Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

1. What do you think about the union?

2. Thoughts on the protests?

3. Why are/were people taking off of work, in America?

4. Discuss the political and social implications.



1. I really do not care. Well, I care a little bit. I'm glad he found a mate that is acceptable and most parties are happy about the union.

2. I think the protests are a bit useless HOWEVER, it is a good time to get your voice heard. I just hope no one gets/got hurt over these various causes. (Good luck, Liberator. Stay safe, buddy.)

3. This is just stupid. American's shouldn't be taking off of work for another country's royal wedding.

4. I hear that a referendum will be largely ignored due to the wedding. There's probably a huge list of social implications. I need some real UK peeps to fill me in on this one.

Seems to me like just more celebrity worship. Unless there's going to be some important impact on the UK with these two getting married I'm ignorant to? eg Foreign relations, domestic prices on goods, civil war, civil unrest?

Apparently, it's a pretty damn big deal.

My google search results netted me little in terms of the political implications.

I'm from the UK and to be honest I'm not liking the fact that it's a big deal...suddenly Kate Middleton was bullied at school, this comes up now because? I bet it's fake

Is the rioting just because she has no title?

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems to me like just more celebrity worship

this

and, off with their heads

1. What do you think about the union?

I think it's good that this wasn't the whirlwind romance that Charles and Diana had. I think they knew each other a total of what, 19 days? They've been friends, have known each other for a long time, or so says the propaganda.
It looks like we have a very stable couple, and since it looks like the Prince of Wales will die the Prince of Wales, William will probably be the next Royal Monarch.

So let Charles and Camilla go off to pasture - especially Camilla.

2. Thoughts on the protests?
Pointless, but let the people be people and say what they want.

3. Why are/were people taking off of work, in America?
They are? REALLY? I didn't know this. But I think that Kate Middleton is what Americans want. Deep down, a lot of us are fascinated with Royalty, that most exclusive of exclusive clubs. People spend millions of dollars to cling to, climb, or drag their way up the ladder of exclusivity. Yet till now, Royalty has been limited to birth circumstances... which no human can control. But now, William's marrying a COMMONER! GASP! and now, for realz, rags has gone to riches and the Prince's ball produced a person that lives in a normal house and not one some manor that has its own name.

4. Discuss the political and social implications.
Well, at this point, anything said in the same sentence as the name "Kate Middleton" is Furby fad popular. So it's not surprising that they're saying things like she was bullied. Because Kate Middleton is the epitome of good and so if she was bullied, it just is more evidence that the anti-bullying campaign is right.

It's a bit of fabulosity in otherwise normal life. Of course people are going crazy.

Originally posted by dadudemon

3. This is just stupid. American's shouldn't be taking off of work for another country's royal wedding.


You said it man. There's even a stipulation in the Constitution that forbids anything resembling royalty (such as titles) taking root on American soil. So maybe that's part of the draw; the whole "forbidden fruit" aspect of it. America (where I reside) gained independence from the British crown, and Mexico (my country of birth) gained independence from the Spanish crown. So the whole concept of "monarchy" isn't really something I care for. In fact, one of my employees wanted to have it on the tv in my lobby, but instead I'm gonna play movies all day long.

I'd just like them to move the wedding up, so every one can stop pretending like these people are at all important.

I really couldn't care less. My mum has mild feelings towards it as she gets a day off work for the Royal Wedding.

It's the highlight of my life.

don't really care, i will be calling hogs as they say when this is going on, however i do hope they are married for years to come and also i hope he is just like diana who was very kind and loving

Ah a decent thread on the subject

Off with their heads, friggin alien blood drinking lizards.

Apparently its funded from our taxes, not the royal family.

http://www.gtglobaltrader.com/news/kate-middleton-prince-william-and-real-cost-royal-wedding

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Apparently its funded from our taxes, not the royal family.

http://www.gtglobaltrader.com/news/kate-middleton-prince-william-and-real-cost-royal-wedding

Well there's a surprise.

My mother tells me VAT went up...and now funding the Royal Wedding.

