1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Charles and Camilla to marry.

Discussion in 'Alley of Dangerous Angles' started by Dranalis DeAealth, Feb 12, 2005.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remove all ads!
    @ Talutain

    I'm not sure where you've got this notion that a lack of Monarchy would mean that some places would be "cut off." Even if residences remained in the hands of the House of Windsor (And therefore became private properties.) they would still almost certainly be open to the public. (As many great houses such as Blenheim Palace, for instance, are.) In fact, there would likely be more of an impetus to open them up in order to generate revenue for the Windsors, likely with all the unfortunate tourist tat that entails.

    @ HarbourBoy

    I'm not quite sure of where this argument exactly falls. Are you saying London would be 'out' for you without a Monarchy? Are you saying that you would not come? Are you saying you would not wish to patronise tour buses? That seems a bizzare position to take, if that is what you are saying.

    This is my point. I do not believe that the Monarchy is somehow a factor in the decision of people to patronise London or Britain. In fact, I think it faintly absurd to suggest that it is. It's a "novelty", as you say, and no doubt people feel that it is rather quaint and faintly awesome to view a colosal building someone calls home, but are we sugesting that is fact a lynchpin of the tourist trade? I am not.

    Perhaps it was a mistake starting this. I've never had a debate about this which didn't come down to the opposing side saying the Monachy exerts some strange, irrational, ill-defined or non-defined pull on people to visit, and me saying it doesn't. I suppose it's a question of belief.
     
    Dranalis DeAealth, Feb 24, 2005
    #21
  2. Taluntain

    Taluntain Resident Alpha and Omega Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2000
    Messages:
    23,482
    Media:
    494
    Likes Received:
    538
    Gender:
    Male
    Dranalis DeAealth, actually, you came up with the notion in your post, I just went with the flow. It is my understanding that the monarchy's property is made public at present because a) they need cash from tourists, b) the people of England contribute to the upkeep of the properties with taxes (so they must remain publicly accessible) and c) because the monarchy realizes the vast importance of those sites remaining open for tourists. If you dismiss the monarchy the current status may or may not be preserved - you just can't tell. Maybe they'd decide to sell some of it off, and whoever bought it decided to turn it into luxury hotels or something similar. Or simply closed it all off and rented it to visiting millionaires that I'm sure there wouldn't be a shortage of who'd want to rent the Tower for themselves for a while. Or something along those lines.

    Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. And I'm sure if you were to interview a random group of tourists, the monarchy would definitely be on the top of the list why the UK is so attractive. You just don't get real life kings and queens and princesses and princes elsewhere any more. What the monarchy exerts is actually relatively easy to define if you want to take a few minutes to get it down on paper. Or, of course, you can believe otherwise, as you apparently do. Though I'd wager the hordes of tourists, if asked, would prove you wrong.
     
    Taluntain, Feb 24, 2005
    #22
Page 2 of 2
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.