Royal Wedding Bollocks

[Fast]

Kate Middleton, the first person to squeeze into Diana's ring since Dodi Al Fayed.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I noticed that the Queen, Camilla and even Harry all had good things to say about William and Kate. The one person who seemed ambivalent was his dad, Prince Charles. I guess that's because Charles knows that his own reign is likely to be short and that William might actually improve the image and perception of the British monarchy when he becomes king.
I personally have a much more positive view about William than Charles or even the Queen.

I'm no raving monarchist, but I don't see why people rag on them either. The lie about the royal family being spongers and fleecing money from the country gets trotted out time and again. The Crown Estate generates income for the Treasury and the family takes a few million of this income.
Info here: The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Civil List

 

[Lamp]

The official announcement last night was shocking re: the amount of photography and flash that went on. It was a constant barrage, trying to capture every single gesture and emotion. I thought they did well to answer the questions thrown at them without collapsing to the floor and fitting tbh.

I know they're just "doing their jobs" but it's one side of photography I really despise.

What did you expect? One 78 year-old photographer with his 36-shot Kodak wind-up camera? :lol: This is major news. Every tabloid is going nuts right now. You just have to accept that Kate's going to be the most photographed woman in the world & all this media attention is just gonna go on & on for weeks

 

[Fast]

Weeks? more like decades.

 

[Embattle]

I'm happy for them, least he is not following the stuffy old tradition of how royals get married.

At the same time the media is over doing it a little bit for what is just an annoucement that they are getting married sometime next year.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

This is major news. Every tabloid is going nuts right now. You just have to accept that Kate's going to be the most photographed woman in the world & all this media attention is just gonna go on & on for weeks

This is not news. It is not major news. It bears no impact on anyone's lives.

Fucking shambolic that it's treated as news and that people fall for those claims.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I'm no raving monarchist, but I don't see why people rag on them either. The lie about the royal family being spongers and fleecing money from the country gets trotted out time and again. The Crown Estate generates income for the Treasury and the family takes a few million of this income.
Info here: The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Civil List

Any impartial reports and not ones done by the royal department? Didn't think so, no-one actually knows. They do, but how can we know what they say is true? It's nigh on impossible to verify and in the "interest of security" etc. we'll never find out.

And people would not stop visiting this country if we had no monarchy, that's nuts.

 

[mr.Blacky]

And people would not stop visiting this country if we had no monarchy, that's nuts.

Why would people visit England?
I noticed before you mentioned Paris, but you can hardly compare the two cities and even countries.
France has better weather, Paris is considered a romantic capital (dont ask me why!)
France turned their palaces to museums, London has seperate museums.
A president does not end the cost of anything and might even cost more, but as you even said we dont even know all the costs, and lets be honest we dont even know all the benifits.

 

[Lamp]

my m8's a black cabbie - he's always picking up tourists - London is still a major tourist hot spot & will continue to be so - until Big Ben goes digital & the houses of parliament are turned into luxury apartments....

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Why would people visit England?
I noticed before you mentioned Paris, but you can hardly compare the two cities and even countries.
France has better weather, Paris is considered a romantic capital (dont ask me why!)
France turned their palaces to museums, London has seperate museums.
A president does not end the cost of anything and might even cost more, but as you even said we dont even know all the costs, and lets be honest we dont even know all the benifits.

I've not mentioned Paris. GG. 1-0.

 

[rynnor]

I hate the monarchy - not the people themselves but the idea of it and all the toadying and sycophantism that goes hand in hand with it.

On that note was Nicholas Witchell really a journalist once? Now hes just a creature of the royals paid for out of the license fee - pathetic.

We should have Harry as king - at least then we'd get an actual englishman on the throne

 

[sayward]

I am truly stunned that you are all being so charitable towards the 'happy couple'. Amazed in fact. I'm afraid I expected a much more synical reaction.

I would not have accepted 'that' ring whatever it is worth!

 

[DaGaffer]

Why would people visit England?
I noticed before you mentioned Paris, but you can hardly compare the two cities and even countries.
France has better weather, Paris is considered a romantic capital (dont ask me why!)
France turned their palaces to museums, London has seperate museums.
A president does not end the cost of anything and might even cost more, but as you even said we dont even know all the costs, and lets be honest we dont even know all the benifits.

I mentioned France, not Wazz, and the comparison is valid, at least in the case of Paris v London, who get nearly the same number of visitors (overall France gets far more visitors than the UK):

"France turned their palaces into Museums", so? Ever been on the Buckingham Palace tour? And the London Museums are a major draw in themselves, no other city in the world has so many top quality museums.

I'll concede your point about the weather, but point out the numbers of people who visit Ireland, and its always pissing down here, and the most popular time to visit Paris is the Spring, when the weather isn't that great anyway. "Romantic Paris" is just marketing. You've also failed to consider the one huge advantage the UK has for tourism that has nothing to do with the Royal Family; we speak English. That's hugely important for Americans who rarely leave their own country, and for most of Asia who speak English as a second language. This is why I don't buy the tourism argument; there are really only two "Royal" activities on a London visitor's to do list; visiting Buck House and the Trooping of The Colour. You don't actually need a working Royal Family for either (you could replace the fuckers with animatronics for all most tourists wouldn't really care).

You're correct that Presidents can cost a fortune; if you go down the American or French route. Follow the Irish or Italian model and they cost fuck all.