Indeed, Lil.

And all the security, publicity etc etc etc, extra bank holidays that go with it etc

Its all adds up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. What do you think about the union?

2. Thoughts on the protests?

3. Why are/were people taking off of work, in America?

4. Discuss the political and social implications.





1. The Union as in the marriage? I think they look good together, they have been going out for a long time so I guess it's good they are getting married though they are both quite young. However being royal it would be a scandal if they had a child outside of marriage.

2. Stupid. Unlike a lot of people in Scotland I don't have a problem with the broadcast and the long weekend that is coming due to the marriage. I think the people protesting against the royal family should choose another date. This is going to be one of the biggest days in Kate and William's life and will be marred unfairly due to his family name.

3. Maybe they are celebrating their British heritage or something?
Haven't really heard anything about that.

4. srug

The wedding is NOT being paid for by the taxpayer. The security for it is, but that's rather different. And as that article discusses, the loss from a Bank Holiday will likely be more than made up by the revenue generated by the whole thing.

Also, as I post this, the wikipedia entry on the wedding has this in the header:

"They are possibly the biggest parasites ever according to normal human brains."

Classy!

LOL Some people really do go too far.

The security bill will be doubtlessly massive, though.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
LOL Some people really do go too far.

The security bill will be doubtlessly massive, though.

It's just tiring. It sincerely bothers me to know that money from hard-working people is being paid for these lazy twats who sit around in their money and do nothing.

There are many people in Britain also sick and tired of the monarchy and it's high time we all got our voices heard. To the comment above saying that the protests should occur on a better day, I ask you, what better day to protest an outdated royal money-machine than the day two of their arguably (now of course) well known family members (I suppose Kate will soon be considered formally apart of the royal family) are getting married?

Nobody wants to see any violence, do you remember London during the budget cuts? I can't imagine it dissolving into that - but then again, when you have police and other security forces (private companies are getting contracts their own people out there too) and with a zero tolerance policy prepped by these policemen I cannot say that violence will be completely avoided.

I'm sure there is going to be run-ins, there are many different groups going to London for protest, not all of them necessarily are against the monarchy and against the fact that we've got to pay for parts of it. I'm sure there is a list online that will officially show you how many officers, helicopters, soldiers, and other various security units are being deployed that day. Already London is the most watched city in the world, which is another reason for the protests.

Banksy wrote, One Nation Under CCTV.
Couldn't agree more.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
LOL Some people really do go too far.

The security bill will be doubtlessly massive, though.

the peasants are being ripped off by the bankers to pay off their gambling debts, might as well fund a wedding party as well at least it will get peoples minds of the main problems in life for a few days.

Originally posted by Liberator
It's just tiring. It sincerely bothers me to know that money from hard-working people is being paid for these lazy twats who sit around in their money and do nothing.

I heard someone talking about how the royals are a fantastic investment. They bring in hundreds of millions in tourist money each year but only cost a few tens of millions to maintain.

They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.

(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)

In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.

William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.

They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.

(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)

In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.

William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.

They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.

Sort of right and sort of wrong.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.

As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.

(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)

In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.

William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.

They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Sort of right and sort of wrong.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.

As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.


Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys. I was confused on how that operated. It seems like a "who's on first" system, you know?



Also, it makes absolute sense that the crown is not a drain on the UK taxpayers: gone are the days of massive palace construction projects and monarchal-driven wars. I like how some claimed that they are parasites and others show that there is clearly a large net contribution from the monarchy's existance. This very wedding should be a very obvious example of a massive revenue contribution.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Sort of right and sort of wrong.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.

As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.


No, I am entirely right. The Crown Estates are, by any legal right, their land. The agreement that the money would go to the Government is one that was signed BY the Monarchy.

If you got rid of the official Monarchy, those lands and that money would still morally belong to them. The government has no legal right to take the money from those lands save for this voluntary agreement.

So again- the Monarchy just gives the Government all that mloney.

Does "morally" fit in to the legality though?

kate and william are distant cousins.

keeping the bloodlines in place as usual

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Does "morally" fit in to the legality though?

