So, how about that royal family?

[Old Manus]

I never understood the whole 'the royals bring tourism to the country' argument. When I go to London, I see Buckingham Palace, not the Queen. That, and actual interesting royal appearances in London only occur maybe once or twice a year, so surely there would be no point in visiting London on the other 363 days of the year then?

[Loony BoB]

I doubt there would be as much tourism coming to London / the UK for Buckingham Palace and other such royal locations if it were not for the royal family living in them and so on. Basically, Buckingham Palace is the place that people visit, but I imagine the royal family is what makes people want to visit Buckingham Palace (well, for the most part).

[NorthernChaosGod]

My wanting to see Buckingham Palace has to do with royalty, but when it mattered.

[Croyles]

I never understood the whole 'the royals bring tourism to the country' argument. When I go to London, I see Buckingham Palace, not the Queen. That, and actual interesting royal appearances in London only occur maybe once or twice a year, so surely there would be no point in visiting London on the other 363 days of the year then?

Buckingham palace and all those sights wouldnt exist if england never had a royal family.

[Jiro]

Yeah but that's like saying Aus owes all its tourist attractions to the royal family.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I never understood the whole 'the royals bring tourism to the country' argument. When I go to London, I see Buckingham Palace, not the Queen. That, and actual interesting royal appearances in London only occur maybe once or twice a year, so surely there would be no point in visiting London on the other 363 days of the year then?

Buckingham palace and all those sights wouldnt exist if england never had a royal family.

Right, but the point is it's historic. True monarchs lived there, not just figureheads.

And it's pretty.

[Croyles]

I never understood the whole 'the royals bring tourism to the country' argument. When I go to London, I see Buckingham Palace, not the Queen. That, and actual interesting royal appearances in London only occur maybe once or twice a year, so surely there would be no point in visiting London on the other 363 days of the year then?

Buckingham palace and all those sights wouldnt exist if england never had a royal family.

Right, but the point is it's historic. True monarchs lived there, not just figureheads.

And it's pretty.

Yeah ur right about that. I still think at least a big part of the attraction is the fact that some form of a monarchy still exists here. Not for me mind you.

[Loony BoB]

Yeah but that's like saying Aus owes all its tourist attractions to the royal family.

Not really. Aussie tourist attractions aren't ones you go to because of royalty. British ones are ones you go to because of royalty. The Sydney Opera House (I don't know if this is royal?), the bridge, that big high tower in one of your cities, the weird rock formation in the middle of the country, Seaworld-type things and Australia Park are why people go to Aussie. Not to mention the Great Barrier Reef and the many beaches and the hot weather.

What do people know Buckinham Palace as? "The place where the Queen lives."

EDIT: As for people who say that they visit Buckingham Palace because it's where the "true monarchs" lived - er, you do know it was only built in 1705 and only passed on to the royalty in 1761, yeah? Did the monarchy even use power then? I thought most of it went to parliament around those times.

[Old Manus]

you do know it was only built in 1705 and only passed on to the royalty in 1761, yeah?

Well, duh!

[rubah]

France doesn't have royalty anymore, and people still visit the out of Versailles.

England doesn't chop off protestant/catholic heads anymore, but people still visit the out of the Tower!

just sayin'~

[edit- you can't see it, but that first set of s are bolded]
[edit1- fixed]

[41-Inches-Wide]

I would love to see London because I love its historical places. Buckingham Palace and all the other places I would visit all at the same time FIRST if I had that kind of superpower

[Jiro]

Yeah but that's like saying Aus owes all its tourist attractions to the royal family.

Not really. Aussie tourist attractions aren't ones you go to because of royalty. British ones are ones you go to because of royalty. The Sydney Opera House (I don't know if this is royal?), the bridge, that big high tower in one of your cities, the weird rock formation in the middle of the country, Seaworld-type things and Australia Park are why people go to Aussie. Not to mention the Great Barrier Reef and the many beaches and the hot weather.

What do people know Buckinham Palace as? "The place where the Queen lives."

EDIT: As for people who say that they visit Buckingham Palace because it's where the "true monarchs" lived - er, you do know it was only built in 1705 and only passed on to the royalty in 1761, yeah? Did the monarchy even use power then? I thought most of it went to parliament around those times.

It was implied in the previous posts that due to the existence of the royal family, everything existed. So like, all the sights in London never would have happened if not for the royal family. If not for them, ya'll never woulda got on the boats to come here. It'd be like, Spanish or Dutch up in this joint.

[Miriel]

lmao

[Rantz]

Wtf hahaha. Nice. xD

[NorthernChaosGod]

I saw that, I think they did it on purpose.