3 ms·

That’s not a good comparison. I’ve been to both. buckingham palace is a working palace with very limited access. Versailles is an open museum. On my last visit

by meany 3y ago

That’s not a good comparison. I’ve been to both. buckingham palace is a working palace with very limited access. Versailles is an open museum. On my last visit to Buckingham palace, I got timed tickets and went on a limited tour with about 20 people. As we walked out the front, there were thousands standing outside looking at it.

lozenge 3y ago
That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.
- blitzar 3y ago
  France with their roughly equal population & GDP as the UK also gets about 5x the number of tourists per year, so that helps boost their numbers a fair bit.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Probably not all that much much. It's a big building, for sure, with some rooms and furnishings of historical interest. But it's not nearly as lavish as Versailles is, and its place in history is much less important. It wasn't completed until after the monarchy had become subordinate to the Parliament. Its residents have always been figureheads. Versailles, by contrast, is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption. The building is insanely gaudy, inside and out. The grounds are jaw-dropping. It can take you a day just to walk them. Compared to it, Buckingham Palace is a cottage. It's also redolent in French history. It was the court at the absolute height of French monarchical power, and played crucial roles in the fall of that power. Marie Antoinette's Petit Trianon, where she dressed up as a peasant girl and played at being a milkmaid, is a potent symbol of how out of touch the monarchy had become. People would surely come to see Buckingham Palace, home to Queens Victoria and Elizabeth, and be informed about some of the important events that happened there. More would come if it were more open. But it would never be the draw that Versailles is, and people would not come out raving about what extravagant lives its residents led.

by meany 3y ago

lozenge 3y ago

That's the point of the comparison. What would Buckingham Palace be like if it could be exploited for tourism and preservation.

blitzar 3y ago
France with their roughly equal population & GDP as the UK also gets about 5x the number of tourists per year, so that helps boost their numbers a fair bit.
jfengel 3y ago
Probably not all that much much. It's a big building, for sure, with some rooms and furnishings of historical interest. But it's not nearly as lavish as Versailles is, and its place in history is much less important. It wasn't completed until after the monarchy had become subordinate to the Parliament. Its residents have always been figureheads. Versailles, by contrast, is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption. The building is insanely gaudy, inside and out. The grounds are jaw-dropping. It can take you a day just to walk them. Compared to it, Buckingham Palace is a cottage. It's also redolent in French history. It was the court at the absolute height of French monarchical power, and played crucial roles in the fall of that power. Marie Antoinette's Petit Trianon, where she dressed up as a peasant girl and played at being a milkmaid, is a potent symbol of how out of touch the monarchy had become. People would surely come to see Buckingham Palace, home to Queens Victoria and Elizabeth, and be informed about some of the important events that happened there. More would come if it were more open. But it would never be the draw that Versailles is, and people would not come out raving about what extravagant lives its residents led.