3 ms·

Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actua

by jiofih 6y ago

Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.

FriskyAlter 6y ago
Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'. And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-of-versailles-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-o... [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-...
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards. These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant. Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc. According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423 https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423
- jiofih 6y ago
  I did not write this as a defense of keeping the monarchy around just for the curiosity value, or from the raking-in-cash angle, just highlighting that the experience is quite different for visitors.

by jiofih 6y ago

FriskyAlter 6y ago

Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'. And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-of-versailles-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-o... [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-...

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards. These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant. Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc. According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423 https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

jiofih 6y ago
I did not write this as a defense of keeping the monarchy around just for the curiosity value, or from the raking-in-cash angle, just highlighting that the experience is quite different for visitors.