# Royal Wedding



## TxllxT

This made all the Dutch fall in love with our Argentine princess Máxima.
I wonder whether Kate & William will surprise the world with their musical taste.


----------



## Delicious Manager

You know, I really couldn't give a flying fig about the royal wedding (even though it's my taxes paying for it!). I don't know them, therefore, I don't know if I'd like them or not or if I would want to attend their wedding. It's all just so much media hype and public hysteria.

I shall be avoiding the wedding on Friday and doing something more useful - like sticking pins in my eyes :tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Delicious Manager said:


> You know, I really couldn't give a flying fig about the royal wedding (even though it's my taxes paying for it!). I don't know them, therefore, I don't know if I'd like them or not or if I would want to attend their wedding. It's all just so much media hype and public hysteria.
> 
> I shall be avoiding the wedding on Friday and doing something more useful - like sticking pins in my eyes :tiphat:


Dear me! Utter disrespect, and Dame Edna would be very disappointed with you ...


----------



## sospiro

Well I think it's fantastic ...... because it means a day off work :clap:


----------



## Manxfeeder

TxllxT said:


> This made all the Dutch fall in love with our Argentine princess Máxima.


Nice clip.


----------



## TxllxT

sospiro said:


> Well I think it's fantastic ...... because it means a day off work :clap:


Well, we all expect you to stand in the endless crowds & :wave::wave::wave::wave:

But what about all the Elgarians on the forum? This must be their day


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

TxllxT said:


> Well, we all expect you to stand in the endless crowds & :wave::wave::wave::wave:
> 
> But what about all the Elgarians on the forum? This must be their day


I shall spit on the Elgarians, for I'm sure it is the Handelians who have a far bigger play on that day, as all royal weddings since Baroque England have witnessed, long before Elgarians were ever born!


----------



## Aksel

I'm looking forward to it. As the royalist that I am, I do like a royal wedding from time to time.


----------



## sospiro

Aksel said:


> I'm looking forward to it. As the royalist that I am, I do like a royal wedding from time to time.


.... followed by the inevitable Royal Divorce. Sorry don't mean to be cynical but ...


----------



## Art Rock

TxllxT said:


> This made all the Dutch fall in love with our Argentine princess Máxima.


Not all the Dutch.


----------



## Delicious Manager

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Dear me! Utter disrespect, and Dame Edna would be very disappointed with you ...


People have to EARN my respect, not demand it simply because of an hereditary title.


----------



## Potiphera

I'm so glad I don't live near London anymore. All that traffic noise!


----------



## jhar26

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I shall spit on the Elgarians, for I'm sure it is the Handelians who have a far bigger play on that day, as all royal weddings since Baroque England have witnessed, long before Elgarians were ever born!


Well, I must admit that the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about the Charles & Diana wedding is Kiri Te Kanawa singing "Let the Bright Seraphim."


----------



## jhar26

Delicious Manager said:


> You know, I really couldn't give a flying fig about the royal wedding (even though it's my taxes paying for it!). I don't know them, therefore, I don't know if I'd like them or not or if I would want to attend their wedding. It's all just so much media hype and public hysteria.
> 
> I shall be avoiding the wedding on Friday and doing something more useful - like sticking pins in my eyes :tiphat:


On the other hand, since you're one of those who's paying for the show you may just as well try to enjoy it. :lol:


----------



## sospiro

I've just found something to do instead.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Hooray for a real life Cinderella Story!!!

(My favorite fairytale)


----------



## Machiavel

I do not care. Who does? WOw it's so unbelievable, 2 people getting married, that is a first in history.

I really thought in 2011 that people would not go crazy for a chick who marry him for the cash and power.

Those people are totally useless but hey let tehm spend millions. There people like royalties. I though england was an advance country, guess I was wrong


----------



## Polednice

I'm just hoping for the day when this bloody country stops being so inconsistent in its democratic desires by abolishing the monarchy and setting up a proper republic. I'll be surprised if it happens in my life-time...


----------



## Almaviva

Machiavel said:


> I do not care. Who does? WOw it's so unbelievable, 2 people getting married, that is a first in history.
> 
> I really thought in 2011 that people would not go crazy for a chick who marry him for the cash and power.
> 
> Those people are totally useless but hey let tehm spend millions. There people like royalties. I though england was an advance country, guess I was wrong


I'm not British, but I believe the symbolism of the kingdom and the issue of head of state versus head of government, and the celebration of a nation's traditions have little to do with whether a nation is advanced or not. Japan for instance is a *very* modern and advanced country and is a monarchy. Same with Belgium, Spain, etc.


