|
I've read that only 1/3 of english people polledsaid they would even bother to watch it- as an english person still in an economic recession, it is ludicrous to have an additional bank holiday that costs the economy millions just for a wedding for a royal family that can easily afford to finance it themselves (and yet taxpayers money is wasted on advertising it)...
Kind of ironic since (In my area of Britain at least) the entire place turned into a ghost town during the wedding.
As I have said elsewhere on this subject..If I were not already a Republican then today would have made me oneInteresting. At the risk of igniting a political battle, why is that? I don't get the connection.Ah I see the confusion..I don't mean Republican as in a Member of the US Republican Party
I'm Scottish..I believe the Royals are a bunch of lazy parasites who stop our country from reaching it's full potential and that a Presidential system of government should replace monarchical rule.
I also believe that Scotland would be far better off if we were to claim our Independence and drop the rock around our neck that is England and Wales.But that's a point for another thread.
I agree with you 100%, and this is the thread for Scottish Independence!!!
|
|
I have no doubt that the royal family, maybe even the Queen herself, ordered the death of Princess Diana. Her death in France had too many unanswered questions. She was chased to her death by photographers? Her bodyguard was drunk? Something stinks here, really bad. Maybe when William is King he will finally uncover the truth.
And we have gone into paranoid tinfoil hat conspiracy theory land.
I've read that only 1/3 of english people polled said they would even bother to watch i...Kind of ironic since (In my area of Britain at least)
the entire place turned into a ghost town during the wedding.
How is that ironic?
That would just be consistent with you living in a disproportionately ´royal loving´ part of Britain.|
|
I've read that only 1/3 of english people polled said they would even bother to watch i...Kind of ironic since (In my area of Britain at least)
the entire place turned into a ghost town during the wedding.How is that ironic?
That would just be consistent with you living in a disproportionately ´royal loving´ part of Britain.
It is ironic since I live in what is supposed to be a disproportionately Royal hating part of Britain. For the lass few weeks most of the talk had been about how no one here would bother watching it .
OK, that wasn´t so clear from your post. So you didn´t watch, yourself, I take it?
I think the main thing you can get from polls like that is that people can be amazingly irrational or conflicted.
My crazy old aunt had tons of memorabilia from the Charles-Di Wedding...
Amongst the rest of her collection of ´artistic´ porcelain covering every inch of her walls, etc...
I have no doubt that the royal family, maybe even the Queen herself, ordered the death of Princess Diana. Her death in France had too many unanswered questions. She was chased to her death by photographers? Her bodyguard was drunk? Something stinks here, really bad. Maybe when William is King he will finally uncover the truth.And we have gone into paranoid tinfoil hat conspiracy theory land.
Well, it's a royal wedding so you better have Philip Treacy design your tinfoil hat.
I read a piece on this and purportedly the royal family is actually a fairly lucrative asset for Britain basically due to the amount of tourist dollars that it brings in.
People come to see the Castles and Palaces..they would still be there if the Mountbatten-Windsors were thrown out off them.As for the Pagentry it could easily be shifted to an elected head of State.
I'm not so sure. In Europe you can't really go five feet without tripping over a castle. Something about 'living' royalty makes a lot of people very excited when many of the same people would consider a seeing similar architecture that was just about a king/queen that died hundreds of years ago unbelievably boring and certainly not comparable to going to a place that is hot and has a nice beach or is famous for its food.
I'm not a royalist, nor republican - but quietly proud we have managed, through luck more than judgement, to retain an apolitical head of state. The monarchy costs us far less than a president would do, and how would you get a president? You'd vote for them. Or perhaps you wouldn't, there's no guarantee of that. And is any one individual more deserving of the role - and more likely to get it? We all know the most deserving hardly ever get their rewards.
The status quo is a far cheaper option. The royals work very hard for this country, and to change it for something just "different" rather than "better" smacks of a far more ludicrous waste of money, or perhaps simple jealousy.
Having an apolitical (and let's not forget "powerless") head of state is a huge asset, however we arrived at it.
I wish them all the best.
I'm not a royalist, nor republican - but quietly proud we have managed, through luck more than judgement, to retain an apolitical head of state. The monarchy costs us far less than a president would do, and how would you get a president? You'd vote for them. Or perhaps you wouldn't, there's no guarantee of that. And is any one individual more deserving of the role - and more likely to get it? We all know the most deserving hardly ever get their rewards.
The status quo is a far cheaper option. The royals work very hard for this country, and to change it for something just "different" rather than "better" smacks of a far more ludicrous waste of money, or perhaps simple jealousy.
Having an apolitical (and let's not forget "powerless") head of state is a huge asset, however we arrived at it.
I wish them all the best.
I wish them nothing. A powerless head of state is a useless head of state. Either abolish the monarchy or give them absolute power again. The status quo is unacceptable...
I wish them nothing. A powerless head of state is a useless head of state. Either abolish the monarchy or give them absolute power again. The status quo is unacceptable...
Well, that's sad.
I can differentiate between wishing them happiness as a couple in love, and wishing them other things as a couple of future monarchs.
|
I wish them nothing. A powerless head of state is a useless head of state. Either abolish the monarchy or give them absolute power again. The status quo is unacceptable...I'm not a royalist, nor republican - but quietly proud we have managed, through luck more than judgement, to retain an apolitical head of state. The monarchy costs us far less than a president would do, and how would you get a president? You'd vote for them. Or perhaps you wouldn't, there's no guarantee of that. And is any one individual more deserving of the role - and more likely to get it? We all know the most deserving hardly ever get their rewards.
The status quo is a far cheaper option. The royals work very hard for this country, and to change it for something just "different" rather than "better" smacks of a far more ludicrous waste of money, or perhaps simple jealousy.
Having an apolitical (and let's not forget "powerless") head of state is a huge asset, however we arrived at it.
I wish them all the best.
Thank you for your insightful views on the British political system.
|
|
I've read that only 1/3 of english people polled said they would even bother to watch i...Kind of ironic since (In my area of Britain at least)
the entire place turned into a ghost town during the wedding.How is that ironic?
That would just be consistent with you living in a disproportionately ´royal loving´ part of Britain.
Actually, I don't think that really sums up the national mood. Most people are not "royalists" or "republicans" with ardent views, but rather consider the status quo to be acceptable and then don't worry about it. And the pageantry is interesting to watch. I doubt there are that any "royal-loving" or "royal-hating" parts of the UK (well, maybe Northern Ireland, but that's an unusual case anyway) - even Alec Salmond has said the Queen would be the head of state in an independent Scotland.
|
|
Disagree with this entirly but as you say a topic for a diffrent thread.
I also believe that Scotland would be far better off if we were to claim our Independence and drop the rock around our neck that is England and Wales.But that's a point for another thread.
Whatever happened to the "arc of prosperity" Salmond used to talk about? You know - from an independent Scotland, to Ireland and Iceland? Oh yeah...
Elected politicians, actually, cost us a lot more.Especially the ones from Scotland*, who, as Wellard correctly pointed out, should be forbidden from standing for office in the UK.
*Of course, Brown was never elected PM, but that didn't stop him being given the job in a sleazy backroom deal, so he could flush our economy down the crapper.
That is not what I said..I said I believe in Independence..but as long as we are a colony of Rump British Empire we should be entitled to a say in national matters.
|
|
As you well know, you were hardly colonised - the Scots were bribed into the Act of Union and the politicians of the day hoovered up the cash with alacrity (after a disastrous attempt at colonisation themselves emptied their own coffers). Tell me - how would an independent Scotland have coped with the collapse of both RBS and HBOS? Maybe as a Scot you don't realise that many of us in England would happily see you go, since it would be a financial bargain for us, both before and after the collapse of the banking boom.
|
The wedding was utterly depressing.
Bread and Circuses distracting fawning, cap-doffing, forelock-tugging pseudo-yokels who have bought into the myth of upper-class superiority.
It was interesting (sorry, disgusting) to see the newlywed royals showing their political colours (Tory ex-PMs invited, but not Labour).
On the royals in general, I like the Irish system of an elected but apolitical head of state. However, I am sure that if we changed to an elected head-of-state we would copy the terrible American system so I'll take the royals as a compromise.
I just wish we, as a society, recognised that this kind of obsequiousness is the reason that our leaders come from a small coterie of private schools and elite universities. People who live in cosseted worlds of privilege may have advantages but they also commonly share certain character flaws and have a limited perspective.
The assumed superiority of the upper-classes is a stain on our nation, I wish we could stop being so daft about it.
|
|
Watched it. Loved it. Kate looked great, pretty in a nice 'girl next door' sort of a way. Harry was a hoot - not able to keep a straight face at all, and his sharing of a laugh with Prince Philip on the balcony was a wonderfully 'normal' wedding moment. It's good to get the occassional glimpse of the royals as a normal family. The battle of britain flypast is always cool too.
I'm not complaining about an extra day's paid holiday either! More cash for us workers, even if it costs the rich guy who employs us a bit - I'm all for that!
Huge crowds in London and an estimated 5,000 street parties around the country would suggest that most of us found it pretty enjoyable - a bit of pomp and circumstance never hurt, and in a pretty depressing time (although, let's face it, nothing like it was back in the bad-old days of Thatcherism and miners strikes I recall from my youth) it's good to give national pride a little boost.
Just my ha'penny's worth - although it seems to be against the grain in this thread... ;)
I am an Australian and William and Kate for better or worse will be the King and Queen of Australia some time in the future just as Elizabeth the 2nd of Britain is the Queen of Australia now.....
Oddly the majority of Australians want to maintain the status quo of our Constitutional Monarchy with the Head of State living as far away as possible... because it works, we have had no civil wars, no political assassinations, we are very wealthy and probably one of the most advanced democracy's on the planet (we introduced the secret ballot, we were the second country in the world to give women the vote)- why rock the boat?
Those who want a republic talk about the minimalist model the Queens Representative (the Governor General) retains all of the powers and customs of the Monarch of Australia and is elected by 2/3rds the majority of Parliament so we don't have a presidential situation.
I would happily go with the minimalist model as having our Monarch live in another country is a little silly. I wouldn't mind if we imported a Monarch as long as they did what they do now, hand out medals and open important events and nothing else.
|
|
Do you have strong feelings about it? I find it irritating. In these financially difficult times, it seems to me, an uncouth American, that the monarchy is a parasite on the people of Britain.
Then perhaps you could explain why increasing numbers of US citizens want to surrender to the Commonwealth and have a Parasitic Monarch on the Currency rather than one vile failure elected to absolute power by the most electorally prolific minority after the next?
No The Monarchy is purely the personage. We could shoot the Royal pains tomorrow and go on with a crown on an empty throne. Under the laws of the Commonwealth which britain is desperatly deserting to join Europe, the Crown (and thus the Commonwealth) is absolute - the Monarchy is not.
Thats why Sedition includes in its broad definition 'any act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Government, law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt is a seditious act' and being an assault on the Commonwealth, an Act of Treason.
Basically it means ya all requires the direct and regular approval of every citizen, or ya is guilty of Sedition and Treason.
Royalty don't mean s~%~ here in the US so as far as I'm concerned it's just another celebrity wedding I don't give a crap about.
Then perhaps you could explain why increasing numbers of US citizens want to surrender to the Commonwealth and have a Parasitic Monarch on the Currency rather than one vile failure elected to absolute power by the most electorally prolific minority after the next?
Actually, American currency is pretty free from "vile failure[s] elected to absolute power." We don't follow the tradition, as old as parasitic monarchy, of putting the current ruler on our money.
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton
Andrew Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Sacajawea
Susan B. Anthony
Now, I'm not a big fan of all of these guys, but I do have to say that every single one of them, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson, was cooler than Elizabeth II, even if GW raped one of Citizen Dingo's ancestors (as he's claimed in the past).
Also, although I'm sure they exist, I've never met any American who wants to "surrender to the Commonwealth".
Liberte, egalite, fraternite!
|
|
Then perhaps you could explain why increasing numbers of US citizens want to surrender to the Commonwealth and have a Parasitic Monarch on the Currency rather than one vile failure elected to absolute power by the most electorally prolific minority after the next?
Actually, American currency is pretty free from "vile failure[s] elected to absolute power." We don't follow the tradition, as old as parasitic monarchy, of putting the current ruler on our money.
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton
Andrew Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Sacajawea
Susan B. AnthonyNow, I'm not a big fan of all of these guys, but I do have to say that every single one of them, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson, was cooler than Elizabeth II, even if GW raped one of Citizen Dingo's ancestors (as he's claimed in the past).
Also, although I'm sure they exist, I've never met any American who wants to "surrender to the Commonwealth".
Liberte, egalite, fraternite!
Even if I slightly take umbrage at the "Who's cooler than QE2" element of this, I think it is also worth noting that the President of the US does not have absolute power and never has had, due to the numerous checks and balances in the US constitution.
I think it is also worth noting that the President of the US does not have absolute power and never has had, due to the numerous checks and balances in the US constitution.
Neither does Liz 2.0.... Hank 1.0's Charter of Liberties, The Barons Magna Carta, Charlie 1.0's Petition of Right, The Bill of Rights presented to Billy and Maz by Parliment when the Glorious Revolution settled the mess left by the Stuarts and The Act of Settlement that ironed out what the Royals should and shouldn't do re government which was stay out of it, or we get a bit Cromwellian on your royal arses.
The Monarch is a ceremonial rubber-stamp that provides tradition and stability.
Liz 2.0 her Dad George 4.0 and her mum have my admiration and respect for not buggering off to Canada when the poo hit the fan in the early 1940's. They stayed in London during the blitz and did their bit to keep the British Empire fighting tyranny when everybody else had thrown in the towel or were hesitating because it was a "Euro" problem.
Also, although I'm sure they exist, I've never met any American who wants to "surrender to the Commonwealth".
I'd prefer a unitary parliamentary system to just about anything, which probably counts as surrendering to the Commonwealth to some.
Argh!!!!!! Here tooo!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, what it the fascination? Why is it so hard to avoid yesterday? Even going to a job interview I couldn't escape the unelected spungers, or their new 'commoner' in laws.* While I wish the happy couple all the best (as I would anyone else getting married or entering a civil partnership) I see not one reason why half the flaming world seems to be fascinated with the damned thing, let alone the fact that it has been allowed to steal the news cycle in the last full week of campaigning before only the second national referendum this country has ever seen. The monarchy of this country are still afforded astounding privilege and while they steal away the dignity of being citizens in our own nation. I can think of only one good thing about them, and that is that they give me yet another thing to get angry about.
The fact that they have got us talking about pretty dresses, rather than vicious cuts by a government without mandate, and have allowed themselves to be a smoke screen to detract from the referendum on electoral reform is a disgrace.
*for the record you burks who have been harping on about the fact that Kate is from a middle class family, will you kindly go do something horrible to your self, the Middletons are not 'middle class, they are super rich, their children privately educated and they have about as much in common with people at Mean and median incomes as they do with snails. for god sake, I went to school with people who stood to inheret hereditary titles who where less posh than this family.
I think it is also worth noting that the President of the US does not have absolute power and never has had, due to the numerous checks and balances in the US constitution.
Neither does Liz 2.0.... Hank 1.0's Charter of Liberties, The Barons Magna Carta, Charlie 1.0's Petition of Right, The Bill of Rights presented to Billy and Maz by Parliment when the Glorious Revolution settled the mess left by the Stuarts and The Act of Settlement that ironed out what the Royals should and shouldn't do re government which was stay out of it, or we get a bit Cromwellian on your royal arses.
The Monarch is a ceremonial rubber-stamp that provides tradition and stability.
Liz 2.0 her Dad George 4.0 and her mum have my admiration and respect for not buggering off to Canada when the poo hit the fan in the early 1940's. They stayed in London during the blitz and did their bit to keep the British Empire fighting tyranny when everybody else had thrown in the towel or were hesitating because it was a "Euro" problem.
Hey dwarf....we'll swap them for the Sidney opera house, and your weather... But you have to take Murdoch and his papers back too.
Then perhaps you could explain why increasing numbers of US citizens want to surrender to the Commonwealth and have a Parasitic Monarch on the Currency rather than one vile failure elected to absolute power by the most electorally prolific minority after the next?
Actually, American currency is pretty free from "vile failure[s] elected to absolute power." We don't follow the tradition, as old as parasitic monarchy, of putting the current ruler on our money.
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton
Andrew Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Sacajawea
Susan B. AnthonyNow, I'm not a big fan of all of these guys, but I do have to say that every single one of them, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson, was cooler than Elizabeth II, even if GW raped one of Citizen Dingo's ancestors (as he's claimed in the past).
Also, although I'm sure they exist, I've never met any American who wants to "surrender to the Commonwealth".
Liberte, egalite, fraternite!
Dude....Charles Darwin... the contest is over, the winner is clear, thank you good night.
|
|
The fact that they have got us talking about pretty dresses, rather than vicious cuts by a government without mandate, and have allowed themselves to be a smoke screen to detract from the referendum on electoral reform is a disgrace.*for the record you burks who have been harping on about the fact that Kate is from a middle class family, will you kindly go do something horrible to your self, the Middletons are not 'middle class, they are super rich, their children privately educated and they have about as much in common with people at Mean and median incomes as they do with snails. for god sake, I went to school with people who stood to inheret hereditary titles who where less posh than this family.
No your quite right we shouldent bother having days of happiness we should spend all our time being angry and miserable.
I used to wonder how they could possibly put Princess Anastasia up against a wall.
How much longer will the great nation of Scotland allow themselves to be under the boot of England and their fake monarchy?! I cry out for Scottish Independence!!!
Sorry Zombieneighbours - Its been raining and miserable in Sydney for two weeks now (It looks like you poms have already nicked our weather). Murdoch is a Yank now and he can stay there, no Australian wants him or his ill-begotten spawn back in the country.
If you send Kylie (with the volume turned down) back we promise to ship Dannnnniiiiiii and Brian McFadden off to New Zealand or some other unimportant little outpost of the Empire and not let them leave.
Your list of British superstars - Shakespeare dude.... blows every other muthafrakker off the stage, then Newton, Darwin, Bacon, Locke.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton ... I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences"
I could not disagree more. The problems that England has would quickly be solved if they gave the Queen back actual power. Right now the Queen is just a really rich, famous, but powerless woman. If she had her power restored to her, and the true head of the state and church, then she could very quickly solve England's financial and moral problems. I would abolish the House of Common's and the Prime Minister immeaditely. I would, of course, leave the House of Lords and give them back real power.Do you have strong feelings about it? I find it irritating. In these financially difficult times, it seems to me, an uncouth American, that the monarchy is a parasite on the people of Britain.
Okay, now I *know* Leafar is a caricature of me. Who's pullin' my leg?
How much longer will the great nation of Scotland allow themselves to be under the boot of England and their fake monarchy?! I cry out for Scottish Independence!!!
Hmm...lacks consistency.
I often wonder what universe some posters may live in. Such a sad and lonely place it must be.
Argh!!!!!! Here tooo!!!!!!!!!Well if you dont want to read about it dont click on the thread clearly titled The Royal Wedding.
Non-argument. The contense of the thread isn't what annoys me. It is the very thread. Entering the thread to make comment on the unelected spungers and the con-DEM'ed government does not make me more frustrated. To have not been annoyed by the thread, i would have to have not seen it at all.
|
|
Non-argument. The contense of the thread isn't what annoys me. It is the very thread. Entering the thread to make comment on the unelected spungers and the con-DEM'ed government does not make me more frustrated. To have not been annoyed by the thread, i would have to have not seen it at all.Argh!!!!!! Here tooo!!!!!!!!!Well if you dont want to read about it dont click on the thread clearly titled The Royal Wedding.
Then dont come to a section of the boards that talks about such things is all I can suggest.
No your quite right we shouldent bother having days of happiness we should spend all our time being angry and miserable.
The fact that they have got us talking about pretty dresses, rather than vicious cuts by a government without mandate, and have allowed themselves to be a smoke screen to detract from the referendum on electoral reform is a disgrace.*for the record you burks who have been harping on about the fact that Kate is from a middle class family, will you kindly go do something horrible to your self, the Middletons are not 'middle class, they are super rich, their children privately educated and they have about as much in common with people at Mean and median incomes as they do with snails. for god sake, I went to school with people who stood to inheret hereditary titles who where less posh than this family.
Celebration and happiness are all well and good. It is entirely possible to have national holidays that perform that function on a yearly basis without a monarchy.
The UK has plenty to celebrate. From shakespeare, Newton and Darwin, right through to the NHS, BBC, our music, poetry, art, and universities. We have awesome things to celebrate, so why the monkey are we expected to get excited about two young adults from wealthy families getting married. Especially when said marriage is used as a smoke screen for a further 37% cut to the NHS. The most politically unpopular policy of a uk government since the pole tax.
|
|
No your quite right we shouldent bother having days of happiness we should spend all our time being angry and miserable.
The fact that they have got us talking about pretty dresses, rather than vicious cuts by a government without mandate, and have allowed themselves to be a smoke screen to detract from the referendum on electoral reform is a disgrace.*for the record you burks who have been harping on about the fact that Kate is from a middle class family, will you kindly go do something horrible to your self, the Middletons are not 'middle class, they are super rich, their children privately educated and they have about as much in common with people at Mean and median incomes as they do with snails. for god sake, I went to school with people who stood to inheret hereditary titles who where less posh than this family.
Celebration and happiness are all well and good. It is entirely possible to have national holidays that perform that function on a yearly basis without a monarchy.
The UK has plenty to celebrate. From shakespeare, Newton and Darwin, right through to the NHS, BBC, our music, poetry, art, and universities. We have awesome things to celebrate, so why the monkey are we expected to get excited about two young adults from wealthy families getting married. Especially when said marriage is used as a smoke screen for a further 37% cut to the NHS. The most politically unpopular policy of a uk government since the pole tax.
and back to conspiracy theory land. You make it sound like the two decided to marry just to take the heat off of the goverment for a policy they have done.
and back to conspiracy theory land. You make it sound like the two decided to marry just to take the heat off of the goverment for a policy they have done.No your quite right we shouldent bother having days of happiness we should spend all our time being angry and miserable.
The fact that they have got us talking about pretty dresses, rather than vicious cuts by a government without mandate, and have allowed themselves to be a smoke screen to detract from the referendum on electoral reform is a disgrace.*for the record you burks who have been harping on about the fact that Kate is from a middle class family, will you kindly go do something horrible to your self, the Middletons are not 'middle class, they are super rich, their children privately educated and they have about as much in common with people at Mean and median incomes as they do with snails. for god sake, I went to school with people who stood to inheret hereditary titles who where less posh than this family.
Celebration and happiness are all well and good. It is entirely possible to have national holidays that perform that function on a yearly basis without a monarchy.
The UK has plenty to celebrate. From shakespeare, Newton and Darwin, right through to the NHS, BBC, our music, poetry, art, and universities. We have awesome things to celebrate, so why the monkey are we expected to get excited about two young adults from wealthy families getting married. Especially when said marriage is used as a smoke screen for a further 37% cut to the NHS. The most politically unpopular policy of a uk government since the pole tax.
Mmm... Not sure how you got to that. This isn'tg conspiracy theory material. Their choice of date has nothing to do with it. But spin doctors know their job. Friday was a good day to bury bad news, and being skilled professionals, that is exactly what number 10's spin doctors did.
|
|
Mmm... Not sure how you got to that. This isn'tg conspiracy theory material. Their choice of date has nothing to do with it. But spin doctors know their job. Friday was a good day to bury bad news, and being skilled professionals, that is exactly what number 10's spin doctors...
Correct and it is also reasonable to assume that if the wedding hadent happend they would have found some other event to try and bury the bad news as you say burying bad news is a spin doctors job.
Correct and it is also reasonable to assume that if the wedding hadent happend they would have found some other event to try and bury the bad news as you say burying bad news is a spin doctors job.
Mmm... Not sure how you got to that. This isn'tg conspiracy theory material. Their choice of date has nothing to do with it. But spin doctors know their job. Friday was a good day to bury bad news, and being skilled professionals, that is exactly what number 10's spin doctors...
Short of another 9/11, they would have struggled to find a day big enough to bury that as successfully as they did. We gave them the oppotunity, on a silver platter. For what? Why on earth do you actually think this marriage was something worth celebrating?
|
|
All well and good but it actually has jack-s@$! to do with the royal wedding as such. Spin doctors will use any occasion to bury bad news. So your views on their efficacy (and their sponging is much less expensive than a lot of similar arrangements - the cost of the civil list is £7m, for example - Wikipedia is great) don't really match with the issue you are raising. We can go on about Shakespeare and Locke and so on but, honestly, it isn't really a good excuse for a knees-up. Sadly (or not - I'm not bothered), the Royal Family are part of our heritage too.
All well and good but it actually has jack-s+!* to do with the royal wedding as such. Spin doctors will use any occasion to bury bad news. So your views on their efficacy (and their sponging is much less expensive than a lot of similar arrangements - the cost of the civil list is £7m, for example - Wikipedia is great) don't really match with the issue you are raising. We can go on about Shakespeare and Locke and so on but, honestly, it isn't really a good excuse for a knees-up. Sadly (or not - I'm not bothered), the Royal Family are part of our heritage too.
Their are a range of arguments against the monarchy. Most of them to long and complex to post from my phone. The civil list is only one of the elements of royal privilage, and is almost a non-issue in the economic argument. The tax status of the royal family and their assets, their land ownership and much else besides all play a much larger part.
As far as the wedding itself. Number ten has been deeply involved in the planning and excution of the big day. It isn't a coincidence that the week end was an official bank holiday ahead of the teeth of the cut coming in, nor i suspect that the AV vote and local elections fall so close to the big day.
The birth of arguably the most important scientist to ever live, or the naming of our languages greatest writer being less worthy of a national knees up than the marriage of a single couple of no meaningful import is a sad enditment of our country.