Coronation thread

rimaldo said:
well it doesn’t just stink of piss afterwards just because of all the old people.



the bbc did warn me that they were unlikely to fit my ego in.
Click to expand...
Crackers and I were talking about yer cock and space for a straightish line 19 miles long. We've not had the money to hire a Falcon Bloody Heavy.
 
Why is Camilla the Queen but Philip was only ever a Prince?
 
Bubz27 said:
Did anyone ask him that?
Click to expand...
You know what? No, they didn't!

Assuming someone's preferred title was way more common back then though.

Poor Philip, probably secretly yearned to be true to himself and called Queen til the day he hit that person with his range rover a few years ago.
 
Bubz27 said:
Why is Camilla the Queen but Philip was only ever a Prince?
Click to expand...
King outranks Queen and is a title only given to a monarch who inherits the throne. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert. It's a tradition from olden times so the public would recognise the Queen's authority as the leader.
 
If Charles pegs it and William becomes King will she be call the Queen Stepmother?
 
Widow said:
Not really. The income generated by the Royal Estate far outweighs the cost of having them. Thanks, bye xxx
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm very thankful for it. Paid for my tyres last week.
 
Widow said:
Not really. The income generated by the Royal Estate far outweighs the cost of having them. Thanks, bye xxx
Click to expand...
If that's the case then why didn't he pay out of his own pocket for this?

Oh, I know why; because I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the "they do a lot for the economy" claim is remotely true. Seen plenty of evidence that the Royal properties (that they stole in the first place) don't even hit the top ten most visited tourist spots in the UK, though.
 
cyberman said:
This is impossible to calculate
Click to expand...
Not to mention that it's also impossible to prove that the estates connection to the royal family even remotely has an impact on its profitability.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
If that's the case then why didn't he pay out of his own pocket for this?

Oh, I know why; because I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the "they do a lot for the economy" claim is remotely true. Seen plenty of evidence that the Royal properties (that they stole in the first place) don't even hit the top ten most visited tourist spots in the UK, though.
Click to expand...

French tourism fell off a cliff after the establishment of the First Republic. Also, it is a well known fact that it's impossible for a country to profit from public land without grovelling to a sceptered tit in a hat and paying him and his extended family a gigantic stipend.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
French tourism fell off a cliff after the establishment of the First Republic. Also, it is a well known fact that it's impossible for a country to profit from public land without grovelling to a sceptered tit in a hat and paying him and his extended family a gigantic stipend.
Click to expand...
Ah shit, you're right. I'm going to put on my Diana paper mask and insult Indians like dear old Phil would've wanted.
 
Semper Fudge said:
Did you pledge your allegiance?
Click to expand...
Mr Pigeon said:
If that's the case then why didn't he pay out of his own pocket for this?

Oh, I know why; because I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the "they do a lot for the economy" claim is remotely true. Seen plenty of evidence that the Royal properties (that they stole in the first place) don't even hit the top ten most visited tourist spots in the UK, though.
Click to expand...
cyberman said:
This is impossible to calculate
Click to expand...
Forbes wrote a lengthy piece regarding the cost of the Monarchy, it's a good read but people don't want facts, they just want to believe whatever fits their own agenda. Who is Forbes to claim this though when we have hundreds of experts on the Cafe?

I'm neither a lover nor a hater of the Royal Family to be completely honest, I haven't watched a second of it. The mind boggles why people would watch something just shake an angry fist at their TVs.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Not to mention that it's also impossible to prove that the estates connection to the royal family even remotely has an impact on its profitability.
Click to expand...

Just look at France. Ever since they got rid of the monarchy Versailles has been a barren wasteland, devoid of any interest. Some Republican scum will claim that Versailles gets twenty times more tourists than Buckingham Palace, but they're probably lying. Similarly, nobody cares about the Arc de Triomphe after Napoleon died, and don't even get me started on the post-Pharao Pyramids.
 
Widow said:
Forbes wrote a lengthy piece regarding the cost of the Monarchy, it's a good read but people don't want facts, they just want to believe whatever fits their own agenda. Who is Forbes to claim this though when we have hundreds of experts on the Cafe?

I'm neither a lover nor a hater of the Royal Family to be completely honest, I haven't watched a second of it. The mind boggles why people would watch something just shake an angry fist at their TVs.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about their Monarchy Plc article? Which just says that the royals are the face for a swath of companies that one guy estimates increases their sales by 10% simply for having the royal seal of approval on them - which, again, isn't evidence.

