mrs miggins 0 Posted September 8, 2014 The countdown begins, mass coverage, reporters on every doorstep, yet no one cares and why should we? Why is it ''good'' that ''we''re'' gonna have another useless, unfair rich human being? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,102 Posted September 9, 2014 After all the doom and gloom some good news to cheer us up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 9, 2014 mrs miggins wrote the following post at 08/09/2014 11:37 PM:"The countdown begins, mass coverage, reporters on every doorstep, yet no one cares and why should we? Why is it ''good'' that ''we''re'' gonna have another useless, unfair rich human being?"Awww diddums.... the positives are that it will bring the tourists in. The negatives are that we are paying for him/her and his/her lifestyle. Still, a large amount of the security bill could have been saved if we had not let in so many useless, poor human beings over the last 60 years or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,102 Posted September 9, 2014 .....like Princess Michael Of Kent?! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 9, 2014 Ahh now she gives me the creeps. I would post a link to Kanye West''s ''Gold Digger'' but its a terrible song and wouldn''t wish it on anyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,102 Posted September 9, 2014 [:D] Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 9, 2014 Herman wrote the following post at 09/09/2014 5:06 PM:".....like Princess Michael Of Kent?!"You keep laughing it off. It''s all just one big joke isn''t it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 10, 2014 Joanna Grey wrote the following post at 09/09/2014 10:18 AM:Awww diddums.... the positives are that it will bring the tourists in.-------------------------------------Firstly, don''t be patronising because there''s no need for it, secondly, the tourism argument is such a terrible argument in favour of the royal family. If there was an argument for the monarchy I think it would be to do with our image from other trading countries, yet still I''m not so sure that applies to any country in this day and age. But the tourism argument isn''t an argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 11, 2014 mrs miggins wrote the following post at 10/09/2014 11:53 PM:"Firstly, don''t be patronising because there''s no need for it.."As I am obviously a lot older and wiser than you, I don''t see why not?"But the tourism argument isn''t an argument."Really? Show us the facts and figures then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Joanna Grey wrote the following post at 11/09/2014 10:35 AM:As I am obviously a lot older and wiser than you, I don''t see why not? ---------------------------------------trollololol obviously, but instead of just merely dismissing you as a troll I''ll also say; use your brain, think about it. Seriously don''t post, just think.The only time the monarchy have any real affect on tourism is when there''s a wedding, which is why you''ll use this to support your ridiculous and irrational argument that the monarchy has a significant affect on tourism. The reason why this argument is irrational and ridiculous is obviously because there''s rarely a royal wedding (thank god) so its not a reflection on the figures from the previous 15 years for example. Tourists don''t go to see the Royal families assets as much as you may think (e.g. Kensington palace, Balmoral, Windsor), before the wedding, it was only Buckingham Palace that was in the top 10 for most visited places in London. If there was no monarchy these attractions wouldn''t vanish, they''d be open so that they would be proper tourist attractions for people to go inside. Now that would affect tourism a lot, or at least a lot more imo than what''s happening now and will happen if we continue to have these useless figureheads above us all.France has the most tourists with 83m visitors a year (myself being one of them last year) (with USA and China being 2nd and 3rd, Spain 4th). The UK gets 29m tourists. Do France and the US get the most tourists because they don''t have a monarchy? - No. Would France and the USA have significantly more tourists if they had a monarchy? -No. It doesn''t make any significant difference. There''s no evidence to say that having the royal family significantly contributes to tourism, the evidence says we have a decent amount of tourists who come here because they go and see proper attractions like the museums, galleries, the eye etc; yes they see Buckingham Palace from the outside, but if it was open to the public there would be higher figures and more money coming in. Now I don''t have the figures for that because we still have a monarchy so I''m afraid you might have to use your brain and imagine the dramatic difference...not. *waits for patronising comment from Mr Grey digging himself deeper into a hole* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Your argument does not hold water. Not only are those figures flawed but they bear no relevance as to whether the Royal Family are a significant factor in the UK tourist industry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 11, 2014 mrs miggins wrote the following post at 11/09/2014 5:22 PM:"Go on"I don''t need to. I have stated your argument is flawed, you need to do better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 11, 2014 I think you do because you haven''t said how my argument is flawed. You also haven''t said anything to support what you said in the first place (the monarchy significantly affecting our tourist industry). You just sound like an arrogant loud teenager, trying to entice people to argue with you. You need to do better unfortunately. Do you have a proper opinion or just playing devils advocate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Your argument is flawed because it does not make sense. You seem to try to hang the whole thing around the Royal Family (or lack of one) as the only deciding factor for the status of a country''s tourist business. But, to entertain you, the UK does not do too bad as a tourist destination given that our weather is crap, we drive on the wrong side of the road, we are more expensive than a lot of countries and other Europeans can''t simply pop over the border by car for nothing.Countries such as Spain are blessed with good weather and a massive beach industry, as are most of the the other Mediterranean countries. France has this as well as good ski resorts and a few unique attractions (although the figures you quoted for them are way too high given they cheat when collating them). BTW, Congratulations for going there as a tourist yourself; such an exotic and unusual destination.You must regale us all of your travels some other time....Anyway, back to your point - The British Tourism Agency estimates that the Royal Family generates close to £500 million for the tourist business every year which would go some way to providing nappies for William and Kate''s next ''useless'' thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 12, 2014 An answer, brilliant.Although I think you''ve misread what I''ve said, I do not hang my ''whole thing'' around the Royal Family being the only deciding factor for the status of our tourist industry as we have a very good, thriving tourism industry; we''re