Yes.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I am entirely right. The Crown Estates are, by any legal right, their land. The agreement that the money would go to the Government is one that was signed BY the Monarchy.

If you got rid of the official Monarchy, those lands and that money would still morally belong to them. The government has no legal right to take the money from those lands save for this voluntary agreement.

So again- the Monarchy just gives the Government all that mloney.

It could easily be argued, that the monarchy are lucky the civil war in the U.K. allowed them to keep anything, I know this has nothing to do with management of the crown estates which is a modern way of allowing them to exist as a semi palatable constitutional monarchy, despite the fact we still don't have a constitution. Mr. Cameron where is your bill of rights?

Had our revolution happened a hundred years later like in France they would not have kept their heads, led alone property. It could also be argued anything they have really belongs to the people and a redistribution of wealth is in order.

A King is a thing men have made for their own sakes, for quietness' sake.
- John Selden, Table Talk (1696 edition)

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Had our revolution happened a hundred years later like in France they would not have kept their heads, led alone property. I thought the kind did lose his head?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I thought the kind did lose his head?

Yeah Charles the first did; however, we allowed through the constitution and restoration Charles the second to become a constitutional monarch. In France they just offed the aristocrats on mass. Good call? Probably in terms of equality.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Yeah Charles the first did; however, we allowed through the constitution and restoration Charles the second to become a constitutional monarch. In France they just offed the aristocrats on mass. Good call? Probably in terms of equality. What about Louis XVIII?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What about Louis XVIII?

He was a way to transition the country and appease some parts of the society. He also ran away to save his head when Napoleon returned. I think we can say he was lucky. He also has a lot to thank the 'duke' of Wellington for. He also kept appeasing the populace... He knew the monarchy was on borrowed time.

But it still existed is what I'm saying, the Revolution didn't "do away" with the monarchy. Just paved the way for a new one. Which gave way back to the old one. Which swing round back to the new one again.

*sigh* F*ckin French...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But it still existed is what I'm saying, the Revolution didn't "do away" with the monarchy. Just paved the way for a new one. Which gave way back to the old one. Which swing round back to the new one again.

*sigh* F*ckin French...

Actually it would have done had Napoleon not lost. It did pave the way for the removal of the monarchy and the execution of Louis XVI was quite a statement in itself as was the execution of Charles I, we should have gone further in the U.K. i'm not saying execution was the way, just removal. :-)

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Does "morally" fit in to the legality though?

I'm not watching it

Originally posted by steverules_2
I'm not watching it

Good lad!

Re: Royal Bloodlines Deano. It’s difficult to breed out late onset disorders such as HFC (horse faced ****) syndrome even though they follow simple Mendelian inheritance. The phenotype typically shows well after reproductive age has been reached and by then it is too late. Shooting people, burning their bodies and throwing them down a mine shaft did show some promise in the Russian revolution. Maybe it’s time we tried that again?

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
It could easily be argued, that the monarchy are lucky the civil war in the U.K. allowed them to keep anything, I know this has nothing to do with management of the crown estates which is a modern way of allowing them to exist as a semi palatable constitutional monarchy, despite the fact we still don't have a constitution. Mr. Cameron where is your bill of rights?

Had our revolution happened a hundred years later like in France they would not have kept their heads, led alone property. It could also be argued anything they have really belongs to the people and a redistribution of wealth is in order.

A King is a thing men have made for their own sakes, for quietness' sake.
- John Selden, Table Talk (1696 edition)

If you want to advocate simply stealing land from people that own it then fine, but I don't think that has much to do with being somehow progressive or superior, let alone your implication that we should have murdered the family and taken all of it.

Lots of very rich people own a LOT of land. I would advance that the fact this THIS family gives some 90% of the money from that land to the Government for public use makes them very much not a problem.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to advocate simply stealing land from people that own it then fine, but I don't think that has much to do with being somehow progressive or superior, let alone your implication that we should have murdered the family and taken all of it.

