BigRedBuster Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Soooo…..in the last month or so, the palace has issued two AI fakes of her. The first was a picture with her kids. Then, they release what many believe is a fake AI video of her announcing she has cancer. There are some wild conspiracy theories circulating and they don’t seem to be doing anything to prove them wrong. So, where is she? Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 American LOVE for the crown still amazes me. I don't mean you, BRB, I just mean in general. 1 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 26 minutes ago, teachercd said: American LOVE for the crown still amazes me. I don't mean you, BRB, I just mean in general. No s#!t! Why the Brits even still put up with them amazes me. 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 5 minutes ago, funhusker said: No s#!t! Why the Brits even still put up with them amazes me. It would be one thing if it did not cost them MILLIONS each year but it does... I know we like to be like "cult this and cult that" but, that s#!t, across "the pond" is a freaking real cult. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 I believe having a living breathing “monarchy” that ties back to old people probably helps increase the tourism revenue somewhat. Because as others have said, some people are obsessed. It’s kind of hard to judge the amount though. It’s not like people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace or Westminster Cathedral if there were no longer royals. In fact at the beginning of their absence, Buckingham would open up all of the other wings so you could see what their living quarters were like, and would be open 12 mos a year instead of just in the summer. The private estates would all turn into museums as well if not owned by the family. Most of the “public” places only have sections available to see. So there would probably be a boom in visitors and revenue for at least the first 5 years, if the royals went away. In case anyone was wondering: Quote Places like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are owned by the monarch of the moment because of their position as king or queen, while other properties, like Balmoral and Sandringham House, are personally owned and not publicly funded So I assume a change in the law could instantly take Buckingham and Windsor from Charles. Balmoral is in the middle of nowhere so who cares. Dunno where Sand is. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 8 Author Share Posted April 8 I really didn’t mean for this to be a thread about how numb it is to have a monarchy. I really don’t care about them. But, this is becoming a very interesting story. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I really didn’t mean for this to be a thread about how numb it is to have a monarchy. I really don’t care about them. But, this is becoming a very interesting story. We do what we want 2 1 Link to comment
commando Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 british tabloids will make mountains out of every mole hill. my guess is that if the video is altered it is because someone coughed or 1 of the kids wondered away or something like that. have to keep everything regal you know. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts