Hey there, I am inquiring on your opinions on The Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate. Please use the poll and, if you want, write in!
In my opinion, I don't care, and in a way, disapprove. I thought when democracy moved in, we wanted to RID our selves the form of government that terrorized us(us being the Europeans, the ancestors of my country) for centuries, and yet we are celebrating it?
Sorry, I didn't mean to be an *BLEEP*. Go ahead and discuss!
P.S. Sorry if this is spam or has been posted already, but you got to give me credit for posting it in the off-topic forum.
Like all public spectacles involving the royal family, it's a Satanic ritual. They're all reptillian shapeshifters out to rule the world. They should be nuked out of existence. Or that's what David Icke says, anyway. I personally see them as expensive pets who serve no real purpose.
warpcrafter wrote:Like all public spectacles involving the royal family, it's a Satanic ritual. They're all reptillian shapeshifters out to rule the world. They should be nuked out of existence. Or that's what David Icke says, anyway. I personally see them as expensive pets who serve no real purpose.
Damn expensive...
Other than being the largest private landholders (after the Catholic Church, which is an Institution) they also receive a tithe from the countries of the Commonwealth... for doing nothing... absolutely nothing.
When they visit AUS, the taxpayers foot the bill...
As I am sure Fraz would say if someone not from America was talking about American issues in a negative way...
... Actually... no... just because you are not English doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your view
Personally, I don't really care either way. I think it is good that we still have our royal family - they give us something unique. It would be nice if they had to make more of their own money rather than being funded by the taxpayer, but Prince Charles (future King) does a lot of things like making natural jams (which are actually very nice), etc as well as a lot of work with charities.
Regards the wedding - I will possibly watch parts of it, but I am not going to watch the FIVE HOUR WARM UP SHOW that the BBC is apparently doing (probably on all of their channels as well - curses!).
Like it or not, it is history, and they are still important in British society and politics.
warpcrafter wrote:Like all public spectacles involving the royal family, it's a Satanic ritual. They're all reptillian shapeshifters out to rule the world. They should be nuked out of existence. Or that's what David Icke says, anyway. I personally see them as expensive pets who serve no real purpose.
Damn expensive...
Other than being the largest private landholders (after the Catholic Church, which is an Institution) they also receive a tithe from the countries of the Commonwealth... for doing nothing... absolutely nothing.
When they visit AUS, the taxpayers foot the bill...
*sigh*
I think you'll find that the actual financial burden of the royal family is much less imposing, through tourism alone they make up for any costs imposed on the public, and they do far more than that.
I'm all for it by the way, nice to see some celebration in the news than the usual evil portents.
AvatarForm wrote:
Other than being the largest private landholders (after the Catholic Church, which is an Institution) they also receive a tithe from the countries of the Commonwealth... for doing nothing... absolutely nothing.
Seriously though, the politicans are such scumbags.. why do people desperately want rid of the Royals, and we want a "president" instead. Remember Bush? Nixon? Regan?
I have a theory...
Like patriotism, ambition is no virtue. Sure its ok in small amounts, but it never ends well. Really ambitious people are really awful people, because they know what they want and they will do anything to get it, and step on anyone to achieve it. Succesful politicians are by and large, extremely ambitious, thats why they are successful, and thus the seeds of our downfall are sewn.
Someone like The Queen however, has little ambition, because she was born into privelage, she has always had the castles and the fame, so she doesnt thirst for more of it. She lives to serve us, and serve us she has.
The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
The MPs have been raping us so much of late, the gak storm has still not died down, several were tried and one is in prison (Labour I love to add)
Blair lied, and sent everyones kids off to war, while his own kids went off to Harvard.
The MPs have done that badly, I say we give the monarchy another chance! Scrapping all the MPs would save us about a billion pounds more than scrapping the monarchy, and we can just get them back in if we ever get another bonkers monarch!
Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why this has so captivated American media. I'm wishing they'd just hurry up and tie the knot already, so I don't have to hear about this crap anymore. It's a wedding, whooopity dooo!
congrats on getting married. I don't care at all, but happy news beats the daily 'x died, x burned down, x was broken into, x was raped' that our media usually greets the sun with every morning.
streamdragon wrote:Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why this has so captivated American media. I'm wishing they'd just hurry up and tie the knot already, so I don't have to hear about this crap anymore. It's a wedding, whooopity dooo!
My thoughts exactly. The theory of monarchy's form of government sickens me, so I really dislike monarchs (but that's just my opinion on the ones back from the 1600's kind of monarchs, so I might just be delusional).
I also think we're stuck in the past. I say we should let them go for democracy's and freedom's sake.
Personally, I don't trust them. I bet they are like Necrons, just waiting to rise up again and take power.
mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, the politicans are such scumbags.. why do people desperately want rid of the Royals, and we want a "president" instead. Remember Bush? Nixon? Regan?
I have a theory...
Like patriotism, ambition is no virtue. Sure its ok in small amounts, but it never ends well. Really ambitious people are really awful people, because they know what they want and they will do anything to get it, and step on anyone to achieve it. Succesful politicians are by and large, extremely ambitious, thats why they are successful, and thus the seeds of our downfall are sewn.
Someone like The Queen however, has little ambition, because she was born into privelage, she has always had the castles and the fame, so she doesnt thirst for more of it. She lives to serve us, and serve us she has.
The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
The MPs have been raping us so much of late, the gak storm has still not died down, several were tried and one is in prison (Labour I love to add)
Blair lied, and sent everyones kids off to war, while his own kids went off to Harvard.
The MPs have done that badly, I say we give the monarchy another chance! Scrapping all the MPs would save us about a billion pounds more than scrapping the monarchy, and we can just get them back in if we ever get another bonkers monarch!
Land of hope and glory, Mother of the free...
Luco wrote:congrats on getting married. I don't care at all, but happy news beats the daily 'x died, x burned down, x was broken into, x was raped' that our media usually greets the sun with every morning.
Huh, sucks to be 'x'.
Personal feelings? Not bothered, hope the stuff sold because of it balances out whatever we lose from the bank holiday though.
I couldn't care less about the wedding, however a free holiday is always welcome.
As for the royal family in general, they bring in more money from tourism than they cost us, so i'm happy for them to stay. However I would prefer they were a bit more active, they should do something for all the money they get.
I don't really understand everyone love of them, they don't really do anything and apart from being born into a family (pure luck) they are just normal people. They aren't inspirational, i'm sure if I was paid so much money to do nothing I would have time to sit around looking good and helping charities. Having to do nothing and having very little power means they can say a lot of good things because in the end they won't ever face a challenge.
mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, the politicans are such scumbags.. why do people desperately want rid of the Royals, and we want a "president" instead. Remember Bush? Nixon? Regan?
I have a theory...
Like patriotism, ambition is no virtue. Sure its ok in small amounts, but it never ends well. Really ambitious people are really awful people, because they know what they want and they will do anything to get it, and step on anyone to achieve it. Succesful politicians are by and large, extremely ambitious, thats why they are successful, and thus the seeds of our downfall are sewn.
Someone like The Queen however, has little ambition, because she was born into privelage, she has always had the castles and the fame, so she doesnt thirst for more of it. She lives to serve us, and serve us she has.
The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
The MPs have been raping us so much of late, the gak storm has still not died down, several were tried and one is in prison (Labour I love to add)
Blair lied, and sent everyones kids off to war, while his own kids went off to Harvard.
The MPs have done that badly, I say we give the monarchy another chance! Scrapping all the MPs would save us about a billion pounds more than scrapping the monarchy, and we can just get them back in if we ever get another bonkers monarch!
I agree, power does tend to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. What I am saying is that if we give them another chance they will have absolute power (that's the idea of monarchy, ain't it?) meaning that we will yet again live in fear and oppresion. At least we can vote the dumbasses in office out after four years, but monarchs rule until they're dead. Which can be decades. can you imagine? DECADES of terror.
But you do make a point that I am thinking about as we speak.
4M2A wrote:I couldn't care less about the wedding, however a free holiday is always welcome.
As for the royal family in general, they bring in more money from tourism than they cost us, so i'm happy for them to stay. However I would prefer they were a bit more active, they should do something for all the money they get.
I don't really understand everyone love of them, they don't really do anything and apart from being born into a family (pure luck) they are just normal people. They aren't inspirational, i'm sure if I was paid so much money to do nothing I would have time to sit around looking good and helping charities. Having to do nothing and having very little power means they can say a lot of good things because in the end they won't ever face a challenge.
I'm not sure where people get this whole idea that HM the Queen has no power - constitutionally, She has considerable power as head of state. It's just customary that She doesn't exercise that power, what with the UK being a relatively stable and extremely prosperous nation for several hundred years, and all...
Like patriotism, ambition is no virtue. Sure its ok in small amounts, but it never ends well. Really ambitious people are really awful people, because they know what they want and they will do anything to get it, and step on anyone to achieve it. Succesful politicians are by and large, extremely ambitious, thats why they are successful, and thus the seeds of our downfall are sewn.
The problem of course is that you rarely find unambitious people with the qualities needed to lead large numbers of people.
Ok I didn't mean she has no power at all. While england is stable and running correctly she isn't able to do anything without causing serious problems (randomly shutting down government will cause some issues). Since this is the normal state of the country she has effectively no power.
Also the power she legally has and how this works in real life is very different. The laws that let her shut down government are from a time when the royal family still had considerable influence. Since then their control has been decreasing. If a corrupt government did take over (one of the reasons she can take control) she would have the right to stop government but whether she had the power to is very different.
mattyrm wrote:
Like patriotism, ambition is no virtue. Sure its ok in small amounts, but it never ends well. Really ambitious people are really awful people, because they know what they want and they will do anything to get it, and step on anyone to achieve it. Succesful politicians are by and large, extremely ambitious, thats why they are successful, and thus the seeds of our downfall are sewn.
Someone like The Queen however, has little ambition, because she was born into privelage, she has always had the castles and the fame, so she doesnt thirst for more of it. She lives to serve us, and serve us she has.
The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
I so agree with this. Not just regarding the monarchy, but also the House of lords. We got so many zany bills through under Blair because the upper house was reduced to a rubber stamp of self interested ex politicians and toadies and the House of Commons is filled with self serving graspers.
Hereditary peers like Her Majesty have nothing to gain, no votes to lie for and are for the most part content to serve the public.
With a population who equate 'voting' to the X Factor, and nationhood to football I am firmly of the opinion that too much democracy is a bad thing.
mattyrm wrote:
The MPs have been raping us so much of late, the gak storm has still not died down, several were tried and one is in prison (Labour I love to add)
Blair lied, and sent everyones kids off to war, while his own kids went off to Harvard.
The MPs have done that badly, I say we give the monarchy another chance! Scrapping all the MPs would save us about a billion pounds more than scrapping the monarchy, and we can just get them back in if we ever get another bonkers monarch!
Blair was the first prime minister to refuse to report in person, or indeed in later years to Her Majesty. Brown followed suit, though the little gak didnt have Blair's chutzpah, so he sent HM e-mails, nice of him. I was pleased to hear that Cameron has gone back to the old system of reporting in person to Her Majesty weekly. The benefit of this over a republic is direct continuous accountability. It is seething to know that the distain for accountability, rather than any love of progress was the reason Blair changed thre system. I think given the chance he would make the UK like North Korea, and if it wasn't true of him it was certainly true of his wife. Cherie Blair showed transparent disrespect even to the person of the Queen herself, and from what I heard to her face. Its also fairly well known around Westminster that Cherie Blair wanted rid of the monarchy, and from what we know of her, progress had little to do with that either. The plan was to turn Buckingham Palace into a Presidential palace, and she would live there. Blair for all his scumbaggery knew that there was no way he would survive trying to unseat the Queen. I could well have happened though if Prince Charles took the throne, in fact Cherie Blair was personally behind the abortive movement to guarantee and formalise succession under statute law. To make it illegal for the monarchy to skip a generation and promote Prince William, which is increasingly likely to be what will happen. If Charles ever becomes king, we will very likely be the last one, Prince William takes after his mother and grandmother and is looking to make an excellent king, and a popular king is a republican's worst nightmare.
On aside neither Blair nor Brown are invited to the wedding. Miliband is as are Cameron, Major and Thatcher. I think there is a message there. Frankly I wonder if the engagement itself was put off until New Labour were out of office.
Warlord Gazghkull Thraka wrote:..............................................
I agree, power does tend to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What I am saying is that if we give them another chance they will have absolute power (that's the idea of monarchy, ain't it?) meaning that we will yet again live in fear and oppresion. At least we can vote the dumbasses in office out after four years, but monarchs rule until they're dead. Which can be decades. can you imagine? DECADES of terror.
But you do make a point that I am thinking about as we speak.
Yyou do not know exactly what HM the Queen can and cannot do.
The royal family do not have absolute power, nor indeed does any head of state in a democracy.
The Queens primary power (other than xray vision and super strength) is the ability to dissolve parliment and appoint prime ministers. Usually this is done as and when elections are held and she will request that the winner forms a government. Ultimately though the Queen can enact this power at anytime that there is a problem with the government. It is usually considered a check against anyone becoming a tyrant in the UK (see Cromwell and the Kings before him), the Queen therefore serving the citizens in guarding justice and fair rule.
How does a little old lady do this - The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown and not the Government.
Personally I like the Queen (she’s had a real good innings so far), Charles seems like just the chap (bit quirky) to take up the mantle and William is doing his bit by marrying a stunner!
Orlanth wrote:On aside neither Blair nor Brown are invited to the wedding. Miliband is as are Cameron, Major and Thatcher. I think there is a message there.
I think most British royalists are agreed that Wills will make an excellent King, which is great because it's looking increasingly likely that he will be our next monarch. I'm not convinced that HRH Prince Charles will survive to accede to the throne, given that his mother doesn't look like she's going anywhere, and he certainly isn't getting any younger.
I must be in the minority, given that I actually think he would make a decent, if unspectacular King. His position is looking a little more secure these days, anyhow...
Saying that, I would be unsurprised if he abdicated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote:What the hell is up with this hype? Everywhere I got, it's on the radio, tv or people are talking about it.
Some couple is getting married, big friggen deal.
The 'big friggen deal' is that the couple in question will one day be King and Queen of 7 countries (iirc), including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand...
If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
I have no objection to him being King for a short while and as Albatross says, it will be a short while.
Flashman wrote:If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
Ah, how we'll laugh when he ascends to the throne, sheds his mortal bindings and reveals himself to be the Dark Lord Cthulhu.
Flashman wrote:If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
I have no objection to him being King for a short while and as Albatross says, it will be a short while.
AvatarForm wrote:
Other than being the largest private landholders (after the Catholic Church, which is an Institution) they also receive a tithe from the countries of the Commonwealth... for doing nothing... absolutely nothing.
Flashman wrote:If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
I have no objection to him being King for a short while and as Albatross says, it will be a short while.
At least he wasn't named John.
I remember reading that Arthur is one of the names he could use when he ascends to the throne. Imagine that! King Arthur!
Flashman wrote:If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
I have no objection to him being King for a short while and as Albatross says, it will be a short while.
At least he wasn't named John.
I remember reading that Arthur is one of the names he could use when he ascends to the throne. Imagine that! King Arthur!
You would, wouldn't you?
Nah, I'd be cool with being King J and being a right royal pimp.
I really hope that Charles doesn't abdicate - I think he would be a great king. Plus it gives William a bit more time to make his place in the world, make contacts, etc.
On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
If we do become independent it will spoil my plans to be knighted
On a serious note I don't see why we need to become a republic honestly.
Australia isn't really controlled by the UK so why care if we are still part of the commonwealth?
Thier are many benifits from being in the commonwealth such as job opptunities.
And to be honest at this stage I prefer if we still had a governor general to remove idiots out of goverment
ColdFire wrote:They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
If you don't we will stop buying your Fosters and you will be forced to drink it yourselves.
Haha
On a serious note though, I have no problem with British people and I dont blame you all for the things your country has done to us, I just think we should see other people
Yak9UT wrote:
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
If we do become independent it will spoil my plans to be knighted
On a serious note I don't see why we need to become a republic honestly.
Australia isn't really controlled by the UK so why care if we are still part of the commonwealth?
Thier are many benifits from being in the commonwealth such as job opptunities.
And to be honest at this stage I prefer if we still had a governor general to remove idiots out of goverment
Our Government is not so crash hot at the moment true.
I still cant believe that after the top three parties Labour, Liberal and Greens the next top 3 are Hunters/Fishers Party, Christian Democrats and Pauline Hanson are up next.
I realise that becoming a Republic would not affect the country a great deal, I guess its the principal of the thing. I dont like being a constitutional monarchy to a nation we no longer share much of a cultural affiliation with. That is certainly only my opinion and I know there are many pro monarchists in Australia but there are also pro Republic supporters.
I would just like us to sever our ties but first I do think we need to get our political system in order, its a circus currently and a joke to be honest.
I see where cold is coming from, when I was in Oz I met a whole bunch of bitter miserable ozzie fethers that constantly moan about the British even though we in no way affect their lives in general.
Because we've been dealing with it from the Brits for so long it's ingrained into our psyche! not easy being sun loving fun Aussies when every turn there's a pasty shirty pom telling us how awful this heat is! kinda brings you down! :-)
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
You know that Australia would not exist except for the British Empire?
I'm not saying you owe the Empire any debts, in my reckoning they were paid off in WW1 and 2.
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
You know that Australia would not exist except for the British Empire?
I'm not saying you owe the Empire any debts, in my reckoning they were paid off in WW1 and 2.
Just try to have some historical awareness.
I would add to that by mentioning that Australia is completely independent of the UK - HM Queen Elizabeth II is queen of Australia in a seperate sense, constitutionally.
And what exactly has Britain 'done' to Australia? Considering so many Aussies complain about us and our country, there's certainly no shortage of them living here - plus Australia sure seems keen to attract our skilled workers...
I think it would still exist KK, I don't think even we can lay claim to have built an entire landmass purely to solve the problem of prison overcrowding
Flashman wrote:I think it would still exist KK, I don't think even we can lay claim to have built an entire landmass purely to solve the problem of prison overcrowding
I would imagine all the used tea bags from across the Empire would probably have formed a small island...
Albatross wrote:To be fair, that's only because you have no idea what you're talking about...
I assume that's directed at me?
Give me a good reason, exept tourism, why we need our royal family, what do they do that someone else can't for much cheaper, or maby instead of doing it cheaper, we could stop doing all together...
Flashman wrote:If and when Charles gets to the throne, it'll be interesting to see if he adopts Charles III as his title, given the performance of Charles's I and II. He can, if chooses, select an entirely different name.
I have no objection to him being King for a short while and as Albatross says, it will be a short while.
At least he wasn't named John.
I remember reading that Arthur is one of the names he could use when he ascends to the throne. Imagine that! King Arthur!
You would, wouldn't you?
Nah, I'd be cool with being King J and being a right royal pimp.
The point being is that no English monarch after John I was ever coronated as John II due to the Magna Carta. It's sort of would be the ultimate shame to ascend as John II, as the first John was such a disaster of a king.
For the love of God and all things holy can they just get married already. I am sick to death of hearing about it on CNN. "This just in, rich people get married in extravagant wedding attended by other rich people more after this commercial break."
Dakkadan wrote:For the love of God and all things holy can they just get married already. I am sick to death of hearing about it on CNN. "This just in, rich people get married in extravagant wedding attended by other rich people more after this commercial break."
See, if you guys hadn't thrown all our damned tea into the sea you would be able to enjoy it too
Albatross wrote:To be fair, that's only because you have no idea what you're talking about...
I assume that's directed at me?
Give me a good reason, exept tourism, why we need our royal family, what do they do that someone else can't for much cheaper, or maby instead of doing it cheaper, we could stop doing all together...
So what's it to be? Hanging? Axe? Rock it French-style and guillotine 'em? Perhaps go with a more transatlantic feel and give them the chair.
I don't see any reason to dismantle the establishment, but I wouldn't say no to cutting off their pocket money. I mean, they're grown-ups now after all.
As for the wedding, well, I work in a shop so it means a six hour day with double time and a day's holiday in lieu. Love live the royal couple.
Albatross wrote:To be fair, that's only because you have no idea what you're talking about...
I assume that's directed at me?
Give me a good reason, exept tourism, why we need our royal family, what do they do that someone else can't for much cheaper, or maby instead of doing it cheaper, we could stop doing all together...
Well tourism is a very good reason, so it's kind of cheating on your part to discount it.
Anyhow, the invasion of the foreign press in the last week or so, should tell everything about the value of the Royal Family to this country. For some unfathomable reason, the rest of the world is fascinated with our monarchy. This makes no small contribution to our presence on the world stage. US Presidents treat our Prime Ministers either as pets (Bush/Blair) or with contempt (Obama/Brown & Cameron), but they will fall over themselves to attend a state visit with the Queen.
The Queen is a splendid old lady, and if I heard any of these spotty little oiks saying such things about a random old lady in the supermarket I would feel an urge to thrash them, let alone our dignified old monarch!
Bring back flogging and hanging for these upstarts I say!
I don't really care that much. I say, let the royals away at it, they seem like decent folk, for the most part. Being born royal isn't THAT much different to being born wealthy in any other way.
Plus, historically, the monarchs of britain were actually pretty kind to their Irish subjects (in sentiment, anyhow). It was Cromwell who really altered things for the worse for us, and then our own aristocrats and their british chums who kept it going. I don't get the disdain the queen is held with in Ireland. Guess they've not read their history thoroughly enough.
I am going to see my girlfriend for the four days, which is going to be brilliant, because I am doing the crappy long distance thing at the moment and four days together is an absolute blessing. She's planning on forcing me to watch it (even though she's German) but I'm sure I can distract her somehow.
Albatross wrote:To be fair, that's only because you have no idea what you're talking about...
I assume that's directed at me?
Correct.
Give me a good reason
Tourism.
exept tourism,
Gah!
Ok, how about the fact that they are a potent symbol of British nationhood, as much, if not more, than the flag. Or if that sort of thing isn't your bag, how about the fact that they are central to our constitution and our form of government, one of the most popular forms of democratic governance in the world, and one which is the most basic foundation of our nation's prosperity and well-being?
That do?
what do they do that someone else can't for much cheaper, or maby instead of doing it cheaper, we could stop doing all together...
Son, I wouldn't normally lower myself, but I'm in a good mood so I'll humour you. What are you talking about?
I've got another one Alby, because if you where facing an invasion of this counry and fighting street for street, does anyone seriously think they'd be willing die for Blair, Brown or Cameron and Country?
They actually do us a lot of good overseas, diplomatic relations and such, although there is a ingrown hostililty to them in some quarters of the UK. A lot of other countries around the world love em.
You can't buy that kind of respect, I mean seriously if you open it up and allow folks to vote for who they would want as our social ambassadors, we'd have fething Jorden (or the next 15min fame starlet thats come along) or Simon Cowell representing us.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I've got another one Alby, because if you where facing an invasion of this counry and fighting street for street, does anyone seriously think they'd be willing die for Blair, Brown or Cameron and Country?
At that point wouldn't we be fighting for our homes and families? Whilst ever Germany* is still intact we can always import another monarch if we lose the old one.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I've got another one Alby, because if you where facing an invasion of this counry and fighting street for street, does anyone seriously think they'd be willing die for Blair, Brown or Cameron and Country?
At that point wouldn't we be fighting for our homes and families? Whilst ever Germany* is still intact we can always import another monarch if we lose the old one.
*Or Scotland or Denmark or France or Holland...
That's what the line of succession is for, there's hundreds of them! In fact thinking about it, there's enough for an army, so really, the rest of us don't have to fight.
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
You know that Australia would not exist except for the British Empire?
I'm not saying you owe the Empire any debts, in my reckoning they were paid off in WW1 and 2.
Just try to have some historical awareness.
Did you read my post at all, I recognise that we originated from the British Empire, Im simply saying we need to loosen the British themes a bit and get our own identity.
Please dont try and tell me to be more historically aware of my own countries history.
Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
ColdFire wrote:On the subject of the wedding, I dont care. I certainly wish them all the best and they seem like descent enough people but I do not agree with allowing this spectacle to take up my whole tv schedule as petty as that sounds. I really wish my country would realise that we need to start moving towards an independent nation rather then a British Colony.
I certainly believe we should never forget our ties to Britain but I think we need to cut the imbilical chord "hope I spelt that right" and move on with our nation towards a more independent Australia.
Indeed I think we need a cultural make over starting with our Flag, the Southern Cross is not uniqueley Australian and the Union Jack is too British for my tastes, if we are to be Australian we should have a uniqueley Australian flag. Personally I think the Aboriginal flag is excellent although as not to bogart their heritage I still believe non Aboriginal Australians should have their own flag. We may all be Australian but we are not all Aboriginal, they have a right to remain an independent culture.
We should certainly honour the Flag which has served us all these years as a symbol of this historical period but we need to move on and free ourselves of the weight which is the former British Empire.
They did us no favours in history, why do we still pander to them?
You know that Australia would not exist except for the British Empire?
I'm not saying you owe the Empire any debts, in my reckoning they were paid off in WW1 and 2.
Just try to have some historical awareness.
I would add to that by mentioning that Australia is completely independent of the UK - HM Queen Elizabeth II is queen of Australia in a seperate sense, constitutionally.
And what exactly has Britain 'done' to Australia? Considering so many Aussies complain about us and our country, there's certainly no shortage of them living here - plus Australia sure seems keen to attract our skilled workers...
I think you secretly love us.
I recognise its a constitutional monarchy, I merely question what is the point.
As for what Britain has done to us in the past?
-Used us as disposable cannon fodder against the Ottomans during the First World War because Britains troops were seemingly more important.
-Were unwilling to act against the Japanese southern invasions which almost reached our shores and made the Indonesian invasions far more easy for the Japanese then neccesary.
-When the very real threat of us being invaded by the Japanese happened our British allies response was "let them take the top half".
I certainly dont blame modern British for the arrogance of their ancestors but the British during the World Wars treated us like expendables.
Flashman wrote:I think it would still exist KK, I don't think even we can lay claim to have built an entire landmass purely to solve the problem of prison overcrowding
You doubt the power of British late Georgian engineering?!?!?!?
Medium of Death wrote:The difference between Australia and the other commonwealth countries is that they had a rich history before we came along.
You can't separate yourself from Britain completely because it defined/defines your culture.
I think the Aboriginal People would resent that, Australia had a history before European Settlement not after. I never claim that we can seperate from Britain completely, it is part of our history but that does not mean we should continue as a Constitutional Monarchy or have the Union Jack in our flag.
Hundreds dead from a massive storm that tore through the country causing massive devastation and the most covered story is a wedding. Yay. As always our priorities are in their place.
SilverMK2 wrote:... a wedding of the future King and Queen of one of the most powerful countries in the world.
I'm not living in the UK. Makes sense it would get a lot of coverage there. It also makes sense that it would get coverage here. My complaint wasn't taht it got any coverage, my complaint is that it is steamrolling the coverage of a more serious event in the country in which it happened. Also, couldn't give two gaks about your backwards love for monarchy. You like it, that is fine, I'm not hoping bad things happen to them, but I also wouldn't care if it did.
Warlord Gazghkull Thraka wrote:Hey there, I am inquiring on your opinions on The Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate.
Please use the poll and, if you want, write in!
In my opinion, I don't care, and in a way, disapprove. I thought when democracy moved in, we wanted to RID our selves the form of government that terrorized us(us being the Europeans, the ancestors of my country) for centuries, and yet we are celebrating it?
Sorry, I didn't mean to be an *BLEEP*. Go ahead and discuss!
P.S. Sorry if this is spam or has been posted already, but you got to give me credit for posting it in the off-topic forum.
Cheers,
Mr. Thraka
Watched it because I was up and have a day off ( Although I took mortal kombat breaks ) but to me it's just another wedding, nothing special. I wish them peace and happiness but that goes out to all brides and sucke...grooms... ;p
Ahtman wrote:If you argue every typo you come across on any forum you will have no time to do much of anything else.
I know, but it's a particular peeve of mine. And if I'm going to be insulted, I want to be insulted properly, damn it. It's worth noting that, in the main, most of the UK populace couldn't care less about the monarchy but that this is a good occassion for people to feel positive and unified about something. A feeling that Britain hasn't had for some time. How about in the States?
Ahtman wrote:I didn't blame the broadcasters, though they will take some of the blame. Just because someone wants something doesn't make it good or right.
This is true. What I'm saying is that what's good and right hasn't been the priority of most major news broadcasters for some time now. It's understandable that you would take exception to it, but if it's being shown then the majority must have wanted to see it. In many ways, this is democracy at work.
I mean no offense to you brits, but I wish the local channels would shtu the feth up about this and put some real news on. It's a great day for the royal family, and insofar as I can be happy about two random people getting married who I know nothing about, I'm happy for them. But I wish they'd continue to cover the Japanese nuclear crisis, the war in Libya, the brutal suppression in North Africa and the Middle East, etc too.
htj wrote:This is true. What I'm saying is that what's good and right hasn't been the priority of most major news broadcasters for some time now. It's understandable that you would take exception to it, but if it's being shown then the majority must have wanted to see it. In many ways, this is democracy at work.
Our benign corporations that own the broadcasters (obliviously over there it works a bit differently) aren't exactly what I would call a good reflection of democratic ideals. I suppose this is also the reason neither the US or UK are pure democracies. The argument could also be made that it isn't as simple as what people want but what they have been programmed to want by a media that dominates cultural trends.
htj wrote:This is true. What I'm saying is that what's good and right hasn't been the priority of most major news broadcasters for some time now. It's understandable that you would take exception to it, but if it's being shown then the majority must have wanted to see it. In many ways, this is democracy at work.
Our benign corporations that own the broadcasters (obliviously over there it works a bit differently) aren't exactly what I would call a good reflection of democratic ideals. I suppose this is also the reason neither the US or UK are pure democracies. The argument could also be made that it isn't as simple as what people want but what they have been programmed to want by a media that dominates cultural trends.
It's an interesting question as to how much mass media drives or follows cultural trends.
Oh, I can always go online and find real news. But my housemates watch "news" in the morning (if it can be called such), and this past week the commentators have ranted and raved about "omg how exciting!" the wedding day is, day in, day out, for the past week. And that's US commentators.
At least if they were British I would understand... hell if it was a flamboyant gay guy ranting about the wedding it'd at least be amusing.
htj wrote:This is true. What I'm saying is that what's good and right hasn't been the priority of most major news broadcasters for some time now. It's understandable that you would take exception to it, but if it's being shown then the majority must have wanted to see it. In many ways, this is democracy at work.
Our benign corporations that own the broadcasters (obliviously over there it works a bit differently) aren't exactly what I would call a good reflection of democratic ideals. I suppose this is also the reason neither the US or UK are pure democracies. The argument could also be made that it isn't as simple as what people want but what they have been programmed to want by a media that dominates cultural trends.
Yeah, fair point. I was being a bit too glib. For a pure democracy you could always move to Switzerland. Feels a bit... oddly fascist there though. Is it programming, though? Or is it survival of the fittest? Channels are fighting for ratings, so the news you get must be the stuff that most people want to watch. If you want responsible news broadcasting, then you can't really leave it in the hands of corporations motivated by profit. Who then do you leave it in the hands of?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think you hit on to the solution there, Melissia.
Hey guys the wedding was ok in my opinon ( to be honist with you I acherly found it really dull. But Im not really a big fan of weddings at all!). However you can't really diss royalty because think of all the sacrifices they have to make (not just in the uk but all over the world) like not that much privtesy allways having to make a good impression of themselfs ect.And because of this you cind of need to be happy for them.
HAZZER wrote:Hey guys, the wedding was okay in my opinon (to be honest with you I actually found it really dull; but I'm not really a big fan of weddings at all!). However you can't really disrespect royalty because of all the sacrifices they have to make (not just in the UK, but all over the world) like they don't have that much privacy, always having to make a good impression of themselfs etc. Because of this you kind of need to be happy for them.
mattyrm wrote:The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
Here, here!
And Will & Kate looked fantastic on this wonderful day of joy and happiness. I wish them all the best.
ColdFire wrote:
As for what Britain has done to us in the past?
-Used us as disposable cannon fodder against the Ottomans during the First World War because Britains troops were seemingly more important.
-Were unwilling to act against the Japanese southern invasions which almost reached our shores and made the Indonesian invasions far more easy for the Japanese then neccesary.
-When the very real threat of us being invaded by the Japanese happened our British allies response was "let them take the top half".
I certainly dont blame modern British for the arrogance of their ancestors but the British during the World Wars treated us like expendables.
What a day to be pig ignorant Coldfire. Couldnt you have come back and been rabidly anglophobic another day.
I dont think there is much point in trying to educate you, but unless challenged someone else might take your words at face value:
-Used us as disposable cannon fodder against the Ottomans during the First World War because Britains troops were seemingly more important.
Offensive and venomous hogwash. Yes ANZAC soldiers suffered unnecessarily due to appalling bad allied generals, but so did Canadian and UK troops both in the Gallipoli campaign and elsewhere. Look up the word Somme. People like Haig would throw a whole generation at the trenches and not care much.
-Were unwilling to act against the Japanese southern invasions which almost reached our shores and made the Indonesian invasions far more easy for the Japanese then neccesary.
An army was sent to Singapore, which directly blocked the advance through the archipelago, led unfortunately by an idiot. It was the single worst disaster in our history. 300,000 soldiers were captured by the Japanese, including British army and Commonweath forces, they suffered horrendous abuse under their Japanese captors. Your comments are an insult to their memory.
A fleet was also sent, which the Japanese bombed. Many ships were sunk including the battleship Prince of Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse.
-When the very real threat of us being invaded by the Japanese happened our British allies response was "let them take the top half".
Citation required. This is as hair brained and vitriolic as some of the stuff the plastic paddies like to believe.
I really hope the republican movement in Oz is smarter than this, if this is the sort of racist gak that is whispering around Australia this is going to get nasty.
mattyrm wrote:The current Queen is a shining example to the rest of the world, and if only some of the other world leaders had even half of the integrity and selflessness of that wonderful old lady, the world would be a much better place.
Here, here!
And Will & Kate looked fantastic on this wonderful day of joy and happiness. I wish them all the best.
And I too. Will looked quite the gentlemen, and I have high hopes of him being an honour to Britain when he does step up to the throne.
What do I think of the royal wedding? Well lets see; the happy couple looked a bit like they were trying to hold in their laughter as they slowly walked down the gallery together. I wonder if William was thinking "don't you people know there's something rather nasty going on in Syria this morning?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: another thing: Overnight she went from "Kate Middleton" (as in "Kate middleton lost another pound!", "Kate middleton crossed the street by herself!", "Kate middleton sneezes on camera!") to "Princess Katherine"... I really really hope that doesn't stick. I think the world needs to keep reminding itself that this girl is not royal blood, and potentially sneezes innapropriately. If someone on the news says "Princess Katherine" it takes me a second to register, if I hear "Kate Middleton" I know instantly how important the news report must be.
HAZZER wrote:Hey guys, the wedding was okay in my opinon (to be honest with you I actually found it really dull; but I'm not really a big fan of weddings at all!). However you can't really disrespect royalty because of all the sacrifices they have to make (not just in the UK, but all over the world) like they don't have that much privacy, always having to make a good impression of themselfs etc. Because of this you kind of need to be happy for them.
mister robouteo wrote:another thing: Overnight she went from "Kate Middleton" (as in "Kate middleton lost another pound!", "Kate middleton crossed the street by herself!", "Kate middleton sneezes on camera!") to "Princess Katherine"... I really really hope that doesn't stick. I think the world needs to keep reminding itself that this girl is not royal blood, and potentially sneezes innapropriately. If someone on the news says "Princess Katherine" it takes me a second to register, if I hear "Kate Middleton" I know instantly how important the news report must be.
I hope this isn't the case as she is not actually a princess; she is a duchess. She takes the title of her husband, the Duke of Cambridge.
mister robouteo wrote:another thing: Overnight she went from "Kate Middleton" (as in "Kate middleton lost another pound!", "Kate middleton crossed the street by herself!", "Kate middleton sneezes on camera!") to "Princess Katherine"... I really really hope that doesn't stick. I think the world needs to keep reminding itself that this girl is not royal blood, and potentially sneezes innapropriately. If someone on the news says "Princess Katherine" it takes me a second to register, if I hear "Kate Middleton" I know instantly how important the news report must be.
I hope this isn't the case as she is not actually a princess; she is a duchess. She takes the title of her husband, the Duke of Cambridge.
I just saw a bit of the footage, and they did seem kind of hyperaware of how awkward the whole thing was. Just something about the looks on their faces. It wasn't sterile and proper like the Charles/Diana thing, it looked like they were almost embarrassed. I think its a sign of the times. Hype and media explosions and the awareness that a million goof-off youtube videos and such might be edited out of this ultimately unimportant sideshow has even the royal superhumans looking kind of cynical in their smiles. Sorry if I pooped on anybody's royal-loving pancake, but other than the appropriate level of inappropriately puffed up pomp, it didn't even look like the royals took the royal wedding very seriously. Perhaps they'll all get back to the tea room afterwards and have a conversation like "well.. thank god that's over with, at least the peasants are placated again".
Guitardian wrote:I just saw a bit of the footage, and they did seem kind of hyperaware of how awkward the whole thing was. Just something about the looks on their faces. It wasn't sterile and proper like the Charles/Diana thing, it looked like they were almost embarrassed. I think its a sign of the times. Hype and media explosions and the awareness that a million goof-off youtube videos and such might be edited out of this ultimately unimportant sideshow has even the royal superhumans looking kind of cynical in their smiles. Sorry if I pooped on anybody's royal-loving pancake, but other than the appropriate level of inappropriately puffed up pomp, it didn't even look like the royals took the royal wedding very seriously. Perhaps they'll all get back to the tea room afterwards and have a conversation like "well.. thank god that's over with, at least the peasants are placated again".
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Indeed. But the Queen gave Will three new titles today if I'm not mistaken, including the Duke of Cambridge.
However, "Duke" is the highest of those titles.
I thought "regional manager" was a higher title. I'm curious about the titles list. It's good to know if Lord Stanly's Bar and Grill is owned by a duke, an earl, or maybe only a princeling or a baronet.
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Indeed. But the Queen gave Will three new titles today if I'm not mistaken, including the Duke of Cambridge.
However, "Duke" is the highest of those titles.
I thought "regional manager" was a higher title. I'm curious about the titles list. It's good to know if Lord Stanly's Bar and Grill is owned by a duke, an earl, or maybe only a princeling or a baronet.
It's higher than an Earl, but lower than a Duke. A Duke would be able to give orders to a Regional Manager, but an Earl would come under the auspices of a Regional Manager or Supervisor. It gets really complicated when you get Weekend Supervisors and Contessas involved, but needless to say, a Royal Flush trumps them all.
Meh, I'm happy for them. Although the inordinate amount of attention I payed to it may have had something more to do with Kate Middleton than the whole 'history in the making' thing.
Good for them. She's quite the lady, and he's quite a nice young man. The only thing that irked me was that he got to wear an Irish Guard Colonel uniform, which he doesn't deserve, or bring pride to. It's like Obama wearing Dress Blues or something like that.
Kate's dress was very nice, and the whole presentation was very nice.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Good for them. She's quite the lady, and he's quite a nice young man. The only thing that irked me was that he got to wear an Irish Guard Colonel uniform, which he doesn't deserve, or bring pride to. It's like Obama wearing Dress Blues or something like that.
All regiments have a Colonel-in-Chief for ceremonial duties. This entitles him or her to wear the uniform.
The Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of the Life Guards and the Blues And Royals.
Here she is on parade in 1981.
FWIW most of the male members of the Royal Family are current or ex-services and a number of them have been under fire.
Treason is only 5 years? I remember the days where the penalty for such a crime was death; 5 years in a British prison is a better life than some impoverished people have outside it.