Lots of very rich people own a LOT of land. I would advance that the fact this THIS family gives some 90% of the money from that land to the Government for public use makes them very much not a problem.

I'm completely in favour of reparations to the people for everything royalty has done, the land went with being the king or queen. Such land should revert back to the people when they decide they do not want a king or queen. It's the crown 'of Britain's' land. When Britain decides it doesn't want a crown, what then?

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I'm completely in favour of reparations to the people for everything royalty has done, the land went with being the king or queen. Such land should revert back to the people when they decide they do not want a king or queen. It's the crown 'of Britain's' land. When Britain decides it doesn't want a crown, what then?

The land goes with being the family. It is inherited like any other land. It's very distinct from copious amounts of government-owned land.

Do you want to go around seizing the estates of any rich family that takes your fancy? Why you would start with the family that gives most of that money to the Government is beyond me.

Again, you are just talking about land seizure here. It puts you thoroughly in the wrong, morally.

And indeed, no-one has considered it a God-given right in centuries.

I think the idea of reparations, generally, is a bad idea.

Specifically, did Queen Elizabeth II commit atrocities against her own people? Did she treat them unfairly?

Why should she be punished when she's doing a darn fine job of being good to her people and giving much more than she takes? Seems she's already paid her reparations.

It is an interesting event I just hope this thread does not get close because someone may think of this thread as trolling.

I'm not sure about the situation in England (where this has probably been resolved), but I suppose in general one could make a case that the lands attributed to a monarch and a royal family could feasibly be attributed to the new form of government if the government form changes, which I might personally also consider moral.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.

(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)

In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.

William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.

They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money. People don't realize that wealthy people generate a lot more revenue than someone working a diner taking orders.

I can finally die happy!

Originally posted by Nephthys
I can finally die happy!

Did you just take some Salvia?

Well it's better than inbreeding as it used to be.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Well it's better than inbreeding as it used to be.

How do you know, have you tried inbreeding?

Originally posted by Robtard
How do you know, have you tried inbreeding?

Nah, her parents did though.

what a waste of a day. now me and millions of others have to pay for this wedding

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, her parents did though.

Ha Ha.

I'm actually very intelligent, muy, muy. But you know this already.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure about the situation in England (where this has probably been resolved), but I suppose in general one could make a case that the lands attributed to a monarch and a royal family could feasibly be attributed to the new form of government if the government form changes, which I might personally also consider moral.

Absolutely and this is the crux of it all.

Originally posted by Deano
what a waste of a day. now me and millions of others have to pay for this wedding

Be funny if they're divorced within a year.

Originally posted by Deano
what a waste of a day. now me and millions of others have to pay for this wedding

But your paying them with their own money...

Originally posted by Robtard
Be funny if they're divorced within a year.

Anything is possible, this wedding might just be a car crash.

Originally posted by inimalist
off with their heads

Originally posted by Deano
what a waste of a day. now me and millions of others have to pay for this wedding
I bet it brings in more than it costs.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I bet it brings in more than it costs.

But it's money the individual people will never see, the one's it's been take from. It will be squandered on grandiose schemes that enrich there lives little or imperialistic wars.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
But it's money the individual people will never see, the one's it's been take from. It will be squandered on grandiose schemes that enrich there lives little or imperialistic wars. And that's different than usual in which way?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And that's different than usual in which way?

-and that's the point it isn't. It costs more in real terms because it's money taken from public budgets and any money it generates is money that does not go back into the tax payers pockets directly or even indirectly as the economy is level. Are you suprised by this?

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
-and that's the point it isn't. It costs more in real terms because it's money taken from public budgets and any money it generates is money that does not go back into the tax payers pockets directly or even indirectly as the economy is level. Are you suprised by this?

What are you talking about?

If the government makes $11 for every $10 it spends on the wedding then the public has effectively had none of their taxes spent and the govt has increased reevnue without raising taxes. Realistically a portion of that money is coming from tourism which means it does go directly into the pockets of the people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What are you talking about?