----------



## Art Rock

Polednice said:


> I'm just hoping for the day when this bloody country stops being so inconsistent in its democratic desires by abolishing the monarchy and setting up a proper republic. I'll be surprised if it happens in my life-time...


Whilst I sympathize with the thought, "United Presidency" does not sound right as the name for the country.......


----------



## mamascarlatti

Last time there was a royal wedding I went to Greece on holiday and pretended to be Swiss (well, I WAS born there).

This time I live as far as you possibly can from Britain so I don't even have to leave the country. And presumably it all happens during our night. Hooray.


----------



## Sid James

I'm another person who is indifferent to this. These kinds of things are all tied up with celebrity rather than substance, they are basically good for selling women's magazines. Then again, at least it's not yet another negative thing in the news, of which we've had a rather a lot lately - eg. natural disasters in New Zealand, Brazil and Japan, political unrest leading to violence in Northern Africa and the Middle East, as well as the usual **** that goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan. So maybe it's a good positive thing, compared to those major downers at least...


----------



## jhar26

BTW - Kate is an attractive young lady, but the poor thing seems to be getting thinner each time I see her.


----------



## Rasa

Royalty is cultural heritage. Like classical music. Neither royalty nor classical music serve a practical purpose. Well, it keeps us entertained I guess.


----------



## Polednice

Art Rock said:


> Whilst I sympathize with the thought, "United Presidency" does not sound right as the name for the country.......


We can settle for 'England' as soon as the nations have been properly devolved so that Scotland and Wales aren't scrounging off us any more


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> BTW - Kate is an attractive young lady, but the poor thing seems to be getting thinner *each time I see her*.


What are you doing to her, Gaston???


----------



## Almaviva

Just a curiosity: list of current monarchies (I'm not sure if complete or not, got it from Wikipedia):

Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Luxembourg, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Thailand, Japan, Jamaica, Samoa, Barbados, Lesotho, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Bahamas, Bahrain, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Santa Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Andorra, Cambodia, Bhutan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Swaziland.

I see two missing already: Jordan and Saudi Arabia, so like I said it doesn't seem like a complete list.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Not to mention numerous non-sovereign monarchies. For example the Barotseland Lozi's have a monarchy. They inhabit a geographical area surrounding the Zambezi floodplains, which crosses the nations of Zambia, Angola and Namibia.


----------



## jhar26

Almaviva said:


> What are you doing to her, Gaston???


I can't tell in case one of those News of the World reporters is keeping an eye on this forum.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Almaviva said:


> Just a curiosity: list of current monarchies (I'm not sure if complete or not, got it from Wikipedia):
> 
> Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Luxembourg, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Thailand, Japan, Jamaica, Samoa, Barbados, Lesotho, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Bahamas, Bahrain, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Santa Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Andorra, Cambodia, Bhutan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Swaziland.
> 
> I see two missing already: Jordan and Saudi Arabia, so like I said it doesn't seem like a complete list.


It would be incorrect to list as monarchies above Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. Although Queen Elizabeth II is 'Head of State' if these Commonwealth countries, they are not themselves 'monarchies'. Andorra is a 'co-principality' with the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain), as co-princes.

My belief that the list of the world's monarchies should read like this: Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morroco, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Tongo, United Kingdom. Finally, one should count the constituent monarchs (Emirs) of the seven United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras-al-Khaimah, Sharjah, Umm al-Quwain.

Nepal was also a monarchy until it was dissolved in 2008.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Barotseland?


----------



## Almaviva

Delicious Manager said:


> It would be incorrect to list as monarchies above Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. Although Queen Elizabeth II is 'Head of State' if these Commonwealth countries, they are not themselves 'monarchies'. Andorra is a 'co-principality' with the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain), as co-princes.
> 
> My belief that the list of the world's monarchies should read like this: Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morroco, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Tongo, United Kingdom. Finally, one should count the constituent monarchs (Emirs) of the seven United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras-al-Khaimah, Sharjah, Umm al-Quwain.
> 
> Nepal was also a monarchy until it was dissolved in 2008.


