Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think you've taken the comments too literally. The point is that all of these can be done without going crazy over random people signing a piece of worthless paper. It is, in my view, a waste of precious hours watching someone else do something, living your life through the actions of others. I have no issue with people playing toy soldiers because they are living their life. If people don't do the same things for anyone else than that would imply other issues at play. My view, simplistically is that it these things are staged to reinforce loyalty to the state by the populace through psychological conditioning and to make people think they are part of something 'special'. In reality there is no difference to joe blogs' wedding and this one apart from the fact the state pays a lot of money to support the latter. For some reason the relatives of those people that stabbed, murdered or imprisoned there way to that position of power are given more consideration? To be fair that is what the state really uses the royal family for, a means to try and keep us in line and maintain their control - that's even seen in the national anthem where people sing about God save the old woman with the handbag.

Sorry i just don't feel as strongly about it as you evidently do. Today brought a lot of enjoyment to alot of people. I am happy with that.

I was impressed. Surprised how American they got, with the preacher and the gospel choir. Felt very different to the 'normal' royal wedding, in a good way.

I felt the American preacher went a fair way off topic during the "fire" bit of his sermon. I was reaching for the moderation buttons. However he got it all back to the core subject and actually it worked really well, and the gospel choir was great..

Meghan's dress was very well chosen. I liked her natural freckle look with very subtle make-up. The little page boys and bridesmaids were super-cute.

It was good to see a fleet of veteran Rolls Royces and so on deployed. Plus a number of regiments including the Ghurkas and the RAF Regiment.

Over all a very good show!

Once again it makes you think that no-one can put on a show quite like this except the British. A 900 year old castle. Army units older than many countries. The heraldry of a chapel of an order of knights dating to the 14th century.

My wife still hates Meghan and this feeling apparently is widespread among Japanese wives and mothers-in-law. Largely because she is a divorcee. Of course the Royal Family itself contains a lot of divorcees.

My own feeling is that Meghan and Harry will either turn into a disaster, or be a huge success. No middle ground.

You'd think the Left Wing on Dakka Dakka would be ecstatic over an international, interracial Royal Wedding.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I felt the American preacher went a fair way off topic during the "fire" bit of his sermon. I was reaching for the moderation buttons. However he got it all back to the core subject and actually it worked really well, and the gospel choir was great..

Meghan's dress was very well chosen. I liked her natural freckle look with very subtle make-up. The little page boys and bridesmaids were super-cute.

It was good to see a fleet of veteran Rolls Royces and so on deployed. Plus a number of regiments including the Ghurkas and the RAF Regiment.

Over all a very good show!

Once again it makes you think that no-one can put on a show quite like this except the British. A 900 year old castle. Army units older than many countries. The heraldry of a chapel of an order of knights dating to the 14th century.

My wife still hates Meghan and this feeling apparently is widespread among Japanese wives and mothers-in-law. Largely because she is a divorcee. Of course the Royal Family itself contains a lot of divorcees.

My own feeling is that Meghan and Harry will either turn into a disaster, or be a huge success. No middle ground.

Don, t forget a Chapel on top of the Knights, home to the tombs of famous Tudour Kings, Cavalry regiments, horse drawn parades and all trappings of Royalty.

Theres carriages used in processions older than countries.

It reflects a strange... Static but reliable point.. There's somthing alot older than modern change around it.

Sorry US... You just cannot win at this game.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I think you've taken the comments too literally. The point is that all of these can be done without going crazy over random people signing a piece of worthless paper. It is, in my view, a waste of precious hours watching someone else do something, living your life through the actions of others. I have no issue with people playing toy soldiers because they are living their life. If people don't do the same things for anyone else than that would imply other issues at play. My view, simplistically is that it these things are staged to reinforce loyalty to the state by the populace through psychological conditioning and to make people think they are part of something 'special'. In reality there is no difference to joe blogs' wedding and this one apart from the fact the state pays a lot of money to support the latter. For some reason the relatives of those people that stabbed, murdered or imprisoned there way to that position of power are given more consideration? To be fair that is what the state really uses the royal family for, a means to try and keep us in line and maintain their control - that's even seen in the national anthem where people sing about God save the old woman with the handbag.

Sorry i just don't feel as strongly about it as you evidently do. Today brought a lot of enjoyment to alot of people. I am happy with that.

Its a distraction for one day from countries woes. Plus the amount of revenue business in area made will be quite the tax payment.

Well, I glimpsed Hewitt jr and Miss markhle tying the knot and it made me smile and recollect my wedding day.

Hopefully we can get back to normal service next week and constantly hear about tory rebels mucking about and sabotaging May.

The UK showed itself off to a global audience, and there were plenty of foreign visitors in the crowds.

Everyone had a fun time and the weather was perfect.

I didn’t see it but I’m happy it went well.

Edited highlights on BBC2 later this evening!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You'd think the Left Wing on Dakka Dakka would be ecstatic over an international, interracial Royal Wedding.

Why? If Harry had married a white English woman nobody would have cared. Nobody really cares that she isn't white and is foreign, or not so that I've seen. All that matters is that the two people involved in a marriage are happy.

Now if anybody had complained about her not being white, or not being British, then that would have been something for the left to get excited about.

This leftie isn't ecstatic because I'm a republican and the filthy lot can go hang themselves.

There’s the start of it.

I'm a leftie, I enjoyed it, but tbf I made sure I didn't start watching until a couple of minutes before 12 and did my ironing whilst doing so.

It was a spectacle, it went very smoothly, they seemed genuinely happy, the service might not be to my taste but it suited them and they seemed happy with it, the weather was pretty much perfect, it went without a hitch, she looked stunning, he was well turned out and obviously pleased, and it demonstrated a really positive image of the UK to the entire world.

Can't really say fairer than that.

The only downer of the whole event was my Facebook feed ended up being filled with people sharing their "facts" rather angrily in defence of, or attacking the royals. I can't be bothered with all that tbh, most of those people in my thread can be pretty tedious on both sides.

I'm also sure that Harry and Megan would not give the slightest toss, just like me.

I’m more surprised that the right wing of Dakka haven’t kicked off about the spending of public money to fund a wedding for scroungers?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m more surprised that the right wing of Dakka haven’t kicked off about the spending of public money to fund a wedding for scroungers?

The royals can't be scroungers because they have buckets of money, it's okay to waste taxpayer money when the thing your're throwing it at doesn't need it.

Ahhh! I see

I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.

Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?

I’m a republican, but have no beef with those actually in the Royal Family.

I don’t see why the public purse should fund them at all. They’re already quite wealthy, and own a poop load of land. Cut off public funding, let them fun themselves. Especially in a time of enforced and needless austerity. We can dig up £30,000,000 for this wedding, but not for fire proof cladding for a fraction.

We can continue to fund the royal family, but not the NHS.

It’s all just a nonsense to me. But again, I find it impossible to have an issue with the beneficiaries of that system.

My thoughts are that we can do the pomp and all the nonsense without a royal family.

Speaking of, I heard/read somewhere that being head of the commonwealth isn't hereditary, how would one go about applying to be head of the commonwealth if this was true?

Asking for a friend.

They put more into the government purse than they take put. Albeit largely from land, so if we disbanded them and seized all their land we'd be in a better position unless they really do generate that much in tourism.

I'm a royalist; I like them. Couldn't give a gal about the wedding ceremony though.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.

Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?

Do you mean you would like a Scandi style monarchy, there in a constitutional way, and low key? The kind of king who cycles from the palace to open parliament, whose children have regular jobs as airline pilots and so on.

I wish the newlyweds well. As I always do at any wedding. And they both seem like decent enough people. But marrying a woman of colour doesn't magically turn a hereditary monarchy into a progressive institution.

I have no particular ill-will towards any individual royal, but if I had my way they'd all be evicted and forced to get real jobs, and their palaces turned into homeless shelters. If the prospect of Tony Blair as president didn't stop me being a republican, one royal wedding isn't going to do it either.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m a republican, but have no beef with those actually in the Royal Family.

I don’t see why the public purse should fund them at all. They’re already quite wealthy, and own a poop load of land. Cut off public funding, let them fun themselves. Especially in a time of enforced and needless austerity. We can dig up £30,000,000 for this wedding, but not for fire proof cladding for a fraction.

We can continue to fund the royal family, but not the NHS.

It’s all just a nonsense to me. But again, I find it impossible to have an issue with the beneficiaries of that system.

As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.

Herzlos wrote:
They put more into the government purse than they take put. Albeit largely from land, so if we disbanded them and seized all their land we'd be in a better position unless they really do generate that much in tourism.

I'm a royalist; I like them. Couldn't give a gal about the wedding ceremony though.

This is partially the issue with I have. It is basically a throw back to an outdated medieval method of government. It entrenches a class type system that historically is wealthy, has land because of rather brutal actions in that past. That this wealth came from its removal from other people through the forced use of arms. Those then born into that then just get an automatic privilege and I'm opposed to any position where a person is just entitled to something because X managed to knock up Y. Is partially why it always baffles me that when you look at it logically why as a country we are so willing to support this. And still think it is psychological conditioning of the populace to support the state.

However I'm not really a republican because I don't think we need an elected head of state as that would just end up with the Tories/Labour again. I think we should abolish the monarchy and replace it with something where we vote for a figure head that represents the country for a short period time (assuming they wanted to do it) - e.g. David Attenborough, Stephen hawking etc and so forth which allows anyone to become the representative of the U.K. Should they succeed but only being a figurehead and being completely apolitical.

We could then renationalise a lot of the state land and use it for better purposes like housing for example.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.

Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?

#Raises hand.

Yep. I’m also a liberal socialist who supports the monarchy and the House of Lords. The former because I think the Royal family is a much better head of state / symbol of unity than some other systems (meaningful glance west across the Atlantic). Also I read a while back that the Royals actually cost a bit less than the French president, in terms of travel, security, facilities, etc. Basically any head of state costs money, so getting rid of the monarchy isn’t going to save anything in the long run.

On the second point, I used to be a stauch abolitionist about the Lords, I mellowed somewhat when most of the hereditary peers were abolished and I became a stauch supporter when they stepped in to protect our democracy and civil rights from the draconian “anti-terror” bollocks that Blair tried to bring in. I think there needs to be a reduction in size, removal of the remaining hereditary positions and reconsider the presence of the bishops (either remove them or add representatives of other faiths, humanists, etc.). Fundamentally though, I’m now of the opinion that there is definite merit in a body of people who have been appointed because, generally, they have achieved something significant (i.e. they have proven capability) and don’t have to base their political decisions around pandering to whatever bs, knee jerk reaction is In the tabloids that week.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.

I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.

Hmmm.

True, however we should also consider that the international TV rights sales brought in a ton of money. The 100,000 visitors to WIndsor will have spent a few million.

There are also intangible benefits; international PR for the UK, including a convincing demonstration of our progressive, multicultural society.

Also, the security forces need this kind of "live fire" exercise to keep them in good fettle for general anti-terrorism and big public event operations.

In terms of it being an outdated mediaeval government which supports a class system... Some of the most happy, equal and advanced countries in the world are monarchies -- Japan, Sweden, Norway, etc. While some of the most unequal and unhappy countries are republics and still manage to have obvious class systems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hmmm.

True, however we should also consider that the international TV rights sales brought in a ton of money. The 100,000 visitors to WIndsor will have spent a few million.

But that only benefits those that already have money anyway. Most will have been spent in upmarket establishments. Little of it will trickle down to those people that really need it.

There are also intangible benefits; international PR for the UK, including a convincing demonstration of our progressive, multicultural society.

I think it has shown more of us light of if you have power/wealth you are OK. The ongoing wind rush saga has had bigger connotations for the world's perspective of our multiculturalism.

Also, the security forces need this kind of "live fire" exercise to keep them in good fettle for general anti-terrorism and big public event operations.

That's definitely a new excuse for having a wedding. Are we saying we actually would have liked a terrorist attack to have been attempted just to test our defences?

In terms of it being an outdated mediaeval government which supports a class system... Some of the most happy, equal and advanced countries in the world are monarchies -- Japan, Sweden, Norway, etc. While some of the most unequal and unhappy countries are republics and still manage to have obvious class systems.

Success is different from a idealogical policy though. Most of these countries have had centuries to develop their power and wealth to make a happy populace. They've got their because they have exploited other people or nations in the past. It depends on how these things are implemented. However in a modern world having a system where a head of state is simply determined by who a 'ginger head' decides to ejaculate semen into and who is lying on their back is not rational and entrenches a thinking that power and wealth is determined by the parents rather than provide everyone the same opportunity to exceed and become a representative for the country

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.

I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.

I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....

Haaaaaaa!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/queen-manically-texting-to-find-out-what-the-hell-she-did-last-night-20180520173224

The upmarket places the celeb guests use will be staffed by a small army of 'normal people' who will appreciate the work and tips. Waiters, room service, drivers and so on.

The thousands of people standing outside will have spent a lot of money in normal shops too. Those having parties at home will spend locally and so on.

Most of this money will get taxed, too.

I think the crown owns most of the land (and gives the government about £360m of the £400m income from the estates). We could always sell it off and give it back to the commonwealth where it'll end up in the hands of the foreign elite. It's almost communist in the state owning so much.

Some see royalty as huge privilege but I think most will view it as a curse. Like as Megan knows it is essentially over; she'll never act again and will spend most of her time doing pretty boring official stuff. I honestly don't envy any of them.