If the government makes $11 for every $10 it spends on the wedding then the public has effectively had none of their taxes spent and the govt has increased reevnue without raising taxes. Realistically a portion of that money is coming from tourism which means it does go directly into the pockets of the people.

Not really; because, the $1 extra will be spent on something like being part of the 'world police', which has no relevance to the people of the U.K. Rather than kept in the pockets of the citizens themselves. Big Government decides what the money is spent on and usually it's not as enriching to the people- as if they kept the initial money. This has always been why people dislike taxation, they never get to decide how it's spent. Look at Robin Hood or don't you get that? As for a portion coming back as tourism, that argument is pretty false, people would visit the UK regardless of an institutionalised constitutional monarchy, due to the old buildings and history, much as they do France and everywhere else in Europe. It's a myth propagated by royalists. People go to New York to see the Empire State building, the tower, houses of parliment, st pauls etc have a similar draw.

That was pretty convincing up until you referred to "Royalists" in a serious manner.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was pretty convincing up until you referred to "Royalists" in a serious manner.

Ha the royalists are truly not the majority in the U.K. Tony Blair pretty much saved the monarchy a while back. They are more popular at the moment; but, that won't last.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
But it's money the individual people will never see, the one's it's been take from. It will be squandered on grandiose schemes that enrich there lives little or imperialistic wars.
no, I mean it brings in money because it increases tourism which puts money directly in the local economy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
no, I mean it brings in money because it increases tourism which puts money directly in the local economy.

It certainly did increase tourism in London for one day, however it was a bank holiday so the rest of the U.K. did not go to work meaning a huge decrease in manufacturing etc. Swings and roundabouts. It also means small business that cannot afford to pay extra days off etc. are put under extra strain.

How much money do you think the world spent on souvenirs, hotel fees, restaurant tabs, pub bills?

There are things that cause thousands of dollars that people don't hesitate to byu everything you could imagine. It was 5,000 dollars.

And all those shops with Royal Charters have made tons of money...

This thing has been a huge financial boon to England. Did all of these costs really go over the limit?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
How much money do you think the world spent on souvenirs, hotel fees, restaurant tabs, pub bills?

There are things that cause thousands of dollars that people don't hesitate to byu everything you could imagine. It was 5,000 dollars.

And all those shops with Royal Charters have made tons of money...

This thing has been a huge financial boon to England. Did all of these costs really go over the limit?

Actually it wasn't because most of the population had a day off, meaning manufacturing down. As for the world undoubtedly they bought some souvenirs, mostly though the money from those will not be seen by anyone beyond the Chinese factories that manufactured them and the souvenir makers. Doubtless some money will go to charities. Upper end at risk ceramic companies may well have seen it as a boon, i'm sure Crown Derby etc did. Sales of royal tat are bound to be internet driven, as Americans love the royals.

Why do I dislike the royal wedding? It perpetuates the national narrative that the uppermost reaches of the society are closed to most people - except to a pretty girl who manages to catch a prince's eye. To paraphrase Joan Rivers, a woman doesn't need an education because no royal ever stuck his hand up a girl's skirt looking for her library card. Is that the signal we want to send the young women of our society? I don't care that the royal family has cleverly reinvented itself as an offshoot of the celebrity culture. It's still an insidious obstacle to a truly open society with social mobility etc.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Why do I dislike the royal wedding? It perpetuates the national narrative that the uppermost reaches of the society are closed to most people - except to a pretty girl who manages to catch a prince's eye. To paraphrase Joan Rivers, a woman doesn't need an education because no royal ever stuck his hand up a girl's skirt looking for her library card. Is that the signal we want to send the young women of our society? I don't care that the royal family has cleverly reinvented itself as an offshoot of the celebrity culture. It's still an insidious obstacle to a truly open society with social mobility etc. The great thing is that no matter your internet zeal, they're not going anywhere.


Wall Street Journal's assessment of the wedding's cost.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The great thing is that no matter your internet zeal, they're not going anywhere.


Wall Street Journal's assessment of the wedding's cost.

