Royal Honeymoon

I learned tonight that the state of South Dakota has officially invited Prince William and Kate Middleton to spend their royal honeymoon in the Black Hills. http://www.travelsd.com/Newsroom/Detail?id=96657  I found this humorous, however it was pointed out to me that privacy was a concern for them. I can completely agree that South Dakota would be one of the most private places I could think of. Instead of listing places I would rather spend a honeymoon I decided I'd make a list of places that I feel would make a worse honeymoon locale. 

1. Tokyo, Japan - (radiation suits do not count as lingerie)
2. Ethiopia, Africa -(anywhere you have to have a health certificate for yellow fever and a vaccination against Cholera is pretty much out for me. I bet you didn't know they have a tourism website did you! ( http://www.tourismethiopia.org/ )
3. Alert, Nunavut, Canada - it's the northern most inhabited place in the world (508 miles from the north pole). There is snow 10 months of the year and the average temperature for July (the warmest month) is 37.9 F (3.3 degrees C) No thanks.
4. Tripoli, Libya - Travel warnings and bombings tend to turn me off (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/libya)
5. Anywhere in  Afghanistan - enough said
6. Anywhere in Iraq - According to their tourism website "Since 2003, the amount of tourism has dropped significantly." (http://www.iraq-tourism.net/) I can't imagine why? I'm sure the holy lands are beautiful but I'm just not ready to go there yet.
7. Los Angeles, California - As much as I'd like to visit Hollywood, it wouldn't do much for the couples privacy. Wouldn't it be ironic though if they went on the celebrity and movie star homes tour?
8. London, England - While this would be heavenly for me I'd imagine it would be their worst nightmare (well maybe not WORST considering the rest of my list but not the most pleasant.)
9. St George's, Grenada, Jamaica - I guess the recent flooding, landslides and big waves might keep the rest of the tourists away?
10. North Dakota - does my final entry really need a reasoning? Ok, well everyone from SD knows that North Dakota is much worse than South Dakota!  

After listing all the places they should not have their honeymoon, South Dakota sounds much nicer. Here is the official tourism link for South Dakota: http://www.travelsd.com/

Hopefully someday you'll get to visit Mt. Rushmore. Just don't visit the Corn Palace. Yes - it's a real place. http://www.travelsd.com/Attractions/World-s-Only-Corn-Palace.dr

The Badlands, South Dakota

The Black Hills, South Dakota

The Black Hills, South Dakota

Mickelson Trail, South Dakota (Mt. Rushmore)

 

Wall Drug, South Dakota 

(yes that's me, the last time I visited the Hills I was probably 18. I bet almost everyone from SD has a picture with that creepy old man statue!)

For now the honeymoon location is still a secret, we'll have to wait two more weeks to find out if/where a new heir might begin! *wink, wink*