The article on Wikipedia listed Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada as "Federal Constitutional Monarchies" based on the fact that the ceremonial head of state is a monarch. Others like Tuvalu were listed as "Unitary Constitutional Monarchies." Of course the government is not under the head of state, but - always according to Wikipedia which is not necessarily accurate (although often fairly accurate) - this arrangement still qualifies as a monarchy because the constitution of these nations names a monarch as the head of state. Of course this is different from the "hereditary absolute monarchies" in which the king/emperor etc. is indeed the head of state *and* the head of government with executive power, like the Sultanate of Brunei or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So I take what you're saying as different concepts of monarchy, but by one of those concepts, Canada and Australia would still qualify as monarchies, even though we all know that it is done just for symbolic reasons. By the way, they put Belgium and the Netherlands in the same category.

They also list the Holy See as "elected absolute monarchy" with the Pope being the monarch. Apparently it is not the method of picking the monarch that qualifies a country as monarchy or not. Monarchs can be elected, hereditary, or appointed, but they are still constitutionally monarchs (although, like I said, not necessarily with executive power of government).

Yep, they did list all the Emirates under the UAB but for short I just quoted United Arab Emirates.

And yep, they mentioned that Nepal became a Republic in 2008.

I don't see why the fact that Andorra is a co-principality disqualifies it as monarchy. The President of France in his capacity of Prince of Andorra is an elected reigning monarch, and the Bishop of Urgell is an appointed monarch. The system of government in Andorra is parliamentary democracy, but the co-heads of state are two monarchs.

The above is my understanding, purely based on Wikipedia, so, if it's wrong, I defer to you on it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Yes, we have a monarch in Australia. Her grandson is getting married this coming weekend. Her representative here in Australia is the Governor-General, who has the powers to dimiss an elected government as was done once in 1975. The GG is appointed by the Prime Minister.

If I have my way, then this country will be a Republic.


----------



## mamascarlatti

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, we have a monarch in Australia. Her grandson is getting married this coming weekend. Her representative here in Australia is the Governor-General, who has the powers to dimiss an elected government as was done once in 1975. The GG is appointed by the Prime Minister.
> 
> If I have my way, then this country will be a Republic.


Same here in NZ. I resent not being able to elect our Head of State but instead having him/her foisted on us. We're getting a soldier next as GG.


----------



## Vaneyes

Souvenirs are limitless.

http://crownjewelscondoms.com/heritage.html

And don't forget...


----------



## jhar26

It was a pretty good show I think. William looked a bit bored at times, but maybe that's the logical result of protocol that sucks the life (and emotion) out of everything. But at least he and Harry payed tribute to the Beatles by wearing their Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band look-alike uniforms. Kate looked cute (and I liked the dress) and she has a sweet smile and her sister looked great as well in a dress that showed of her knock-out butt to maximum effect.

I'm neither for or against the monarchy but I certainly understand all the arguments against it. On the other hand, when you see how a whole country (most of it anyway) takes pride in a day like this, gives them warm feelings and a sense of community maybe there's something to say in favor of it as well. A day like this has sorta the same effect on people that winning the world cup would have - an opportunity for the nation to feel good about itself and to be noticed by the rest of the world . There's nothing rational about it, but maybe we must leave some room for the irrational as well since it seems to give lots of people a sense of 'magic' (no matter how fake) and makes them happy.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I shall spit on the Elgarians


I do hope you don't.

(Actually I think it's the Parryites who should be reaching for their protective clothing when they see you coming.)


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> I'm neither for or against the monarchy but I certainly understand all the arguments against it. On the other hand, when you see how a whole country (most of it anyway) takes pride in a day like this, gives them warm feelings and a sense of community maybe there's something to say in favor of it as well. A day like this has sorta the same effect on people that winning the world cup would have - an opportunity for the nation to feel good about itself and to be noticed by the rest of the world . There's nothing rational about it, but maybe we must leave some room for the irrational as well since it seems to give lots of people a sense of 'magic' (no matter how fake) and makes them happy.


I managed to not see any of the wedding. I have no interest in seeing two people I don't know and don't care about getting married. I'd reckon most Brits are quite apathetic towards the thing, it's the media that absolutely can't get enough of it.

People who get excited by this kind of thing or buy into the enchanting fairytale facade kind of annoy me. Yes, it's nice that some people get enjoyment out of something as banal as a big elitist event, but it still irks me that people can't wake up and realise that those two people enjoying the happiest day of their lifes, have done nothing to warrant all of that hoopla apart from being born to a certain family.

