by sucking off the working taxpayers to live in her extravagant lifestyle and folk think she is great ? WTF. Send her and her family out there into the real world and pay taxes instead of lizard sucking.


    This comment above is an example of true entitlement and living off the back of the hard working class.


  • Options
    #296
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    This comment above is an example of true entitlement and living off the back of the hard working class.

    The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."
    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    Send her and her family out there into the real world
    It the finances of the UK are not real world I do not know what is. Why not send our President and his hangers on in to the real world because he costs us a lot more than the Royal family cost the British, and at least the Royal family more than pay for themselves. You will find crowds outside Buckingham palace from all over the world wanting a glimpse of the Queen ; how many would cross the street to see the President?

    So you are against the 53 pence per year the British pay for the Royal family. Are you also against the money it takes from us to keep our President and family and ex Presidents and families and hangers on, and the money the Spanish spend on their Royal family, the Damish on theirs etc.


  • Options
    #297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    maryishere wrote: »
    The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."

    .
    http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-best-story-about-the-queen-you-will-read-today--eJYX859rsl
    You are not supposed to repeat what the Queen says in private conversation. But the story she told me on that occasion was one that I was also to hear later from its subject - Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - and it is too funny not to repeat. Five years earlier, in September 1998, Abdullah had been invited up to Balmoral, for lunch with the Queen. Following his brother King Fahd's stroke in 1995, Abdullah was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate. Prompted by his Foreign Minister, the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not - yet - allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.


  • Options
    #298
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,179 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    maryishere wrote: »
    The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."

    It the finances of the UK are not real world I do not know what is.

    So you are against the 53 pence per year the British pay for the Royal family. Are you also against the money it takes from us to keep our President and family and ex Presidents and families and hangers on, and the money the Spanish spend on their Royal family, the Damish on theirs etc.

    You're making the assumption that vast numbers of tourists come to the UK specifically for the current incarnation of the royal family. But that makes no sense given former royal palaces and castles in the likes of France and Germany get far more visitors than UK versions get. If the only draw for tourists was a Royal family then nobody would be bothered going to Versailles.


  • Options
    #299
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    You're making the assumption that vast numbers of tourists come to the UK specifically for the current incarnation of the royal family. But that makes no sense given former royal palaces and castles in the likes of France and Germany get far more visitors than UK versions get. If the only draw for tourists was a Royal family then nobody would be bothered going to Versailles.
    and you're forgetting that most of the royal palaces in the UK are closed to the public, so they can't get visitors!


  • Options
    #300
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    Deleted User wrote: »
    http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-best-story-about-the-queen-you-will-read-today--eJYX859rsl

    Woman Drives Land Rover. What an incredible story and achievement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    and you're forgetting that most of the royal palaces in the UK are closed to the public, so they can't get visitors!

    So you're saying we should off the royals and open them all up to visitors, sounds good to me.


Advertisement