Prince William to marry Kate Middleton

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11765422

Delighted for the happy couple, well any two people who have found love and want to symbolise that with marriage.

But, oh hell, with all my friends getting married left right and centre, now this high profile one, espcially as they're in my age group (28-29), I'm gonna have Ms DDD on my back, big time!

Off to the shoe/handbag shop to get something to calm her down....

Buy her a puppy......oh, no wait!!!!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Perhaps they could recoup some of the cost by putting a streaming video feed of the wedding night on the internet. You know, show that they're techno-aware and into the whole 21st century thing...

And presumably the honeymoon costs will be kept down, because her Mum will get them a free upgrade.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Meh. Isn't someone in North Korea missing you yet?

Stu T

Wallace1492 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I have not forgiven him for wearing an England rugby jersey..Prince of WALES!!!!!!!!!!

I believe it was his Father that is the Prince of Wales.... My father was Irish but I don't support Ireland.... well, not unless thay are playing England

But he is the next Prince of Wales and also Patron of WRU

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Meh. Isn't someone in North Korea missing you yet?

Hadn't you down as one of the fawning masses.

Wallace1492

Stu T wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I have not forgiven him for wearing an England rugby jersey..Prince of WALES!!!!!!!!!!

I believe it was his Father that is the Prince of Wales.... My father was Irish but I don't support Ireland.... well, not unless thay are playing England

But he is the next Prince of Wales and also Patron of WRU

Who cares.... what a stupid title.... Why not bring back Hammer of the Scots.... hold on! That was Thatcher!

stuaff

JonGinge wrote:

suzyb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Oh blah blah socialism blah blah anti-monarchy.

2 people are getting married. Be happy for them.

+1

+2

+3. Good luck to them, regardless of what one thinks of the monarchy.

bigmat

I hope the slaphead horeface fupwit and the social climbing commoner have as happy a marriage as his parents....

Only joking! :P

Sewinman

Wallace1492 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I have not forgiven him for wearing an England rugby jersey..Prince of WALES!!!!!!!!!!

I believe it was his Father that is the Prince of Wales.... My father was Irish but I don't support Ireland.... well, not unless thay are playing England

He is also the Patron of the Welsh Rugby Union.

gtvlusso

StuAff wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

suzyb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Oh blah blah socialism blah blah anti-monarchy.

2 people are getting married. Be happy for them.

+1

+2

+3. Good luck to them, regardless of what one thinks of the monarchy.

+4 - Agreed - good luck! Hope they have a lovely day.

Sewinman

Do you think I would get anywhere with a claim of 'Droit de seigneur'? She is quite fit.

MrChuck

gtvlusso wrote:

StuAff wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

suzyb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Oh blah blah socialism blah blah anti-monarchy.

2 people are getting married. Be happy for them.

+1

+2

+3. Good luck to them, regardless of what one thinks of the monarchy.

+4 - Agreed - good luck! Hope they have a lovely day.

+5

BUT enough is already enough with the coverage. It's just cringeworthy.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Meh. Isn't someone in North Korea missing you yet?

Hadn't you down as one of the fawning masses.

I'm pretty agnostic about them. They're part of what makes this country, so railing against their existence is a bit pointless IMO. I rather think that they serve a useful purpose in maintaining a modest degree of humility in the politicians; I dread to think how self-important the politicians would become if you were to remove the Royals.

Some of the funniest things I have read were in the QM's online book of remembrance. They may even have been fictitious, but they were v amusing.

OTOH, the post-death of Diana national hysteria was appalling to behold. "She was one of us". Err, no mate, she really wasn't. She was completely unlike you.

secretsam

I couldn't care less "what" or "who" they are, and my personal belief system vis-a-vis the monarchy is of no relevance to anyone but me - and in the grand scheme of things, I don't count.

I wish them well, along with the hundreds of other couples who have just agreed to tie the knot. I could do without the media coverage, but it creates jobs and in these troubled times, I guess that's something.

And LiT, Socialism and Republicanism are not the same thing. You can be a raving Tory and be anti-Monarcy - I believe Alan Clark was a republican, and he was hardly a Trot?

jonginge

Sewinman wrote:

Do you think I would get anywhere with a claim of 'Droit de seigneur'? She is quite fit.

Are you lord of her manor?

fnar

W1

MrChuck wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

StuAff wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

suzyb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Oh blah blah socialism blah blah anti-monarchy.

2 people are getting married. Be happy for them.

+1

+2

+3. Good luck to them, regardless of what one thinks of the monarchy.

+4 - Agreed - good luck! Hope they have a lovely day.

+5

BUT enough is already enough with the coverage. It's just cringeworthy.

God yes. We'll be drowning in it before long - and it's still months away!

lost_in_thought

SecretSam wrote:

And LiT, Socialism and Republicanism are not the same thing. You can be a raving Tory and be anti-Monarcy - I believe Alan Clark was a republican, and he was hardly a Trot?

Did I say otherwise?

il_principe

So do we get a day off or don't we?

Sheesh.

greg66_tri_v2.0

JonGinge wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Do you think I would get anywhere with a claim of 'Droit de seigneur'? She is quite fit.

Are you lord of her manor?

fnar

Would you rule her with a rod of iron?

Gnurk.

UpTheWall

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Religion is far more dangerous than the Monarchy....

Ours (monarchy) should be far more symbolic, a tourist attraction, a sort of Royal Disneyland where the tourists can see Her Maj hanging out the washing at Buck Palace. They hold no *real* constitutional power, so should be drastically reduced in number and subsidy. All for keeping it, but on a far smaller scale............... Anyway, it should ne the House of Stuart on the throne, but it was stolen by the Saxe-Coburgs....

Agree about the religion point.

however, you'd be surprised about how much power the queen does have , and indeed still wields.

For example, she appoints the Lord Lieutenants (if I remember the name correctly). They in turn appoint magistrates who judge us in court.

She sees the dispatches of every British diplomat, not to mention all the intelligence reports. She has weekly access to the PM, which I'm sure gives her a fair amount of influence.

Etc.

Wallace1492

UpTheWall wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Religion is far more dangerous than the Monarchy....

Ours (monarchy) should be far more symbolic, a tourist attraction, a sort of Royal Disneyland where the tourists can see Her Maj hanging out the washing at Buck Palace. They hold no *real* constitutional power, so should be drastically reduced in number and subsidy. All for keeping it, but on a far smaller scale............... Anyway, it should ne the House of Stuart on the throne, but it was stolen by the Saxe-Coburgs....

Agree about the religion point.

however, you'd be surprised about how much power the queen does have , and indeed still wields.

For example, she appoints the Lord Lieutenants (if I remember the name correctly). They in turn appoint magistrates who judge us in court.

She sees the dispatches of every British diplomat, not to mention all the intelligence reports. She has weekly access to the PM, which I'm sure gives her a fair amount of influence.

Etc.

But it really is not power.... its symbolic. I am sure she does not see the MI6 and MI5 intelligence reports... she will get a nice, white washed version of things, just to keep her happy. there is no "real" power there. She may symbolically "appoint" Lord Lieutenants, but it will be the politicians that choose them.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

So do we get a day off or don't we?

Sheesh.

They'll probably put it on a Saturday, so if you work Saturdays...

UpTheWall

Wallace1492 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Religion is far more dangerous than the Monarchy....

Ours (monarchy) should be far more symbolic, a tourist attraction, a sort of Royal Disneyland where the tourists can see Her Maj hanging out the washing at Buck Palace. They hold no *real* constitutional power, so should be drastically reduced in number and subsidy. All for keeping it, but on a far smaller scale............... Anyway, it should ne the House of Stuart on the throne, but it was stolen by the Saxe-Coburgs....

Agree about the religion point.

however, you'd be surprised about how much power the queen does have , and indeed still wields.

For example, she appoints the Lord Lieutenants (if I remember the name correctly). They in turn appoint magistrates who judge us in court.

She sees the dispatches of every British diplomat, not to mention all the intelligence reports. She has weekly access to the PM, which I'm sure gives her a fair amount of influence.