Their money also comes from real estate, most of it inherited. They have wealth and land not from doing anything other than inherited wealth and land. It's a very nifty trick they manage to pull to keep this "important to the economy" thing going. The truth is strip away their royal titles and the lands that come with said titles and you're left looking at a bunch of inbred twats who never have to work a day in their life because they get to live off of their popularity of simply being born into royalty.

As others have pointed out, former royal estates in France see infinitely more tourists coming to them than our own ones do - but supposedly having the Royals sit on their arses doing nothing but exist is the reason for why these brands and organisations make so much money. Again, it's not proven.

As for not understanding why some people want to fist shake. If you don't like it then don't respond. There's very few places for anyone to say anything remotely negative about the Royals, and every channel and website elsewhere is filled with sychophantic shite at the moment, so I'm happy that I can come here and vent, thanks. The country is absolutely fecked, protestors are being arrested for absolutely no reason, and today's meant to change all of that?!
 
Last edited:
Mr Pigeon said:
If that's the case then why didn't he pay out of his own pocket for this?

Oh, I know why; because I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the "they do a lot for the economy" claim is remotely true. Seen plenty of evidence that the Royal properties (that they stole in the first place) don't even hit the top ten most visited tourist spots in the UK, though.
Click to expand...

That is a stupid point, to be honest. There are about 1000 of them, so it is going to be pretty hard to fit them all in the top 10.

The rest of what you said is just as debateable as what the other poster said.
 
I've got this weird , vivid merging of the Monarchy and Butlins leisure resorts mashed in my head now.
 
Lecland07 said:
That is a stupid point, to be honest. There are about 1000 of them, so it is going to be pretty hard to fit them all in the top 10.
Click to expand...
Look at what you just typed again and tell me which one of us just made a stupid point.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Look at what you just typed again and tell me which one of us just made a stupid point.
Click to expand...

How is that stupid. Can you fit the majority of a 1000 into 10? Your maths is clearly a weakness if you come to the answer of yes.

The royal estate contains about 1000 properties. Is this what you're debating?

Just accept you made a stupid comment and move on. Acceptance is very importance.
 
Lecland07 said:
That is a stupid point, to be honest. There are about 1000 of them, so it is going to be pretty hard to fit them all in the top 10.

The rest of what you said is just as debateable as what the other poster said.
Click to expand...

Statista estimates that in 2019 there were roughly 3.3 million admissions to the entire Royal Estate. It also estimates that 7.7 million people visited Versailles alone (2017).
 
Lecland07 said:
How is that stupid. Can you fit the majority of a 1000 into 10? Your maths is clearly a weakness if you come to the answer of yes.

The royal estate contains about 1000 properties. Is this what you're debating?

Just accept you made a stupid comment and move on. Acceptance is very importance.
Click to expand...

It's true you can't fit a thousand into ten. But you can fit one of a thousand into ten.
 
Lecland07 said:
How is that stupid. Can you fit the majority of a 1000 into 10? Your maths is clearly a weakness if you come to the answer of yes.

The royal estate contains about 1000 properties. Is this what you're debating?

Just accept you made a stupid comment and move on. Acceptance is very importance.
Click to expand...
Ekkie Thump said:
It's true you can't fit a thousand into ten. But you can fit one of a thousand into ten.
Click to expand...
I was hoping he'd figure it out himself but clearly that wasn't going to happen.
 
Which are the royal estates people are visiting? I'm sure most of us have stood outside the gates of Buckingham Palace while visiting London but I don't even really know any of the other ones. I didn't realise you could go in and do a tour either.

A google search suggests they have seven 90 minute slots a week if people want to have a tour of Buckingham Palace. From memory anyone can turn up at Versailles and look around if they get a ticket, which probably helps.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Statista estimates that in 2019 there were roughly 3.3 million admissions to the entire Royal Estate. It also estimates that 7.7 million people visited Versailles alone (2017).
Click to expand...

https://www.france.fr/en/paris/article/palace-versailles-chateau-versailles

Even more

The National Estate and Palace of Versailles is one of France’s best-known treasures, a UNESCO World Heritage Site situated 20km west of Paris. This former royal residence is surrounded by 787 hectares (1,945 acres) and welcomes almost 15 million visitors each year to admire its lavish rooms, art collection and splendid gardens. Versailles also serves as a national historical building, where the French Parliament meets in congress.

The President of France is also co-Prince of Andorra though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.