Keeping an impotent monarchy just seems like unnecessary traditionalism. Is it to keep friendly with other monarchies of the world? Is it that the public are comforted by the thought of descendents of power hungry warlords symbolising our nationality?

It's not really the royal family that wind me up, it's the normal citizens who have unquestionable admiration and respect for a bunch of lucky toffs, without remembering they themselves have had to work much harder to get their measly pittance. The same people who despise benefit scroungers at the other end of the economic scale.

Now winning the World Cup is a different matter. Yes, it's irrational to celebrate something we personally didn't achieve but instead a group of 20-odd sportsmen did, but at least it's just good wholesome entertainment undiluted by mixture with those evils of politics and government. (Well, maybe not FIFA)

P.S. Kate Middleton is bang tidy.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I'm neither for or against the monarchy but I certainly understand all the arguments against it. On the other hand, when you see how a whole country (most of it anyway) takes pride in a day like this, gives them warm feelings and a sense of community maybe there's something to say in favor of it as well.


My feelings about it all have changed over the years, and I used to be much more cynical than I am now. I owe a good deal to Elgar's music, oddly enough. His musical concept of '_nobilmente_' taught me to see that one can see such events as symbols of aspiration rather than of supposed accomplishment; of hope, potential, and renewal, rather than self-congratulation; of an awareness of living continuity and deep roots, rather than mere outworn nostalgia. But it's much like the partly-drunk bottle of wine: one can choose to see it as half full, or half empty.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> But it's much like the partly-drunk bottle of wine: one can choose to see it as half full, or half empty.


But what you haven't considered is that half full can be the pessimistic state. If you get a bottle of bad plonk at a friend's dinner party, poured by him, half full may mean that you'll still have to go through the torture of drinking the other half and pretending to enjoy it.

What? Huh... you mean, what is the point I'm trying to make? Nuthin... I'm just being a pain.:angel:


----------



## Vaneyes

I enjoyed the hats.


----------



## Almaviva

Yep, there were some very weird hats. I watched a little bit of it with my wife this evening, and some hats were really entertaining.


----------



## KJohnson

It's a striking thing about our civilization... The very words "Royal Wedding" gives me a very uncertain feeling about just how far humanity has managed to advance beyond its modest ancient worldview.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> P.S. Kate Middleton is bang tidy.


I think she's lovely. I wouldn't mind her being my queen if I were king. :lol:


----------



## Rasa

I can confirm she is pretty fit


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> But what you haven't considered is that half full can be the pessimistic state.


I think most people begin to experience such states of philosophical uncertainty about halfway down the bottle.


----------



## sospiro

The real wedding video


----------



## gurthbruins

I believe in the Divine Right of Kings, I am a monarchist (but also support revolutions to change the monarch), and I hate democracy, the idea of one man one vote: that's LCD stuff, a recipe for mediocrity. Votes should be proportional to tax paid, if we _have_ to have them.
Better a constitutional king than no king.


----------



## Jules141

I used to be a republican when it came to the monarchy; but the idea of David Cameron having a palace absolutely sickens me. The reason I like the royal family is because I really, really, don't like the idea of having a Head of State that I don't like. And if the British public were allowed to vote, it is likely most people would get someone they dislike. And even then a majority is 50%, people will be left out.

The royal family have no political alligences, if they do show any sign of leaning one way or the other the media pounce on them. They are just an odd posh family who do lots of charity work. Its hard to dislike them because we know so little about them and they do **** all. I think Britains in quite a fortunate position really.

Talking of the ceremony there was an original peice commisioned just for the wedding, it was okayish I thought, but can't remember what it's called or who it's by?


----------



## KJohnson

Jules141 said:


> Its hard to dislike them because we know so little about them and they do **** all.


Oh yeah... It's not necessary to dislike them. I'm sure they are sweet people. The problem is their very existence of a royal family is not justified. To instill in the collective consciousness of people that some are above them because they were born in a special family is a terrible thing. A world where people achieve greatness and distinction by the merit of their own accomplishments is a better world.


----------



## Jules141

KJohnson said:


> Oh yeah... It's not necessary to dislike them. I'm sure they are sweet people. The problem is their very existence of a royal family is not justified. To instill in the collective consciousness of people that some are above them because they were born in a special family is a terrible thing. A world where people achieve greatness and distinction by the merit of their own accomplishments is a better world.