Etc.

But it really is not power.... its symbolic. I am sure she does not see the MI6 and MI5 intelligence reports... she will get a nice, white washed version of things, just to keep her happy. there is no "real" power there. She may symbolically "appoint" Lord Lieutenants, but it will be the politicians that choose them.

Paxo doesn't think so: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Friends-High-Pl ... 379&sr=8-1

A surprising read.

rjsterry

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Religion is far more dangerous than the Monarchy....

Ours (monarchy) should be far more symbolic, a tourist attraction, a sort of Royal Disneyland where the tourists can see Her Maj hanging out the washing at Buck Palace. They hold no *real* constitutional power, so should be drastically reduced in number and subsidy. All for keeping it, but on a far smaller scale............... Anyway, it should ne the House of Stuart on the throne, but it was stolen by the Saxe-Coburgs....

Er, the Hanoverians (Saxe-Coburg didn't have anything to do with it until Victoria married Albert, and a Saxe-Coburg didn't rule until Victoria died in 1901) replaced the Stuarts, and were invited to do so on account of the Stuarts being so bad at it. [/knowitall]

Wallace1492

rjsterry wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

End the monarchy.

It is an outdated insitituion with no place in modern society (just like religion).

I doubt the mental well being of any human being who refers another as "Your Majesty"

Religion is far more dangerous than the Monarchy....

Ours (monarchy) should be far more symbolic, a tourist attraction, a sort of Royal Disneyland where the tourists can see Her Maj hanging out the washing at Buck Palace. They hold no *real* constitutional power, so should be drastically reduced in number and subsidy. All for keeping it, but on a far smaller scale............... Anyway, it should ne the House of Stuart on the throne, but it was stolen by the Saxe-Coburgs....

Er, the Hanoverians (Saxe-Coburg didn't have anything to do with it until Victoria married Albert, and a Saxe-Coburg didn't rule until Victoria died in 1901) replaced the Stuarts, and were invited to do so on account of the Stuarts being so bad at it. [/knowitall]

I was just being simplistic, and avoiding a few sentences of typing..... Hanovarians (who later became Saxe Coburg) stole it. Stuarts probably were bad, but wth.

rjsterry

Well, I've just checked on Wikipedia, and technically, the Hanoverians were the most senior non-Catholic descendants of James I. It was actually James's daughter Mary, who overthrew her father (with the help of her husband William).

Also, because Victoria couldn't inherit the German Kingdoms of her husband, they passed to her sons, and while Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, the House of Hanover continued, and the title Prince of Hanover is currently held by Ernest Augustus V, born 1987.

File this for pub quiz use.

TopCat-Si

No way can Wiliam and his bird compare to these

sophidog

well, in reality what have the prospective groom, his parents and grandparents achieved for this country during the groom's lifetime? That's right, not a lot! Once upon a time the Queen could sail off in the Royal Yatch Britannia and drum up trade around the world for this country. Not done that for a long time.....
This evening they're all over the BBC but then again the media are self-serving; they need stories and the royals are a virtually un-ending stream of fodder for them.
As a tax-payer all i can see, or will the costs be hidden, is another family that we will be expected to subsidise.
To a couple in love, ALL THE VERY BEST! Now get out there and pay your own way.

jonginge

sophidog wrote:

well, in reality what have the prospective groom, his parents and grandparents achieved for this country during the groom's lifetime? That's right, not a lot! Once upon a time the Queen could sail off in the Royal Yatch Britannia and drum up trade around the world for this country. Not done that for a long time.....
This evening they're all over the BBC but then again the media are self-serving; they need stories and the royals are a virtually un-ending stream of fodder for them.
As a tax-payer all i can see, or will the costs be hidden, is another family that we will be expected to subsidise.
To a couple in love, ALL THE VERY BEST! Now get out there and pay your own way.

Bzzzt. The treasury gets more from the income generated by the royal family than it gives back in the civil list. These days they pay tax just like the rest of us

NGale

If I cared any less I would be dead....I really care that little and I am peed off at my TV being hijacked by such nonsense.