Royal Wedding :D

itboffin

Loving the still empty roads after yesterdays celebrations, I rode for 50+ mile this morning and barely passed a dozen cars - heaven on two wheels.

Good on our motoring friends for not driving hung over, also loved the post apocalyptic street party look most villages seem to be sporting today, you know its been a good party when there's still clothes and handbags laying in the roads

DonDaddyD

I quite enjoyed it, but then I like the traditions and historic aspects too the Royals. Also became quite the fashion critic for the day...

Personally thought Beckham and Catherine Duchess of Cambridge sister (as did everyother guy - her sister not Beckham) looked fantastic...

lost_in_thought

I hadn't really intended to pay much attention to it, not because I don't like the royals etc, I think they're brilliant, but I was invited to a party at the last minute and am thoroughly glad I went.

Was an excellent show, which actually inspired quite some national pride in me - I'm usually slightly indifferent to that type of thing.

And yeah, even I can see Pippa Middleton is hot!

CiB

TailWindHome wrote:

As long as I live I'll never understand why one human being would consent to being referred to as a 'commoner' and the 'subject' of another.

You're mixing words up to make a point here. Commoner's modern and accepted usage merely refers to anyone not born into the aristocracy, which differs from being 'common' by a long chalk. As for being a subject, so what; what gives? It's just a word; if you want to make a fight of it you're welcome - car park, now - but it's got no more meaning than being a citizen. And when it comes down to it I'm much more relaxed about being a subject of HM, rather than a citizen under President G Brown, T Blair or the fabulously anonymous Herman van Rompuy.

Obviously those of you who live in the metropolis spend most of your working days kow-towing and bowing & scraping to the upper levels of society, but out here in RestOfWorld it's never affected me one jot, being a commoner & a subject to some woman who's done a pretty damn fine job of being titular Head Of State of the constitutional monarchy for the best part of 60 years.

Up to you if you want to come over all victim mentality about it though.

Gawd bless 'em eh. Especially Phil The Greek. Top bloke.

DonDaddyD

Actually a commoner is a person who is neither sovereign nor a peer. So Princess Beatrice or Prince Harry (of Wales) - by extension of his father) are commoners.

There was a massive thing on the BBC about it - it was a precursor to the old British class structure: Lower, working, middle, upper and blue blood/peer/sovereignty etc

Only thing I can is on wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoner ... ed_Kingdom

Also you'll find people in the commonwealth and those in countries bought under England's rule having issues with being subjects/commoners. Yet when you consider alternatives like
Presidents (America) or Dictatorship dynasty's (middle east, china and Japan). I think most would find being a subject not that bad and also gives the most civil liberties...

tailwindhome

Was going to come back on the comments above but having ventured onto Wikipedia to check out the line of sucession to the British Throne I have a question which initrigues me.

If a bomb had gone off in Westminister Abbey wiping out the entire congregation, who would have been King or Queen?


Would King Harald of Norway (68th in line) be in with a shout?

Was someone selected in advance to be left off the guest list just in case...(I think I seen this on an epsiode of the West Wing, a random cabinet member didn't attend the State of the Union)

Interesting way to select your Head of State.

rjsterry

CiB wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

As long as I live I'll never understand why one human being would consent to being referred to as a 'commoner' and the 'subject' of another.

You're mixing words up to make a point here. Commoner's modern and accepted usage merely refers to anyone not born into the aristocracy, which differs from being 'common' by a long chalk. As for being a subject, so what; what gives? It's just a word; if you want to make a fight of it you're welcome - car park, now - but it's got no more meaning than being a citizen. And when it comes down to it I'm much more relaxed about being a subject of HM, rather than a citizen under President G Brown, T Blair or the fabulously anonymous Herman van Rompuy.

Obviously those of you who live in the metropolis spend most of your working days kow-towing and bowing & scraping to the upper levels of society, but out here in RestOfWorld it's never affected me one jot, being a commoner & a subject to some woman who's done a pretty damn fine job of being titular Head Of State of the constitutional monarchy for the best part of 60 years.

Up to you if you want to come over all victim mentality about it though.

Gawd bless 'em eh. Especially Phil The Greek. Top bloke.

Hear, hear!

In the snippets I saw when coming in from the garden for a cuppa, I was struck by how much more relaxed and genuinely happy everyone looked, compared with other state occasions. Some of the coverage was best watched with the sound off, though; if you can't think of anything intelligent to say, best to keep it shut, but apparently the rule is to not leave more than two empty seconds of air time.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

As long as I live I'll never understand why one human being would consent to being referred to as a 'commoner' and the 'subject' of another.