Although the royal family are treated so much better than everyone else, very few people are actually under the impression they are better. Sane people are completely aware of the very contrived notion of a royal family.

I think having a royal family eradicates this conundrum. Who could possibly replace the royal family as a head of state that actually represents Britain? Certainly not a politician. A famous person? A war hero? A commoner?

Besides I could use the same argument against any head of state, especially one I didn't vote for, or who had a political alligance? The moment you have a "head of state" you do instill in the collective consciousness of people that some are above others.


----------



## jhar26

KJohnson said:


> To instill in the collective consciousness of people that some are above them because they were born in a special family is a terrible thing.


That sort of thing is not limited to royalty though. If I'm born into a rich family - ANY rich family - I automatically have better odds of having a comfortable life than when I'm born in a ghetto. If I'm born as the son of the owner of a big company and I take over - something which could only happen because I happened to be born into that family - my employees would be walking around calling me "sir" while most of them if given the same opportunities might be better suited for the job than I am. Even if you want to be president of the United States the most important concern isn't how talented you are or your ideas for the country but the money you have or are able to generate to pay for your campaign.


----------



## KJohnson

Jules141 said:


> Who could possibly replace the royal family as a head of state that actually represents Britain? Certainly not a politician. A famous person? A war hero? A commoner?


You do present a strong argument. I admit.

The problem is that royalty is hierarchical. Politicians are elected for a certain number of years. They can be impeached, publicly ridiculed (Sarah Palin), etc... With all my distaste for politicians, these are (if they are under public preasure) essentially bureaucratic servants.

A queen is a queen because she was born in a certain family. She could be mentally retarded, morally bankrupt, or incredibly evil... She is still the queen.


----------



## KJohnson

jhar26 said:


> That sort of thing is not limited to royalty though. If I'm born into a rich family - ANY rich family - I automatically have better odds of having a comfortable life than when I'm born in a ghetto. If I'm born as the son of the owner of a big company and I take over - something which could only happen because I happened to be born into that family - my employees would be walking around calling me "sir" while most of them if given the same opportunities might be better suited for the job than I am. Even if you want to be president of the United States the most important concern isn't how talented you are or your ideas for the country but the money you have or are able to generate to pay for your campaign.


Your concerns are all valid. Having such concerns though, shouldn't automatically lead to allowing another, similar case of injustice go uncriticized. Every time an incompetent individual has the power to lead in society, we have a case of injustice. It should be faced as a challenge for those who are taken advantage of.


----------



## Elgarian

Interesting facts I noted yesterday:

Total number of people in UK who voted Conservative in 2010 General Election: *11 million*
Total number of people in UK who voted Labour in 2010 General Election: *9 million*
Total number of people in UK who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 General Election: *7 million*

Estimated total number of people in UK who watched the Royal Wedding on TV: *25 million*

(Figures rounded to the nearest million)


----------



## Vaneyes

Once the Queen is dead, Royal things will really start to get interesting. It's been an awfully long haul.

The successors King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla--I hope that pairing doesn't go on too long.

I hope I'm still around to see how Will & Kate run The Firm.


----------



## LordBlackudder




----------



## Argus

gurthbruins said:


> I believe in the Divine Right of Kings, I am a monarchist (but also support revolutions to change the monarch), and I hate democracy, the idea of one man one vote: that's LCD stuff, a recipe for mediocrity. Votes should be proportional to tax paid, if we _have_ to have them.
> Better a constitutional king than no king.


Yeah, poor people don't deserve a say in how their country works. Rich people must know better otherwise they wouldn't be rich.



Jules141 said:


> I used to be a republican when it came to the monarchy; but the idea of David Cameron having a palace absolutely sickens me. The reason I like the royal family is because I really, really, don't like the idea of having a Head of State that I don't like. And if the British public were allowed to vote, it is likely most people would get someone they dislike. And even then a majority is 50%, people will be left out.


The Prime Minister is basically the head of state. The royalty only have superficial power. They are just a token to keep the status quo and placate the traditionalists. They are just redundant so I say get rid of them (again) when the queen dies. And don't start with that tourist revenue stuff, people will still come to England for the glorious weather and cheap booze.

I also like the quote that anybody who actually wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from running for Presidency.


