I'm not sure but I prefer the look of Windsor castle any day and it has lots of trees in front of it :2thumbsup::2thumbsup:
Buckingham Palace has a different problem. The most recent addition, on the front, blocks the view of the oldest part in the back, which has a much more classy look. I love the old front porch and carriageway. No shit. Those guys on the roof are not there to work on a tan. I've heard there are all sorts of high tech weapons inside the larger white boxes. All that part with the metal roof was added for security operations.
Buckingham Palace would look much better .. if it was raised to rubble. And replaced with a nice dirty car park/chemical plant or something. : )
That's because you judge rigidly on associations that frankly are irrelevant to the historic building itself. It's good people like you are and never will be in charge of such decisions. : )
Yes, lets leave all the decisions to a big eared German who's parents are brother and sister . : D It could certainly be put to better use than the current one. : D Maybe turn it into a giant Burberry shop with tasteless tartan paint all round? The monarchy hates Burberry as the brand is always worn by football hooligans.
I didn't say anything like that but it is quite clear and rather typical you can't perceive anything without jading your perception by letting your opinion on that family get in the way. Hey, you're free to do so but please accept with it that nobody can take you seriously
U know u are almost quite sexy when u are angry Well its supposedly their house and therefore a symbol of what they stand for. So do you think Hitler's childhood home/ Fred West's place in Cromwell St should have been demolished? Or kept as a tourist attraction? :-/ Methinks demolished.
Nothing. Just not in front of buildings (generally speaking) Me too. I love where the trees are situated at Buckingham palace. One of you two are not looking in the right place. I know my history with the front and back of buildings isn't great. But even I know where the front of BP is. Fair point. I agree. *chuckle* Random Moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_acSD_VKg"]no shit - YouTube I'm going to try and find out.
I was thinking more like.....an orphanage, or nursing home. Or a home for students who lived in an orphanage, I've always wondered how they manage to make it once they're out. They all deserve a nice home. I'm just saying....the building is nice, it would be a shame to see it gone. Meanwhile, the wind blew up Kate's dress...like omg.
I'm not saying the royal family should be in charge of all important decisions of such heritage buildings (or anything regarding the country or the people really). More on the contrary. But to demolish it (or the people itself as you have stated several times in other threads) simply because some nitwits can't get past their irrational and out of proportion hate of royalty is frankly insane. And that's how you choose to come across that way.
Demolished. Aren't bulidings like that usually demolished? So that they wouldn't serve as an attraction/shrime/pilgrim place for other psychos and extremists. The palace has more historical significance, and it's not connected to so much evil. At least not openly so.
Maybe she could sue the wind this time.. :-/ I think the Hofburg Palace in Vienna has social housing apartments? Well often ex orphanage kids become prostitutes, drug dealers or lead troubled lives. Or atleast, don't tend to have a happy outlook. Adopted kids do much better. I mean architecturally, BP is ok. But I've always said I'd never go there, because of what it symbolises.