You're mixing words up to make a point here. Commoner's modern and accepted usage merely refers to anyone not born into the aristocracy, which differs from being 'common' by a long chalk. As for being a subject, so what; what gives? It's just a word; if you want to make a fight of it you're welcome - car park, now - but it's got no more meaning than being a citizen. And when it comes down to it I'm much more relaxed about being a subject of HM, rather than a citizen under President G Brown, T Blair or the fabulously anonymous Herman van Rompuy.

Obviously those of you who live in the metropolis spend most of your working days kow-towing and bowing & scraping to the upper levels of society, but out here in RestOfWorld it's never affected me one jot, being a commoner & a subject to some woman who's done a pretty damn fine job of being titular Head Of State of the constitutional monarchy for the best part of 60 years.

Up to you if you want to come over all victim mentality about it though.

Gawd bless 'em eh. Especially Phil The Greek. Top bloke.

Not quite sure how you have interpreted a 'victim mentality' from my post.

Things we can agree on

- it was a very well organised spectacle
- the current monarch has been a great Head of State
- best wishes to any couple starting out in marriage


Things we won't agree on

- the Head of State should not be decided by accident of birth, while the current monarch has not an excellent job in the role I wouldn't be so convinced about her son or her as yet unborn great grandchild. Give me an elected head of state and an elected House of XXXX

- anyone standing in a crowd staring up to a balcony, hoping that the family on the balcony give them a wave is stark raving bonkers

Clever Pun

I was in Copenhagen and it recieved a lot of attention over there, even more bloody bunting

of my 12 hotel channels 9 of the buggers covered the wedding.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Things we won't agree on

- the Head of State should not be decided by accident of birth, while the current monarch has not an excellent job in the role I wouldn't be so convinced about her son or her as yet unborn great grandchild. Give me an elected head of state and an elected House of XXXX

If this was a prelude to another Restoration period then I would stand by your side, you with a kilt and pitch fork. Me with a spear and my shoulders covered in a cape made from a skinned lion.

But its not the 17th Century, Cromwell for the most part won. The Monarchy do not rule and their 'job' (Head of State) has little to do with running the country. So I'm not sure what the issue is.I simply don't understand why people get so uppity about the Monarchy.

As for accident of birth, I would argue that if Cameron had someone elses less fortunate parents he wouldn't be Prime Minister. Ironically Thatcher being the large exception to th rule methinks.

- anyone standing in a crowd staring up to a balcony, hoping that the family on the balcony give them a wave is stark raving bonkers

Never been to a wedding then? Lots of standing around looking at the happy couple as they greet the World anew and together.

Oh come on. What is they say about love? "Two people finding each". It was just a nice thing to see. Sheesh.

rick_chasey

I was hoping for a royalist vs republican debate.

I really fancied one.

Rather like the royal wedding it's fun to get worked up about stuff that is totally irrelevant to people's lives, beyond pub and office chat.

walkingbootweather

I was hoping for a how hot is Pippa Middleton mass debate.

I really fancied her.

Kieran_Burns

I bet her boyfriend's a bit narked off with all the debate about her and Harry

asprilla

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/cele ... 105033766/

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I bet her boyfriend's a bit narked off with all the debate about her and Harry

Not to mention Chelsy Davy.

DonDaddyD

Thing is, like Vicky Pendelton, Pippa ain't all that fit on a day to day basis. She was however hot on that day (I mean it was the Royal Wedding if you can't scrub up for that then...) and benefitted from a +4 charm factor because she was a Bridemaids and in Man-speak means 'easy pickings'.

Another thing is, I just don't get the Royalist vs Republican issue. We (England) haven't had need for a Royal vs Republic fight for several hundred years. The Royals don't rule, they don't command. They're in place because they are in some way linked to the history of the Country and to some that history is fascinating. There attachment to their heritage is no different, in my mind, to a kid saying "My Grandad fought in the War" albeit on a much larger scale. To say that the Royals have no place, that they shouldn't be proud of their heritage is a load of rubbish IMO. It's interesting and the fact they exist does little to harm the subjects of this Country. In fact I see a benefit to it.

I personally would hate to live in a Republic (America) and if people come up with the 'accident of birth' argument they are deluding themselves. It was no accident of birth that the current cabinet in this Country is 'by and large' an Etonian boy's club.

Kieran_Burns

rjsterry wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I bet her boyfriend's a bit narked off with all the debate about her and Harry

Not to mention Chelsy Davy.

That's the girl trying to make her face look like Harry's hair, right?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

. It's interesting and the fact they exist does little to harm the subjects of this Country. In fact I see a benefit to it.

I personally would hate to live in a Republic (America) and if people come up with the 'accident of birth' argument they are deluding themselves. It was no accident of birth that the current cabinet in this Country is 'by and large' an Etonian boy's club.

Thanks for biting

Firstly, where are the benefits? If tourism is cited, I'd like to use Paris as an example, where Versailles is one of the world's most visited palaces. You don't need royals living and breathing for them to attract tourists.

Secondly, just because the cabinent is full of etonians, doesn't mean that a) it's not an issue, nor b) that one can't prefer a nation state to have no royals and no entitlement.

The royal argument also extends to the HoL, which certainly is more relevant (and as such, less fun to argue)...

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

. It's interesting and the fact they exist does little to harm the subjects of this Country. In fact I see a benefit to it.

I personally would hate to live in a Republic (America) and if people come up with the 'accident of birth' argument they are deluding themselves. It was no accident of birth that the current cabinet in this Country is 'by and large' an Etonian boy's club.

Thanks for biting

Firstly, where are the benefits? If tourism is cited, I'd like to use Paris as an example, where Versailles is one of the world's most visited palaces. You don't need royals living and breathing for them to attract tourists.

Secondly, just because the cabinent is full of etonians, doesn't mean that a) it's not an issue, nor b) that one can't prefer a nation state to have no royals and no entitlement.

The royal argument also extends to the HoL, which certainly is more relevant (and as such, less fun to argue)...

I saw mileage in the topic so I began to chew...

OK, why is it people only want to assess the tangible benefits from the Royals. What about National Pride, Heritage and Identity? They like the NHS are a English institution that gives this Country a sense of identity not just for those within it, but for those outside it looking in. The Royals are in themselves their own entity whose ancestors rightly and sometimes wrongly paved the way for us to have this debate. To deny them that personally and to remove our acknowledgement of that, I feel, would tear something away from Britain.

In addition as for my Etonian comment my point is that it's all an accident of birth. Whether you are born blue blood or Wayne Rooney. Griping about the Royals being an accident of birth so luckly they're given a Country is fruitless.

I know nothing about the House of Lords except that its one massive piss-up.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

It was no accident of birth that the current cabinet in this Country is 'by and large' an Etonian boy's club.

My son can be in that cabinet, he can even be Prime Minister, he is however constitutionally excluded from being the monarch.

True it's unlikely to become an issue but still.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

. It's interesting and the fact they exist does little to harm the subjects of this Country. In fact I see a benefit to it.

I personally would hate to live in a Republic (America) and if people come up with the 'accident of birth' argument they are deluding themselves. It was no accident of birth that the current cabinet in this Country is 'by and large' an Etonian boy's club.

Thanks for biting

Firstly, where are the benefits? If tourism is cited, I'd like to use Paris as an example, where Versailles is one of the world's most visited palaces. You don't need royals living and breathing for them to attract tourists.

Secondly, just because the cabinent is full of etonians, doesn't mean that a) it's not an issue, nor b) that one can't prefer a nation state to have no royals and no entitlement.

The royal argument also extends to the HoL, which certainly is more relevant (and as such, less fun to argue)...

I struggle to see how anybody can accept subservience to the royal family, even if in real terms they have no real "power" (which is debatable). I would feel extremely uncomfortable bowing for the queen (albeit she'd get the respect that a lady of her age who has performed the duties she has performed warrants). As for the rest of them, I'd be happy for them to get on with whatever they do at their own expense, but see no reason why I should be classified as their "subject" and would much prefer an elected head of state.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

In addition as for my Etonian comment my point is that it's all an accident of birth. Whether you are born blue blood or Wayne Rooney. Griping about the Royals being an accident of birth so luckly they're given a Country is fruitless.

But isn't this really the point? Nobody is born "blue blood" or otherwise. We are all human beings, we should be considered equal. This applies to all sorts of issues - race, faith, gender, sexual orientation, and "class". Having a hereditary monarchy is entirely inconsistent with this approach. Whilst on a day to day basis they don't really bother me too much, as a point of principle I would rather see them abolished and I actually think that might help pave the way for more radical social equalisation than we have previously managed in this country.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

I saw mileage in the topic so I began to chew...