----------



## Elgarian

Argus said:


> The royalty only have superficial power. They are just a token to keep the status quo and placate the traditionalists. They are just redundant


And then again, there are these interesting facts ...



Elgarian said:


> Total number of people in UK who voted Conservative in 2010 General Election: *11 million*
> Total number of people in UK who voted Labour in 2010 General Election: *9 million*
> Total number of people in UK who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 General Election: *7 million*
> 
> Estimated total number of people in UK who watched the Royal Wedding on TV: *25 million*


----------



## Argus

Elgarian said:


> And then again, there are these interesting facts ...


There were nearly 60 million people living in Britain at the time of 2001 census. This has surely increased since then. That means that much less than half of the population watched the wedding on TV. Considering it was a national holiday and all over the two major broadcasting networks it isn't that spectacular a statistic. If England ever get to a World Cup final it'll be over 30m easy.

The political party affiliation is also as expected. I expect most just watched out of curiousity or to have something to talk about with other people over the weekend.

Need I say watching the wedding =/= supports the royals. Some people just like looking at the outfits.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> And then again, there are these interesting facts ...


It probably proves that the're more popular than most people care to admit because it's not cool to say that you like them. But I think that the popularity of the monarchy has more to do with the 'star quality' of some of it's members than with the institution itself. Diana was a charismatic figure, so when she was around the popularity of the monarchy benefitted from that. After her divorce, and certainly after her death when she was replaced by the generally much less liked Camilla the popularity of the monarchy suffered. Now people seem to like Kate, so the monarchy is popular again.


----------



## Polednice

It seems to me just a _slight_ non-sequitur that if we abolish the monarchy, then we end up with David Cameron ruling the nation from a palace. You know, other countries do actually get by without a hereditary head of state - how about we get ourselves a proper bloody constitution, and a decent presidency?

I saw the ceremony just in passing when I got up in the morning. More than anything, I couldn't contain my laughter at the superstitious clap-trap reeled off by the bishop, and was actually quite surprised that it was conducted in such a manner as Kate being the property of her father to give away (I haven't seen a religious wedding before; don't know if this is typical). He might as well have starting speaking mumbo-jumbo for all the worth of his statements.

/personal opinion


----------



## KJohnson

I agree with Polednice.

The most admirable opinion that I have heard from UK on this, so far, is that of Johann Hari, and excellent journalist who wrote this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...l-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> It probably proves that the're more popular than most people care to admit because it's not cool to say that you like them.


There's something in that, Gaston, I suspect. The statistics I quoted are of course open to a variety of interpretations, but those Royal Wedding audience figures are, by any standards, enormous (and we haven't considered the estimated audience of 2 billion worldwide). I don't think the British Monarchy is going to disappear anytime soon.

It's interesting to note that the popularity of the monarchy in the uk hasn't changed much during the last 20 years. Opinion polls consistently show more than 70% in favour of the monarchy, and about 20% (or less) in favour of a republic.* Compare that with the actual political polling figures achieved at the last election here (see my earlier posts), and one thing's for sure: the overwhelming _democratic_ choice in the uk is pro-monarchy. None of our political parties have any hope of achieving ratings like these.

* For details of the polls see here: Monarchy Poll results 1993-2011


----------



## jhar26

KJohnson said:


> I agree with Polednice.
> 
> The most admirable opinion that I have heard from UK on this, so far, is that of Johann Hari, and excellent journalist who wrote this:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...l-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html


Well, admirable or not - it hardly takes a genius to formulate that opinion since it's shared and expressed by everyone who's against the monarchy. It's always about that they cost too much and that it's not a democratic institution because they are not elected. Both valid reasons but neither one of them will change the minds of those that are pro-monarchy because those people like them for irrational - but nonetheless heartfelt sentimental and 'romantic' reasons, a love of glamour and the symbolism involved. These two 'camps' will probably never be able (or willing) to understand each others opinions and in the case of camp one towards camp two listen to them without thinking that the other side consists of airheads.


----------



## Argus

Reading about Katie Price's latest antics and Premiership footballers infidelity also seem to be popular among the British public too. Just saying.

So on top of being anti-royalist, I also don't care for tea and don't have gravy with my roast. Maybe I have French ancestry. Wait a minute, most nobility probably have French ancestry as well.


----------



## sospiro

Argus said:


> Reading about Katie Price's latest antics and Premiership footballers infidelity also seem to be popular among the British public too. Just saying.