I don't doubt the Royal Family are part of the "visit London" package for tourists, but that doesn't mean they're the only draw, or even actually the most important. History and Heritage is the cornerstone of the British tourism industry, and that doesn't go away if the Royals are no longer around.

 

[dysfunction]

It will increase tourism for the duration of the actual wedding week/month though!
And the benefit to the economy with the merchandising that will go with it and with the increase in the numbers of tourists.

So it's certainly not a bad thing!

 

[throdgrain]

I dont get the point about the weather either. Sure if you go to the South of France it's hotter, but as someone who regularly visits the 300 mile area from Calais to Caen I'd say the weather was on the whole worse than the South East of England.

 

[DaGaffer]

It will increase tourism for the duration of the actual wedding week/month though!
And the benefit to the economy with the merchandising that will go with it and with the increase in the numbers of tourists.

So it's certainly not a bad thing!

I still don't think a few million in tourist dollars is adequate compensation for the perpetuation of an outdated culture of deference and inherited power. I genuinely find it a bit nauseating when I see the proles at one of these Royal bread and circus exercises all whittering on about how wonderful <insert name of Royal here> is. Suffice to say I won't be watching "the joyous event" (I spent Diana's funeral playing MDK, and the funeral procession went past the end of my street).

 

[rynnor]

(I spent Diana's funeral playing MDK, and the funeral procession went past the end of my street).

I went fishing - funnily enough the fish didnt give a shit about it

This one will be ok as I will be on holiday.

 

[Raven]

I remember I could barely see the day she died I was so hungover. I didn't really care except it interrupted my hangover TV and my mum wouldn't give me a lift to the shop to get munchies because "she was watching the news"

Don't remember the funeral happening though, are we sure she has been buried?

 

[dysfunction]

I still don't think a few million in tourist dollars is adequate compensation for the perpetuation of an outdated culture of deference and inherited power. I genuinely find it a bit nauseating when I see the proles at one of these Royal bread and circus exercises all whittering on about how wonderful <insert name of Royal here> is. Suffice to say I won't be watching "the joyous event" (I spent Diana's funeral playing MDK, and the funeral procession went past the end of my street).

Perhaps but then what is more nauseating is the so called non celebrity development by the likes of X Factor etc.

I'd rather have the Royal family than deal with the likes of Jedward!

 

[DaGaffer]

Perhaps but then what is more nauseating is the so called non celebrity development by the likes of X Factor etc.

I'd rather have the Royal family than deal with the likes of Jedward!

Hey, I'm an equal opportunities loather of unearned celebrity, but at least I don't have to pay to support Jedward. (Trufact: Jedward live about 50 metres from where I'm sat in my office right now).

 

[Tom]

I'd much rather have a traditional link to our past with a hereditary head of state, than another politician.

 

[Calaen]

And as much as I pay no attention to the Royals at all, I do agree with Tom.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'd much rather have a traditional link to our past with a hereditary head of state, than another politician.

Why? Its perfectly understandable that you don't like politicians, but that doesn't mean a hereditary Head of State is the only alternative. As for "a traditional link to our past", once again, why? Seriously, I'm not having a pop, I just don't get it.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

I'd much rather have a traditional link to our past with a hereditary head of state, than another politician.

This...

And as much as I pay no attention to the Royals at all, I do agree with Tom.

...and this.

 

[rynnor]

Better the cage we know than change eh - its like living in Putins russia - people want a hierarchy it seems...

 

[leviathane]

lol what happened to keeping it sort of on the cheap,

Queen and Prince Charles to help foot wedding bill - Yahoo! News UK

 

[Helme]

Why? Its perfectly understandable that you don't like politicians, but that doesn't mean a hereditary Head of State is the only alternative. As for "a traditional link to our past", once again, why? Seriously, I'm not having a pop, I just don't get it.

For me the difference between a politician and modern Royalty as seen in England and Sweden for example, is that the politician got there by his own ambition, for usually very selfish reasons and the results are what you'd expect. Rather than serving the people, they serve to get re-elected.

Royalty on the other hand has really no choice, and thus end up serving the country, rather than themselves. Or at least that is my impression of it, but then again the Swedish Royal family is unusually involved in causes.

 

[Tom]

Why? Its perfectly understandable that you don't like politicians, but that doesn't mean a hereditary Head of State is the only alternative. As for "a traditional link to our past", once again, why? Seriously, I'm not having a pop, I just don't get it.

It may not be the only alternative but in my opinion, the Queen is the literal embodiment of Britishness. I like tradition, I love history, and I'd therefore rather have her in charge of Parliament, than some greasy climb-the-ladder politician like Sarkozy.

 

[Raven]

Couldn't agree more. Tired of the anti-British lot whining about what is left of our traditions. In the greater scheme of things the royal family are good value for money, not that it really matters though, they are part of Britain and what it is to be British.

Cool Britannia can go fuck itself.

 

[Chilly]

The royals cost us less than the wankers in the treasury building spending £180m on a refurb on a ridiculous PFI deal. They cost us less than 500 MPs defrauding us for a free house. They cost us less than the money goverernments and councils give to their mates for shit contracts.

They do, however, undertake loads of charity work, give money away, champion good causes and generally act as a good tourism focus.

who cares if they cost us the odd hundred million? even if we dont get it back I like the monarchy. Our actual government is in many ways far worse than an artistrocrac government would be (and is in fact just that, a large proportion of our current cabinet are millionaires).