Eventually we'll have a referendum, probably ten to twenty years from now, they'd lose now. In the future without the present retired they are toast.

I'm sure it's possible to exceed the power of the royal family in the U.K. economically.

J.K Rowling did it. Anyone can! I doubt a referendum any time in the near future will oust the monarchy. I've seen a poll recently that showed that most people don't support removing them (even if they don't see them as inherently useful). Plus I think you'd need to get unanimous Commonwealth approval.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Actually it wasn't because most of the population had a day off, meaning manufacturing down. As for the world undoubtedly they bought some souvenirs, mostly though the money from those will not be seen by anyone beyond the Chinese factories that manufactured them and the souvenir makers. Doubtless some money will go to charities. Upper end at risk ceramic companies may well have seen it as a boon, i'm sure Crown Derby etc did. Sales of royal tat are bound to be internet driven, as Americans love the royals.

Yeah, Chinese factories tend to be the main beneficiaries in such situations....

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
J.K Rowling did it. Anyone can! I doubt a referendum any time in the near future will oust the monarchy. I've seen a poll recently that showed that most people don't support removing them (even if they don't see them as inherently useful). Plus I think you'd need to get unanimous Commonwealth approval.

Really no, because if everyone could do it they would. England has far worse social mobility than almost any developed nation. Commonwealth approval would not be a prerequisite for the U.K. as her titles are distinct for each commonwealth nation. At the moment, no she would not go due to the present high popularity of the young royals mainly. After what happened with Diana, the royals popularity dipped and they had were saved by Blair. I don't think Britain can become a classless society with a Hereditary monarch as head of state, It symbolises privilege and elitism.

The only thing they represent is tradition and history. To blame them for any sort of social mobility issues is inept and simply a distraction from any genuine solution to economic issues.

The ignorant rantings of moaners aside, I saw a happy country when I was out jogging on Friday. Flags, bunting, parties and good nature. Not BECAUSE we have a royal family, that's just silly, but it is all part of an embodiment of something significant and useful which meant people felt like putting the effort in that day.

They don't cost us a darn thing- quite the reverse. If we didn't have them, we'd still need some sort of head of state, which would still include public holidays and security costs, only this time accompanied with typical bloated government bureaucracy.

Talk of privilege is stupid, as the Royal Family is basically obliged to support the country- they have a role to fulfil. You can dislike their wealth, but then you have MUCH bigger problems than the royals to worry about.

If you think getting rid of them solves any sort of issue at all, you are mistaken. All you would achieve is to diminish a part of this nation. Again, really these feelings of yours are very petty indeed and attitudes like yours are a much bigger problem than the monarchy could ever be. Decades on, you'll still be left with social mobility issues and then who will you be able to blame? Or will you then finally realise that's an economic issue, not one related to mere tradition.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The only thing they represent is tradition and history. To blame them for any sort of social mobility issues is... inept and simply a distraction from any genuine solution to economic issues.

The ignorant rantings of moaners aside, I saw a happy country when I was out jogging on Friday. Flags, bunting, parties and good nature. Not BECAUSE we have a royal family, that's just silly, but it is all part of an embodiment of something significant and useful which meant people felt like putting the effort in that day.

They don't cost us a darn thing- quite the reverse. Talk of privilege is stupid, as the Royal Family is basically obliged to support the country- they have a role to fulfil. You can dislike their wealth, but then you have MUCH bigger problems than the royals to worry about.

If you think getting rid of them solves any sort of issue at all, you are mistaken. All you would achieve is to diminish a part of this nation. Again, really these feelings of yours are very petty indeed and attitudes like yours are a much bigger problem than the monarchy could ever be.