Well I get withdrawal symptoms if I don't read about Jordan at least twice a day 



Argus said:


> Maybe I have French ancestry. Wait a minute, most nobility probably have French ancestry as well.


British Royal Family are mostly German


----------



## Argus

sospiro said:


> British Royal Family are mostly German


I was meaning nobility as in lords, dukes and earls etc not just the Saxe Coburg Gothas. I think many of them are descended from the Norman (French) barons who took aristocratic control after 1066. These descendants are also the highest percentage of individual landowners in Britain. That is going off second hand information I heard a long time ago, so it could well be incorrect.

Mind you, I do like the odd brockwurst now and again and I have penchant for invading neighbouring areas. Penchant, that's even a French word, no doubt popularised by those same noblemen.


----------



## Vaneyes

jhar26 said:


> It probably proves that the're more popular than most people care to admit because it's not cool to say that you like them. But I think that the popularity of the monarchy has more to do with the 'star quality' of some of it's members than with the institution itself. Diana was a charismatic figure, so when she was around the popularity of the monarchy benefitted from that. After her divorce, and certainly after her death when she was replaced by the generally much less liked Camilla the popularity of the monarchy suffered. Now people seem to like Kate, so the monarchy is popular again.


Food for thought, your message. I whimsically ask, How can I like them, when they don't even like themselves? But they're not phony...as much as being insecure. When Charles Spencer dressed them down for contributing to his sister's death, they took it on the chin and soldiered on...actually upping their respect for Mr. Spencer over the years.

I've heard of keeping your enemies closer, but what's this about all the friendliness with exes. I believe Wills had five ex-GFs at The Wedding, and similarly, Kate had two ex-beaus. Duchess Camilla X'd off three of Diana's close friends from The Wedding List, but in turn invited her ex-husband.

I can't resist, How can we ever forget Charles fascination with tampons? And I hear Prince Andrew has been a very naughty boy lately. Oh well.

I guess I do like them...for entertainment.:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

jhar26 said:


> Well, admirable or not - it hardly takes a genius to formulate that opinion since it's shared and expressed by everyone who's against the monarchy. It's always about that they cost too much and that it's not a democratic institution because they are not elected. Both valid reasons but neither one of them will change the minds of those that are pro-monarchy because those people like them for irrational - but nonetheless heartfelt sentimental and 'romantic' reasons, a love of glamour and the symbolism involved. These two 'camps' will probably never be able (or willing) to understand each others opinions and in the case of camp one towards camp two listen to them without thinking that the other side consists of airheads.


*resists the urge to compare that with the religion debate*


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> I was meaning nobility as in lords, dukes and earls etc not just the Saxe Coburg Gothas. I think many of them are descended from the Norman (French) barons who took aristocratic control after 1066. These descendants are also the highest percentage of individual landowners in Britain. That is going off second hand information I heard a long time ago, so it could well be incorrect.
> 
> Mind you, I do like the odd brockwurst now and again and I have penchant for invading neighbouring areas. Penchant, that's even a French word, no doubt popularised by those same noblemen.


Now, if we really want to get technical, the Normans were descended from Viking (Norse) invaders of Normandy (Northman) - although they did mix with the local populace and adopt the language. But really, nobility and royals are one big hodgepodge of bloodlines. In fact, you could even argue that WWI was a family feud, seeing as among the grandchildren of Queen Victoria were: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, Queen Maud of Norway, Queen Sophia of Greece, Empress Alexandra of Russia, Queen Marie of Romania, and Queen Victoria of Spain.


----------



## KJohnson

jhar26 said:


> Well, admirable or not - it hardly takes a genius to formulate that opinion since it's shared and expressed by everyone who's against the monarchy. It's always about that they cost too much and that it's not a democratic institution because they are not elected. Both valid reasons but neither one of them will change the minds of those that are pro-monarchy because those people like them for irrational - but nonetheless heartfelt sentimental and 'romantic' reasons, a love of glamour and the symbolism involved. These two 'camps' will probably never be able (or willing) to understand each others opinions and in the case of camp one towards camp two listen to them without thinking that the other side consists of airheads.


Concern for democracy on one side and a love of glamour and symbolism on the other... You summarized it even better than Johann Hari. I'm going to quote you instead, from now on.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> But really, nobility and royals are one big hodgepodge of bloodlines.


I'd hodge-podge Kate Middleton's bloodlines.


----------



## Vaneyes

Argus said:


> I'd hodge-podge Kate Middleton's bloodlines.


Probably not if you could see her now...an RAF wife scrubbing her officer's barracks floors.


----------



## Argus

Vaneyes said:


> Probably not if you could see her now...an RAF wife scrubbing her officer's barracks floors.


That is nicely oblique innuendo. I'll have to look up 'barracks floors' on Urban Dictionary.


----------



## Vaneyes

Argus said:


> That is nicely oblique innuendo. I'll have to look up 'barracks floors' on Urban Dictionary.


All in jest, all in jest. This is the Duke & Duchess' actual Welsh homestead (a rental)...


----------



## Vaneyes

Katie does grocery shopping...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pushes-trolley-grocery-shopping-Waitrose.html

Kate & Wills do honeymoon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/10/royal-couple-honeymoon-seychelles

They're back.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3593828/Royal-couple-back-from-honeymoon.html


----------



## Elgarian

Royal Welding Day?

[A belated response to Annie's post, #15]


----------



## Vaneyes

I'm pleased as punch to see The Royal Wedding (Official CD) charted #2 by Billboard ('Classical Albums', Week of June 4, 2011).

http://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums#/charts/classical-albums


----------



## Vaneyes

That's our Kate.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/fashion/the_pauper_princess_rfiaz4yU7LIURcFv6aMOEK


----------



## mamascarlatti

Vaneyes said:


> I'm pleased as punch to see The Royal Wedding (Official CD) charted #2 by Billboard ('Classical Albums', Week of June 4, 2011).
> 
> http://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums#/charts/classical-albums


These guys have an interesting definition of classical music. I'd call most of it the crossover charts.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Vaneyes said:


> That's our Kate.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/fashion/the_pauper_princess_rfiaz4yU7LIURcFv6aMOEK


I'd like to know how wearing a $340 dress is being a pauper.


----------



## Serge

I wish I was at the Royal Wedding. Either as a groom or a bride... I don't care.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Royal Reinvention"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kate-middletons-royal-reinvention/story?id=13720229

Vanity Fair

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/05/kate_middleton_and_prince_will_2.html


----------



## Vaneyes

At the races our Kate looks her usual self--ravishing and dignified. In one photo, the Queen's choice of hats is particularly odd. A hand is growing out of it. I like the idea...saves her having to wave every few feet. Pardon pun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/04/william-kate-middleton-epsom-derby_n_871396.html


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I always considered royals dumb-as-rock inbreds. I don't want to offend anyone, though, so I'll keep that thought to myself.


----------



## Delicious Manager

regressivetransphobe said:


> I always considered royals dumb-as-rock inbreds. I don't want to offend anyone, though, so I'll keep that thought to myself.


It has to be admitted that the gene pool hasn't exactly been given a good mix until recent years.


----------



## Vaneyes

The next Royal Wedding, Zara Phillips & Mike Tindall.

http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/255501-royal-wedding-two-details-revealed-for-zara-phillips-big-day/

Mike is probably waiting for his rugby career to end, before acquiring a new nose.


----------



## Vaneyes

Royal Zara Phillips, a new ambassador...

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/13240-zara-phillips-signs-as-samsung-uk-olympic-games-ambassador


----------



## Vaneyes

Royal Matchmaker surpised...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2002547/Kate-Middleton-Duchess-Cambridge-surprise-guest-wedding-royal-matchmaker.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Kate & Wills Trooping...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/11/william-kate-trooping-the-colour_n_875342.html


----------



## Vaneyes

Mike Tindall misbehaving just days before his Royal Wedding...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002686/Zara-Phillips-Mike-Tindall-Look-away-Zara-Tindall-embarks-s-seven-hour-Miami-poolside-binge.html


----------



## Vaneyes

"The next Royal Bride in need of grooming"

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-next-royal-bride-in-need-of-grooming-20110613-1g09s.html


----------



## Vaneyes

Zara & Mike's Royal Wedding invites went out last week...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2005412/No-plus-Prince-Harry-Zara-Phillips-wedding-snub-Chelsy-Davy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Vaneyes

Royal Lovebirds frolic...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3647129/Zara-Phillips-future-husband-Mike-Tindall-bris-a-hugger-star.html


----------



## sospiro

Beautiful dress but Kate's getting a bit too thin.


----------

