rant Kate Middleton, future Queen??

[far]

the queen should step down shortly after the marriage as she does feck all at the moment and let the new gen take over.

[Gaz6002]

the queen should step down shortly after the marriage as she does feck all at the moment and let the new gen take over.

 

It always makes me smile when people think the Queen doesn't do anything

[marbleapple]

It always makes me smile when people think the Queen doesn't do anything

 

Makes me think how ignorant they are.

[Tannhauser]

Really? I am surprised that you would come to this conclusion. The eyes of the whole world on England, discussions about the monarchy, millions of pounds changing hands, a potential king having a new wife who (like all wives) will probably have significant influence on him and presumably subsequent policy and direction of the country. I disagree on the point of 'zero significance'.

 

Irrespective on people's views of the monarchy, they are very heavy weight in politics, social circles and the commonwealth. In my opinion an engagement is important even if I agree with you that the media will turn it into a circus.

 

Also, lets remember that Charles/di wedding brought parties to the street and a positive 'feeling' which some claim increased public moral and thus public spending etc etc

 

I dispute that they have any political clout. They don't wield any real power or influence. They can make noises of disapproval every so often, which the cabinet may or may not play lip service to. It's not as if whatisface is a dynamo of political activism either. And social influence in what sense? The royals might influence what sort of hat people wear next season. The commonwealth is a spent force and a virtually defunct institution.

 

The 'eyes of the whole world' is an exaggeration. There will also be literally billions of people worldwide who couldn't give a monkey's about it.

 

I remember the Charles and Di wedding. There were no parties in my street, to my recollection, nobody I know watched it, was the least bit interested in it or even had an opinion on it. It was a total irrelevance, as is this one.

 

Personally, I've got nothing against the royal family, but they are only of symbolic significance, and that is largely lent to them by a celebrity-hungry media. The King of England no more represents me than David Beckham does. It's an extravagant and empty spectacle and, as MacBeth put it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[RedM]

Interesting. I think it's an event of zero significance. But then I think all celebrity weddings are of zero significance.

 

I dispute that they have any political clout. They don't wield any real power or influence. They can make noises of disapproval every so often, which the cabinet may or may not play lip service to. It's not as if whatisface is a dynamo of political activism either. And social influence in what sense? The royals might influence what sort of hat people wear next season. The commonwealth is a spent force and a virtually defunct institution.

 

The 'eyes of the whole world' is an exaggeration. There will also be literally billions of people worldwide who couldn't give a monkey's about it.

 

I remember the Charles and Di wedding. There were no parties in my street, to my recollection, nobody I know watched it, was the least bit interested in it or even had an opinion on it. It was a total irrelevance, as is this one.

 

Personally, I've got nothing against the royal family, but they are only of symbolic significance, and that is largely lent to them by a celebrity-hungry media. The King of England no more represents me than David Beckham does. It's an extravagant and empty spectacle and, as MacBeth put it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 

I agree with Mr. T.

 

Are you all prepared for amount of shite that people will be trying to sell on the back of this? Don't forget that new 3DHD TV so that you can watch the 'big day' in its full glory. There'll be commemorative booze, clothing and more pull-out souvenir sections than you can shake a stick at. Bleurgh.

[TJP]

Perhaps, but how many foreigners will be coming over for it though? Do you anticipate a lot?

 

The BIG question is how many of them will return home

[Chris Wilson]

The BIG question is how many of them will return home

 

The same worries come with the Olympics. I recall some tiny nation of coloureds sending a cycle race team, when no one had even heard of them cycling competitively in their place of origin. I think they were here for a day (I am pretty sure it was the Commonwealth Games some years back,certainly it was in Manchester, circa 2001/2), before last being seen cycling up the M60, never to be seen again

[Paul]

Probably come over using their normal mode of transport, swinging underneath an artic.

[David P]

Heard this one today and thought of Chris, "It's the first time anyone has had their finger in Diana's ring since Dodi"

[RedM]

I recall some tiny nation of coloureds.....

 

Are you auditioning for a remake of Love Thy Neighbour or something?

[Chris Wilson]

No, but it was a great programme, that and `Til death us do part. Alf Garnett at his best I believe a re run is on the cards next year.

 

I don't recall just what they were, save they were coloured. Inoffensive description, surely?

[Paul]

I don't recall just what they were, save they were coloured. Inoffensive description, surely?

 

Not to him, he can read racist into anything and everything.

[RedM]

Not to him, he can read racist into anything and everything.

 

Racist.

 

Anyhoo, back on topic. I'm glad that Kate Middleton already has some saucy pics available. With Lady Di we had to wait until the Paris tunnel thing until there was what looked like a hint of boob in one pic. I felt pretty bad trying to crack one out that day but needs must and all that.

 

[CJ]

....

 

I don't recall just what they were, save they were coloured. Inoffensive description, surely?

A few years back there was an anti racism video out that said (not verbatim but as i recall):

 

When I am born, I am black. When I go in the sun, I am black. When I get embarrassed, I am black etc etc. It then says - When you are born, you are pink. When you get sick, you are green. When you go out in the sun, you are red. When you get scared you are yellow and when you die you are grey. And you haver the cheek to call me coloured!

[Paul]

A few years back there was an anti racism video out that said (not verbatim but as i recall):

 

When I am born, I am black. When I go in the sun, I am black. When I get embarrassed, I am black etc etc. It then says - When you are born, you are pink. When you get sick, you are green. When you go out in the sun, you are red. When you get scared you are yellow and when you die you are grey. And you haver the cheek to call me coloured!

 

Yeah right, past your bedtime? ;)

[ivan]

The only things that bother me about all this Royal Wedding malarkey are:

 

1. Who's paying for it? (I guess that'd be us then?)

2. Waay too much coverage on the tele. A simple anouncement would have done - we don't need in depth analysis and character profiles or opinions from z-list clebs thank you.

[j_jza80]

Racist.

 

Anyhoo, back on topic. I'm glad that Kate Middleton already has some saucy pics available. With Lady Di we had to wait until the Paris tunnel thing until there was what looked like a hint of boob in one pic. I felt pretty bad trying to crack one out that day but needs must and all that.

 

 

[Nick]

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100064107/im-loving-it-prince-william-and-kate-middletons-wedding-is-going-to-be-months-of-torture-for-lefties/

[Tannhauser]

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100064107/im-loving-it-prince-william-and-kate-middletons-wedding-is-going-to-be-months-of-torture-for-lefties/

 

A masterpiece of conflation.

[merckx]

I saw an interview with will and Kate and they look very much in love.that's enough for me.who the hell are we to decide who he should or shouldn't marry! We don't know him or her

 

 

Exactly!

 

I wish them the best of luck..

[marbleapple]

I agree with Mr. T.

 

Are you all prepared for amount of shite that people will be trying to sell on the back of this? Don't forget that new 3DHD TV so that you can watch the 'big day' in its full glory. There'll be commemorative booze, clothing and more pull-out souvenir sections than you can shake a stick at. Bleurgh.

 

Your own post contradicts Mr T. How is there zero significance if it increases sales. That in itself is a significance.

 

Whether you like the fuss or not, to state it has zero significance is utter rubbish. It has an impact whether you like it or not.

 

Front page of the Metro paper* this morning: Increase sales expected of £600m, demand for copies of diana type ring increase by 800% over night. All an impact from the engagement.

 

*I accept the Metro isn't exactly the Economist etc

 

I dispute that they have any political clout. They don't wield any real power or influence. They can make noises of disapproval every so often, which the cabinet may or may not play lip service to. It's not as if whatisface is a dynamo of political activism either. And social influence in what sense? The royals might influence what sort of hat people wear next season. The commonwealth is a spent force and a virtually defunct institution.."

 

Are you serious with the above? How is the head of state not an influence? Whole debates in Australia and Canada take place on whether they should provide lip service to the Queen or not. Every law has to be signed off by the queen. I accept that her role is primarily significant

 

The 'eyes of the whole world' is an exaggeration. There will also be literally billions of people worldwide who couldn't give a monkey's about it. .."

 

I wonder how many TV channels in how many countries will have the wedding live. Also, if people were not interested why would it be in the media. People are interested but certain individuals are not and thus moan about it.

 

I remember the Charles and Di wedding. There were no parties in my street, to my recollection, nobody I know watched it, was the least bit interested in it or even had an opinion on it. It was a total irrelevance, as is this one.."

 

No one watched it? No one?

 

I note the change of wording from zero significance to total irrelevance.

 

Personally, I've got nothing against the royal family, - "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Contradictory one might suggest? You don't agree with a monarchy, I get it. It doesn't mean a wedding has zero significance. Ripple in a pond.

[stevie_b]

Charles and Diana's wedding was watched by 1 in 6 people in the world (750 million), and I would put money on that this statistic was skewed towards the UK population. I don't remember any street parties but I do remember lots of people watching it.

 

The cost of the wedding in the scheme of things is pretty small, and could have a net positive effect on the economy due to overseas tourists. I think it could raise the mood generally in th ecountry, as described here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11766777

[supra_aero]

Charles and Diana's wedding was watched by 1 in 6 people in the world (750 million), and I would put money on that this statistic was skewed towards the UK population.

 

I find that statistic incredibly hard to believe. I reckon most of Africa and India wouldn't give two hoots about it. And thats a massive proportion of the world population gone just there.

[Lbm]

Your own post contradicts Mr T. How is there zero significance if it increases sales. That in itself is a significance.

 

Whether you like the fuss or not, to state it has zero significance is utter rubbish. It has an impact whether you like it or not.

 

Front page of the Metro paper* this morning: Increase sales expected of £600m, demand for copies of diana type ring increase by 800% over night. All an impact from the engagement.

 

*I accept the Metro isn't exactly the Economist etc

 

 

 

Are you serious with the above? How is the head of state not an influence? Whole debates in Australia and Canada take place on whether they should provide lip service to the Queen or not. Every law has to be signed off by the queen. I accept that her role is primarily significant

 

 

 

I wonder how many TV channels in how many countries will have the wedding live. Also, if people were not interested why would it be in the media. People are interested but certain individuals are not and thus moan about it.

 

 

 

No one watched it? No one?

 

I note the change of wording from zero significance to total irrelevance.

 

Contradictory one might suggest? You don't agree with a monarchy, I get it. It doesn't mean a wedding has zero significance. Ripple in a pond.

 

I won't answer for Tannhauser, as that in itself would be foolish and probably inaccurate (and annoying); but I can see the lawyer in you at play here; going through things point by point....

[stevie_b]

I find that statistic incredibly hard to believe. I reckon most of Africa and India wouldn't give two hoots about it. And thats a massive proportion of the world population gone just there.

 

My source was the BBC article I linked to in post 122. Other websites seem to use exactly the same figure so they probably all stem from a single estimated source, but I'd like to know what that source was. Anyhow, whatever the actual figure was it's bound to have been huge.