OK, why is it people only want to assess the tangible benefits from the Royals. What about National Pride, Heritage and Identity? They like the NHS are a English institution that gives this Country a sense of identity not just for those within it, but for those outside it looking in. The Royals are in themselves their own entity whose ancestors rightly and sometimes wrongly paved the way for us to have this debate. To deny them that personally and to remove our acknowledgement of that, I feel, would tear something away from Britain.

In addition as for my Etonian comment my point is that it's all an accident of birth. Whether you are born blue blood or Wayne Rooney. Griping about the Royals being an accident of birth so luckly they're given a Country is fruitless.

I know nothing about the House of Lords except that its one massive wee-wee-up.

I tend to agree that the benefits of anything don't necessarily need to be tangible...

I do however think that the heritage and identity side is overplayed. There are many many nations who have both without current royals. Often, the heritage is purer and less tabloid since they're already gone - rather than being papped begging for money from a shake, or turning up in a Hitler costume to party.

With regard to being born - the difference is that those with talent still have to work with said talent to achieve something. Royals, do not. They're basically people who get a very big benefit pay cheque and a prime council house(s) - only they have better accents and don't need to go to the post office to receive their dole money.

I find it odd that those in my office who are so rabidly anti-benefits of any kind will vehemently defend royal privilege.

DonDaddyD

BigMat wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In addition as for my Etonian comment my point is that it's all an accident of birth. Whether you are born blue blood or Wayne Rooney. Griping about the Royals being an accident of birth so luckly they're given a Country is fruitless.

But isn't this really the point? Nobody is born "blue blood" or otherwise. We are all human beings, we should be considered equal.

We aren't born equal. FACT as individuals or into the Family and privledges that come with that (money, wealth etc). Humans aren't born equal and society is structured in a way to prevent us from being equal. It is in our nature not to be equal, to desire and aspire it's partly due to that nature why there are examples of Monarchy's around the World.

as a point of principle I would rather see them abolished and I actually think that might help pave the way for more radical social equalisation than we have previously managed in this country.

Abolishing money would go further than abolishign the Monarchy ever could.

I don't think they should be abolished, their ancestors earned the right of the position and they have adapted effectively not to be overthrown as in some Countries.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

We aren't born equal. FACT as individuals or into the Family and privledges that come with that (money, wealth etc). Humans aren't born equal and society is structured in a way to prevent us from being equal. It is in our nature not to be equal, to desire and aspire it's partly due to that nature why there are examples of Monarchy's around the World.

.

Ideally, we should all be born with an equal chance, whether we are born with more or less talent than others.

It's not for nothing the PC term in Holland for the poor is the "opportunity poor", because that's what it really is. It's about having the chance to be socially and economically mobile.

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

My son can be in that cabinet, he can even be Prime Minister, he is however constitutionally excluded from being the monarch.

Some might say that was a blessing.

The two options for an elected head of state seem to be on the one hand a sort of glorified X Factor popularity contest, or a kind of retirement plan for senior ex-politicians. If the head of state is apolitical, they can't really have a manifesto or similar, so on what basis would you choose one candidate over another? Also, as they wouldn't have a direct effect on people's daily lives, I imagine voter turn-outs would be even lower than European Parliament elections.

notsoblue

I think that whatever opinion you hold in principle about the monarchy in this country, its pretty hard to argue that they aren't benign. They have no real political power, and everything they do publically is to please the royalists/nationalists that just love to love a monarch. About the worst abuse of their position I can think of is Price Charles' ridiculous endorsement of homeopathy.

They're a symbolic institution, millions of people love them, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them other than it goes against the principle of egalitarianism. Which lets face it, can't ever really be anything more than a principle in a meritocracy.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ideally, we should all be born with an equal chance, whether we are born with more or less talent than others.

It's not for nothing the PC term in Holland for the poor is the "opportunity poor", because that's what it really is. It's about having the chance to be socially and economically mobile.

As long as people have that chance, does it really matter what makes someone the head of state?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ideally, we should all be born with an equal chance, whether we are born with more or less talent than others.

It's not for nothing the PC term in Holland for the poor is the "opportunity poor", because that's what it really is. It's about having the chance to be socially and economically mobile.

As long as people have that chance, does it really matter what makes someone the head of state?

I don't understand?

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

My son can be in that cabinet, he can even be Prime Minister, he is however constitutionally excluded from being the monarch.

Some might say that was a blessing.

[/quote]

He's not that bad.