I know for many the royal familiy provide a romantic version of Britain. It is; however, very difficult to attribute in a democracy a reason for them. They have no mission statement or purpose. The contempory lexicon of audit, accountability and transparancy is difficult to apply. A positive I would agree with is for some the Royals provide a rallying point for a proportion of the nation in a time of disunity; However, for others they merely underline inequality and division. Nobody can measure the true power or possible value of an institution as vague in modern times as the monarchy which depends on fluctuating popular opinion and no votes. After the royal wedding, the republican movement is at its weakest since the death of Diana. Cynics would say the timing of the royal wedding could not work out better for the establishment and the arguments against a British President can be summed up in four words which put off political proponents of all colours. President Blair, President Thatcher. It is perhaps even more controversial to consider president Beckham; Although, President Warnock might seem to have some sense were she younger. In the end it really comes down to do you consider someone to be above you merely due to birth. Cherie Blair didn't and upset the Queen by refusing to curtsey. Whilst Oxford and Cambridge let in so few Black students and students from state schools; Prince Harry gets his art A level coursework done for him. Royalty certainly has its perks.

There can be a case made for a representative head of state in a democracy. In Germany there is an elected head of state called the president, which does not have particular political power and is mostly an instrument for representation and unity. Sure there are some ritual things a president does, but really it's mostly being a representative for Germany as a whole, it is basically the same thing as a King or Queen in England, except that the person is voted in for every couple of years. Admittedly you don't need to have this separation, in the US I believe the president has both the role of the Prime Minister/Chancellor and King/President but there's definitely a place for such an institution within a democratic system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There can be a case made for a representative head of state in a democracy. In Germany there is an elected head of state called the president, which does not have particular political power and is mostly an instrument for representation and unity. Sure there are some ritual things a president does, but really it's mostly being a representative for Germany as a whole, it is basically the same thing as a King or Queen in England, except that the person is voted in for every couple of years. Admittedly you don't need to have this separation, in the US I believe the president has both the role of the Prime Minister/Chancellor and King/President but there's definitely a place for such an institution within a democratic system.

Those are indeed my feelings. Hereditary heads of state are something left over from feudal times. Money is not the main issue I have with the monarchy, position as head of state by right of birth is. The extended royal family is also so strange. I have real reservations about the new independent schools having often such close ties to the church in the U.K., it seems almost a way of reverting things back to those feudal times. The seperation you talk about leads to two sets of costs, the Queen has her court and Cameron has his. The German president some believe is more expensive than the Queen. At least though he is elected and therefore more palletable in a democracy.

Interesting how the car they drove away in was converted to be fueled by English wine.

It figures someone would finally find a use for it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Interesting how the car they drove away in was converted to be fueled by English wine.

It figures someone would finally find a use for it.

Haha, that's why it's fueled on 'surplus' British wine.

Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history", sad really.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history, sad really.

Yeah, I give it a year or until MI5 act on Prince Philips orders (I joke)

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history", sad really.
Other countries didn't rule 1/4 of the globe less than a century ago. *shrug*

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Other countries didn't rule 1/4 of the globe less than a century ago. *shrug*

I don't think Imperialism is something to be proud of myself.

This video contains a good set of arguments on both sides of the "monarchy" argument. Charlie Veitch was arrested for doing nothing, in a police state type action for something he "might do" after being arrested he gave this interview,

A4Z7JSJw5Tw

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I don't think Imperialism is something to be proud of myself.
Never said it was.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This video contains a good set of arguments on both sides of the "monarchy" argument. Charlie Veitch was arrested for doing nothing, in a police state type action for something he "might do" after being arrested he gave this interview,

A4Z7JSJw5Tw

Oh yeah, unbiased, two-sided reporting indeed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Never said it was.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

Still doesn't explain the fascination with the royal wedding, especially by the rest of the world.

When Chelsea Clinton got married did anybody even care? Even in America?

I mean this event exceeded even the moon landings, whch were far more important from almost every perspective concievable.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Never said it was.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

I misunderstood, no probs and yes I think the elite do like to make out the UK is still a power hence the ludicrous action in the middle east.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Still doesn't explain the fascination with the royal wedding, especially by the rest of the world.

When Chelsea Clinton got married did anybody even care? Even in America?

I mean this event exceeded even the moon landings, whch were far more important from almost every perspective concievable.
Humans love putting certain people on pedestals for whatever reason. I really don't see why some are getting so worked up about it, but at the same time I don't think it's hurting anyone.