the 8th most visited place in the world. The reason for this however is not because of the Royal Family and attractions related to them such as Balmoral, Windsor Castle etc etc, as I said in my post, its a part of it no doubt, but quite a small part of it, as we mostly rely on other attractions (also stated in the post). You say my figures are flawed and then come out with statistics saying that the Royal family generates £500m each year. Yet as I said in my post, over the last 15 years, the statistics are not consistent as they have shot up after a big dip because of the Royal Wedding. It''s not as simple as you make out, there are large variables to be considered; the wedding to be one of them - publicity.On a side note, since when was France known for its good weather? And if you really want to know about my travels I''d recommend India and Egypt if you want something completely different than you''re used to; wonderful countries, especially India,Back on topic, to restate a point from my previous post, I think it would be more beneficial to make these attractions associated with the Monarchy open to the public, it would generate a lot more money from tourism, time to get rid methinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 12, 2014 We could discuss the benefits or not of the Royal Family all day and still not get anywhere. I am not a Royalist by the way, more a realist.At the end of the day I find it amazing that such a minor matter raises so much vitriol with some people when there are far greater concerns that need addressing.I''ll leave you to your ranting now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JB 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Good morning ladies, here is my tuppence worth. I am not a royalist and I have no idea what the royal family costs us or generates but I do know that countless thousands in fact millions of people have come to our shores simply because our country is better than theirs. The cost {if in fact their is one} of the royals is a mere drop in the ocean compared to colossal sums so called asylum seekers drain from our coffers. Unlike the royals these people have brought our social fabric to meltdown.I would like to see a `core` royal family with just a couple of palaces and be self funding, as I said I am not a royalist but some of our pomp and ceremony is awesome although I doubt if the lefties agree!Mrs Miggins, I have never been to India or Egypt but like many of these countries far away their architecture is fabulous and many countries had science and mathematics of a very high order when we where still in caves. However, much of their `dynasties` were built on religious mass mind control and fear along with slavery. Secondly, would you want Britain to be like Egypt or India? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Joanna Grey wrote the following post at 12/09/2014 7:44 AM:At the end of the day I find it amazing that such a minor matter raises so much vitriol with some people when there are far greater concerns that need addressing. -----------------------------Although its a minor matter, its still something to be discussed. This is a football forum where people debate what team Norwich should play against another team, is it important?- No, but people can add their opinion if they want. The reason why I followed up your post about tourism was because of how patronising you were (although its no big deal, there''s a lot of characters on this forum, it''s a forum, what do I expect). Now you have every right to post what you want, but I wanted to see what your argument was and if you could support it...and we both know the answer there.So the moral of the story; be nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted September 12, 2014 mrs miggins wrote the following post at 12/09/2014 11:06 AM:" Now you have every right to post what you want, but I wanted to see what your argument was and if you could support it...and we both know the answer there. "Yep, that you waffled on about some ''facts'' that were not relevant to the issue you raised. If the British Tourist Agency say that the presence of the Royal Family boosts tourism I tend to believe them. Now I''ll leave you to your plans to have the Royal Family turfed out of Buckingham Palace so you and your chums can turn it into a hotel for those poor misfortunates in Calais. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 12, 2014 you couldn''t even answer the part of the quote that you chose. I think it''s best you don''t contribute to any sort of discussion, best stick with your simple set of one line patronising put downs in future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted October 1, 2014 JB wrote the following post at 12/09/2014 9:59 AM:Good morning ladies, here is my tuppence worth. I am not a royalist and I have no idea what the royal family costs us or generates but I do know that countless thousands in fact millions of people have come to our shores simply because our country is better than theirs. The cost {if in fact their is one} of the royals is a mere drop in the ocean compared to colossal sums so called asylum seekers drain from our coffers. Unlike the royals these people have brought our social fabric to meltdown. I would like to see a `core` royal family with just a couple of palaces and be self funding, as I said I am not a royalist but some of our pomp and ceremony is awesome although I doubt if the lefties agree! Mrs Miggins, I have never been to India or Egypt but like many of these countries far away their architecture is fabulous and many countries had science and mathematics of a very high order when we where still in caves. However, much of their `dynasties` were built on religious mass mind control and fear along with slavery. Secondly, would you want Britain to be like Egypt or India? -----------------------Although I must admit I don''t know why you''re talking about immigration out of the blue, but to answer your question - I wouldn''t want Britain to be like Egypt or India as I like the idea of going to different places to experience different places. I agree with you about the architecture; India has some lovely palaces, one being the Taj of course. Busy, and therefore not very intimate, but still very beautiful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted October 2, 2014 It could be twins, how good would that be? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted February 29, 2020 Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds have announced they are expecting a baby in the early summer and that they are engaged Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,102 Posted February 29, 2020 Joanna Grey. Now there was a proper ****. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted February 29, 2020 mrs miggins was a good old girl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,680 Posted March 1, 2020 I find it bizarre that so many papers had the splash of another Johnson being conceived yet very little about Priti Patel and even more amazing that they couldn't be bothered that an important peace accord has just been signed in Afghanistan. A document that hopefully will see an end to any conflict and a one that cost the lives of so many British service people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites