Whos wedding is it anyway

27 Apr 2011

The young couple have not invited, Gordon brown or Tony blair to their wedding
Labour supporters say its an insult ......why dunno

I thought that i was the couples right to invite who they wished , and after all its only a bloody wedding ffs

27 Apr 2011

Well, as usual, weak arguments issuing forth from the drivelling, snivelling opposition.
When Prince Charles married the fruit cake Diana, he was (as now) the Prince Regent and Heir to the Throne and there would have been a more political slant on it, certainly in those days.
Prince William is second in line to the throne and not yet the Prince Regent so it more a family affair as it was with Anne and Charles' other siblings.
I'm really pleased that it is being de-politicised as much as it can be given the inevitable State involvement and the other drivellers are being sidelined by the fact that the Middletons are making a financial contribution to the whole affair thereby blowing the snot from the other sniveller's noses. It can't be easy for the Middletons to be honest, if you think about it.
At the end of the day, I'm sure the two of them would just have preferred a nice quiet wedding in Kate's home town church like any other normal couple could expect without all the razzmatazz and media frenzy which the public is demanding. It can't happen of course because the groom is very public property but I don't think that the absence of Bliar and Brown will cause them any lost sleep, particularly as I doubt either of them would be high on the Middletons list of "must haves" for a right good family do. The Beckhams are not my favourite choice either, but I can see why they have managed the "A" list.
Besides, Grandmama probably couldn't stand the sight of Bliar or Brown either and She's probably footing at least part of the bill :grin:

27 Apr 2011

I think it is horrendously sad. Two people who (let's assume) love each other, want to plight their troth as a public statement of their mutual commitment and what happens?
They get to invite, maybe, 20 people each and the rest are increasingly remote rellies and people the (very temporary) government of the day want to butter up. If it served the government's purposes they would invite Gaddaffi and Mugabe.
I wish they would announce they had already got married at a small Welsh chapel, with REAL guests, and to "go ahead and enjoy the ceremony but we are off to the Seychelles."

28 Apr 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
I think it is horrendously sad. Two people who (let's assume) love each other, want to plight their troth as a public statement of their mutual commitment and what happens?
They get to invite, maybe, 20 people each and the rest are increasingly remote rellies and people the (very temporary) government of the day want to butter up. If it served the government's purposes they would invite Gaddaffi and Mugabe.
I wish they would announce they had already got married at a small Welsh chapel, with REAL guests, and to "go ahead and enjoy the ceremony but we are off to the Seychelles."

You mean, they've NOT been invited? :shock:
Yes foxy, wouldn't that be great. They've made so much of the "lookalikes" in the press recently, perhaps it will be their half hour of fame whilst the real players are off enjoying themselves watching the proceedings on the telly like everyone else :grin:

28 Apr 2011

well..forget Blair or Brown.....I'm a Middleton...and I not got my invite yet !!
Come on cousin....get one in the post and quick !!

28 Apr 2011

We got ours... got all excited
then I put my glasses on and realised it was a demand to complete an SATR. lol

28 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
watching the proceedings on the telly like everyone else

not everybody will be watching it on the telly. we are off at 3 thgis morning to find a nice little spot by buck house.
we are royal lovers in this house and we hope it all goes swimmingly.
good luck to the soon to be royal couple

28 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
watching the proceedings on the telly like everyone else

not everybody will be watching it on the telly.
Yep, quite a few of us will be avoiding the overly expensive and excessively hyped unelected inbred family wedding as much as possible :sleeping:

29 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
enjoying themselves watching the proceedings on the telly like everyone else :grin:

Not everyone is watching it at all. I doubt even a majority give a stuff.

29 Apr 2011

Watching weddings I dont know about but polls actually seem to show that a majority of the British public actually wants to keep the monarchy and the amount wanting to keep it has risen in the last 5 years.
We watched it, was not planning too but little Tweeky wanted to see a princess biggrin

Even littler Tweeky aged just two found the whole thing quite fascinating and kept saying "Princess ohh pretty". Being honest it was quite nice sitting down with a cuppa and watching it with two kids and not having to listen to the endless amounts or Royal bitching.

29 Apr 2011

I have to admit to watching some of it....Kate's sister looked very sexy in that dress, especially from behind silly

hwoar:

29 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777
I have to admit to watching some of it....Kate's sister looked very sexy in that dress, especially from behind hwoar:

Is she still available :rascal:

29 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
I have to admit to watching some of it....Kate's sister looked very sexy in that dress, especially from behind hwoar:

Is she still available :rascal:
Depends how well Harry performed the best man's duties wink

30 Apr 2011

Quote by meat2pleaseu
Yep, quite a few of us will be avoiding the overly expensive and excessively hyped unelected inbred family wedding as much as possible :sleeping:

had a fantastic day yesterdsay and if it cost 100 million pounds to stage it brought a lot of joy to millions of peeple.
the cost is nothing compared to the billions of pounds thrown away at the banks and that never made any one happy except the bankers.
for a swingers site where peeple should be a bit more tolerent there are some horrid peeple with some horrid ways of expressing there views. thankfully after yesterdays events peeple with attitudes of nastyness are in the minority. it was worth every penny.
how melancholy some peeple can be in life
the hymn they chose Jerusalem summed it up
in this green and pleasant land :thumbup:

30 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

Yep, quite a few of us will be avoiding the overly expensive and excessively hyped unelected inbred family wedding as much as possible :sleeping:

had a fantastic day yesterdsay and if it cost 100 million pounds to stage it brought a lot of joy to millions of peeple.
the cost is nothing compared to the billions of pounds thrown away at the banks and that never made any one happy except the bankers.
for a swingers site where peeple should be a bit more tolerent there are some horrid peeple with some horrid ways of expressing there views. thankfully after yesterdays events peeple with attitudes of nastyness are in the minority. it was worth every penny.
how melancholy some peeple can be in life
the hymn they chose Jerusalem summed it up
in this green and pleasant land :thumbup:
I wouldn't call myself a royalist then I have nothing against them either. I also have no problem with people who dont believe in having a monarchy thats their right in the political system we live in. However you will find that most let themselves down by bitching personally about the family its self or members of it. Its a bit like a starving Ethiopian having a bitch about me. Sadly some of us are just better off by situation of birth and there is actually not a lot we can do about it. So as soon as the remarks become personal I loose any interest in any anti monarchy views that they have as they as obviously skewed.

30 Apr 2011

Quote by meat2pleaseu
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another

30 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

30 Apr 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution innocent

30 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution innocent

After Henry VIII died in mid 16th century, every royal consort was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd cousins to the sovereign. Henry's daughter married her first cousin once removed, Phillip II of Spain in 1554. The first marriage to a more distant relation was in 1923 when the future George VI married his 13th cousin (the future Queen Mother). But her daughter (the present day Queen Elizabeth) married her 2nd cousin once removed. Charles intended to marry his 2nd cousin, but she turned him down because an IRA bomb killed her grandfather, grandmother, and little brother. After that tragedy she no longer wanted to marry into the royal family, but chose to marry someone who wasn't famous.
Diana is Charles's 7th cousin once removed, and Camilla is his 11th cousin. Camilla is actually closer related to her stepson Prince William.
wink

30 Apr 2011

Quote by meat2pleaseu
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution innocent

After Henry VIII died in mid 16th century, every royal consort was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd cousins to the sovereign. Henry's daughter married her first cousin once removed, Phillip II of Spain in 1554. The first marriage to a more distant relation was in 1923 when the future George VI married his 13th cousin (the future Queen Mother). But her daughter (the present day Queen Elizabeth) married her 2nd cousin once removed. Charles intended to marry his 2nd cousin, but she turned him down because an IRA bomb killed her grandfather, grandmother, and little brother. After that tragedy she no longer wanted to marry into the royal family, but chose to marry someone who wasn't famous.
Diana is Charles's 7th cousin once removed, and Camilla is his 11th cousin. Camilla is actually closer related to her stepson Prince William.
wink

Both George W Bush and Jimi Hendrix are claimed to be 13th cousins of Queen Elizabeth. I may be wrong but I suspect that when you get down to that level we are all probably interrelated.

30 Apr 2011

:shock: wow that is keeping it in the family.
Mind you, I heard that everyone in the world is related to Charlemagne. Don't ask me to explain it properly but it is the double the rice principal
It goes along the line of reverse principal to the rice, where after so many generations that everyone must have a common ancestry.........how that works I have no idea, just saw it on QI lol

Dave_Notts

30 Apr 2011

I think I'm related to Adam and Eve...
bolt

30 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution innocent

After Henry VIII died in mid 16th century, every royal consort was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd cousins to the sovereign. Henry's daughter married her first cousin once removed, Phillip II of Spain in 1554. The first marriage to a more distant relation was in 1923 when the future George VI married his 13th cousin (the future Queen Mother). But her daughter (the present day Queen Elizabeth) married her 2nd cousin once removed. Charles intended to marry his 2nd cousin, but she turned him down because an IRA bomb killed her grandfather, grandmother, and little brother. After that tragedy she no longer wanted to marry into the royal family, but chose to marry someone who wasn't famous.
Diana is Charles's 7th cousin once removed, and Camilla is his 11th cousin. Camilla is actually closer related to her stepson Prince William.
wink

Both George W Bush and Jimi Hendrix are claimed to be 13th cousins of Queen Elizabeth. I may be wrong but I suspect that when you get down to that level we are all probably interrelated.
i think on average its somewhere between 15th-20th removed, which is enough to dilute the gene pool past the puddle stage of marrying your cousin :wink:

30 Apr 2011

Quote by flower411
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth
That may be the case but sometimes the "truth" is not always worthy of mention and some people may utter truths simply to attempt to upset others.
The whole "inbred" thing appears somewhat spurious when it seems that we are talking about 7th or 8th cousins ....I mean, seriously are you sure of your own origins ?
I honestly can`t see a problem after 2nd or 3rd cousins, although I`m sure you will be able to google studies with rats or sheep that suggest there`s a problem !!
I`d hazzard a guess that there are villages all over the world that frequently have liasons between much closer related people on a regular basis.
My question would be "why do you feel it worthy of comment when it involves the royal family ?"
Because the royals have pretty much kept being royal like an exclusive little club where only the family are worthy and the rest of us are just the fodder to bow down to their greatness, while there may also be some degree of interbreeding in pockets of the country the royals have made it an art through either a fear of letting in the peasant bloodline or an arrogance that they're somehow of a better class than the majority- while its not quite the case now i can't see how they can be held up as some sort of shining symbol of Englishness when they have very little of our genes in them and they aren't exactly overly English either.
I'm not exactly anti monarchist, but i think the amount of baggage that comes with them is ridiculous. just how many castles and palaces do they need? Buckingham, Clarance House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Kensington, Balmoral.... The monarchy has grown excessively rich from the taxes imposed on the rest of us. In these times of austerity for the general population, maybe its time to trim the fat from the monarchy too- maybe Andrew could get a proper job instead of his appointment as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment- which mainly seems to involve him jetting around the world on tax payers money to play golf and schmooze with quite a few shady characters, still, i'm sure a career in the navy means he's more than qualified for a role in international business rolleyes

30 Apr 2011

Quote by meat2pleaseu
I'm not exactly anti monarchist, but i think the amount of baggage that comes with them is ridiculous. just how many castles and palaces do they need? Buckingham, Clarance House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Kensington, Balmoral.... The monarchy has grown excessively rich from the taxes imposed on the rest of us.

the first point i highlite :laughabove::laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
the second point i highlite we as a nation would be much poorer without them. what would you like in its place exactly?
let us have what france or usa have, a president. a federal reublic of britain. now that shgould please you and maybe a few others on here.
i really dislike peeple who hate the royals based purely on there wealth.

i will qote the following from that
Envy can also derive from a sense of low self-esteem that results from an upward social comparison threatening a person's self image:
sort of makes perfect sense that does to me. bye wave

30 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

I'm not exactly anti monarchist, but i think the amount of baggage that comes with them is ridiculous. just how many castles and palaces do they need? Buckingham, Clarance House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Kensington, Balmoral.... The monarchy has grown excessively rich from the taxes imposed on the rest of us.

the first point i highlite :laughabove::laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
the second point i highlite we as a nation would be much poorer without them. what would you like in its place exactly?
let us have what france or usa have, a president. a federal reublic of britain. now that shgould please you and maybe a few others on here.
i really dislike peeple who hate the royals based purely on there wealth.

i will qote the following from that
Envy can also derive from a sense of low self-esteem that results from an upward social comparison threatening a person's self image:
sort of makes perfect sense that does to me. bye wave

Maybe you're having difficulty understanding the argument, thus perpetuating the 'they're better than us' idea silly

atshead:
The monarchy is like an overgrown corporation thats been in existence for so long it has difficulty adapting to change. like any corporation it needs to examine its structure and how it fits within the society it serves- currently it is in need of streamlining a little. At no point have i said it needs eradicating rolleyes

What i dislike about the Monarchy is the assumption that they are above the rest of us by nothing more than the family they were born into- and for this we're supposed to bow are call them 'highness'.
You were quite happy to claim that a reference to their documented inbreeding is somehow offensive, yet i find it just as offensive that the general public should be considered as less worthy than the members of this certain family. With Prince Phillip telling British students in China that they would go 'Slitty Eyed' if they stayed too long, Andrew being associated with arms dealers and sex offenders and Harry dressing up as a Nazi (although the last one is a shaky argument as he's more likely not the offspring Charles) is this really a good basis for reverence? Respect has to be earned, The Queen has done an excellent job on the whole, quite a few other members of the family are a little lacking.
As for having a President instead, that merely gives us two people in charge of the country....we wouldn't want that would we?
I don't dislike the Monarchy purely on their wealth, as you state, but i have serious issues about the abuse of power and privilege shown by many 'senior' figures in this country who should know better, and seem to have forgotten that they need to serve and respect us if they wish that respect and servitude to be reciprocated.
I've left you dummy on the side as you forgot to take it with you when you left :roll:

1 May 2011

Quote by meat2pleaseu
inbred family

these kind of unnessecery comments i feel are uncalled for. opinions are one thing but nastyness is quite another
The truth is never unnecessary uncalled for or nasty it is just the truth

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution innocent

After Henry VIII died in mid 16th century, every royal consort was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd cousins to the sovereign. Henry's daughter married her first cousin once removed, Phillip II of Spain in 1554. The first marriage to a more distant relation was in 1923 when the future George VI married his 13th cousin (the future Queen Mother). But her daughter (the present day Queen Elizabeth) married her 2nd cousin once removed. Charles intended to marry his 2nd cousin, but she turned him down because an IRA bomb killed her grandfather, grandmother, and little brother. After that tragedy she no longer wanted to marry into the royal family, but chose to marry someone who wasn't famous.
Diana is Charles's 7th cousin once removed, and Camilla is his 11th cousin. Camilla is actually closer related to her stepson Prince William.
wink

Both George W Bush and Jimi Hendrix are claimed to be 13th cousins of Queen Elizabeth. I may be wrong but I suspect that when you get down to that level we are all probably interrelated.
i think on average its somewhere between 15th-20th removed, which is enough to dilute the gene pool past the puddle stage of marrying your cousin :wink:
Flower has a valid point re the interbreeding of the general population. If we are classing 7th and 11th cousins as interbreeding, then prior to the industrial revolution I'm sure it must have been rife and probably is still fairly common today. The only difference between Royalty and the rest of us in that respect, is that their lineage is clearly documented.

1 May 2011

Quote by Max777
Flower has a valid point re the interbreeding of the general population. If we are classing 7th and 11th cousins as interbreeding, then prior to the industrial revolution I'm sure it must have been rife and probably is still fairly common today. The only difference between Royalty and the rest of us in that respect, is that their lineage is clearly documented.

It's definitely rife around where I work!
Fully agree with Flower on this one. The only difference between us and the royals, is the interbred family they are born into.
Having said that, I still like having a royal family. And I watched the wedding, and cried. Because I cry at weddings anyway, soppy me.

1 May 2011

I love your idea of the new Monarchy Meaty biggrin

Lets strip them of everything make them normal people who we dont bow to and then still pry into every aspect of their lives photograph them at ever opportunity. Wow thats sounds like a really ......... shit deal actually lol

If I was a Royal and that was the deal on the table I'd tell you to do flipa

with it.
Sadly we are not all equal on this world like I am not equal to the starving millions as I have food and money we are not equal to the Royalty as they have eeerrrrmmm more food and money :lol: Such is life. Theirs is not as rosie as it seems. Yeh they have money but depending where you sit in the Royal family your choices in life are pretty limited. Nothing better to cause rebellion in a person than restriction regardless of who you are. If I were to be a Royal then Id like to be pretty far down the chain one of the ones that does not get much press attention but some access to the purse. I certainly wouldn't want to be anyone from Prince Edward upwards. Not sure who actually gets access to the purse now? Didnt we already cut that back about 15 years ago?
One other thing is we do need to keep a lot of the infrastructure in place. The castles palaces etc are what make the Royals profitable as they generate more for the country in tourism and related sales than they cost us. Ex Royal castles and palaces are not so attractive to foreigners.

1 May 2011

The claim to the crown is historically by divine right.....there is no God they have no right.
I object to being a subject and not a citizen
I object to the notion of rank through birth
I do not care how much they do or don't cost
I do not care how much they have, give, or are given
The idea of a monarchy in a 'democracy' is anachronistic to say the least
The royal family are dinosaurs and like dinosaurs should be extinct

Quote by starlightcouple

i will take step one on this i feel
many peeple may well decide step 3
long live the revelution

The idea that anyone joins a debate with the idea that they are not right is ridiculous....why do I always think I'm right but you are of course ACTUALLY right....read your own link it applies to every conributor here you included
"Before you get into a debate, be honest with yourself about your relative knowledge on the subject at hand. Do you actually know what you're talking about? If the answer is "no" then just nod and go do something else."
I, you may have noticed leave many many threads well alone.....go figure