In what way did it exceed the Moon Landings? In terms of viewership?

Originally posted by Omega Vision


In what way did it exceed the Moon Landings? In terms of viewership?

Yes, CNN reported last night it was probably the most watched television event in history.

Glad this thing is over. Got so sick of hearing about it every time I turned on the TV. You'd think these two people are the most important human beings on the planet with the amount of publicity and hype this thing got, even here in the states.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Yes, CNN reported last night it was probably the most watched television event in history.

To be fair - TVs are far more common than they were 40+ years ago.

Originally posted by BackFire
Glad this thing is over. Got so sick of hearing about it every time I turned on the TV. You'd think these two people are the most important human beings on the planet with the amount of publicity and hype this thing got, even here in the states.

Sadly it's not over, by cleverly not having the honeymoon now- it can be extended as a continued hype, when the honeymoon starts.

You mean the British royal family are not the most important people on the planet? Really?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This video contains a good set of arguments on both sides of the "monarchy" argument. Charlie Veitch was arrested for doing nothing, in a police state type action for something he "might do" after being arrested he gave this interview,

A4Z7JSJw5Tw



SYLAR PROTESTED TEH CROWNZ!



Anyway...I thought the question about Kate and William having a right to have a wedding was legit and the excuse that the taxpayer's money was spent on the wedding was simply ignorance. I think that fella is smart but misguided in his beliefs.

Things went bad, there were so many police hardly anything could get accomplished.

The pictures from the paper was really well done.I like the little flower girl and her many faces.

Originally posted by Liberator
Things went bad, there were so many police hardly anything could get accomplished.

Interesting wasn't it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/police-raid-squats-royal-wedding

http://londonist.com/2011/04/police-raid-squats-across-london.php

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Interesting wasn't it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/police-raid-squats-royal-wedding

http://londonist.com/2011/04/police-raid-squats-across-london.php

Just shows how much power the royals have, not having any bums spoiling there wedding party, lets send in the KGB

That Veitch guy* wasn't the only one....

QOli98fgBP0

AAbQcEwgoGo

Ox-UJNpHAZY






* I watched his vids, I think he'd been nicked for tresspass and conspiracy to breach the peace.... He called for destructive action in his vid and got nicked accordingly..

Before we could even get into London we were heavily searched, a lot of our things got confisicated. By the time we reached London and met up with the people we had planned to group up with we realized we were being followed by a bunch of plainclothes.

When we managed to organize a group of like 60 of us we were entirely surrounded by police. Everywhere we went we were trailed. I had heard they raided and arrested a bunch of people prior to the whole escapade, I wasn't aware as to the extent. They shut down a lot of protests that weren't even necessarily related to the wedding, such as the anti-war one.

It just amazed me to see the sheer numbers of officers. Nearly got myself arrested multiple times, it was just completely chaotic.

Originally posted by Liberator
Before we could even get into London we were heavily searched, a lot of our things got confisicated. By the time we reached London and met up with the people we had planned to group up with we realized we were being followed by a bunch of plainclothes.

When we managed to organize a group of like 60 of us we were entirely surrounded by police. Everywhere we went we were trailed. I had heard they raided and arrested a bunch of people prior to the whole escapade, I wasn't aware as to the extent. They shut down a lot of protests that weren't even necessarily related to the wedding, such as the anti-war one.

It just amazed me to see the sheer numbers of officers. Nearly got myself arrested multiple times, it was just completely chaotic.


Everywhere is more locked down now. What is happening to the U.K?

It's 1984 all over again....and this time Apple won't save us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's 1984 all over again....and this time Apple won't save us.

Had to google that. I don't even remember the advert.

hi

regarding royal marriage of prince alas they show the pic of his late mother diana, how much she missed this occasion.

Harry asked Wills at the wedding, "have you seen dad?" Wills replied, "I'm sorry bro.. they wouldn't let me invite him... but my dad is over there dancing with Camilla".

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2007/06/14/0614_prince_harry_2-1.jpg