[Illuyankas]

Now that I think about it, if it had turned out that William was gay, and actually married a man with all the overplayed histrionics, I'd have watched that ceremony. Hell, I'd have watched the coronation as both William and his regal partner get crowned. No normal royal couple in charge of the country, we'd have THE DOUBLEKING.

[Cyphon]

Illuyankas, on 29 April 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

Now that I think about it, if it had turned out that William was gay, and actually married a man with all the overplayed histrionics, I'd have watched that ceremony. Hell, I'd have watched the coronation as both William and his regal partner get crowned. No normal royal couple in charge of the country, we'd have THE DOUBLEKING.

Now something like that, I would only marginally avoid watching.

[Illuyankas]

I would spend more of my time watching for reactions during the crowd shots, probably.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

QuickTidal, on 29 April 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

I'm with Tiste.

The Royal family serves a figurehead purpose that would cause major problems in Britishness if they didn't exist. I agree with the embrace and be proud comment instead of all the vitriol.

Why does it piss you off so much Illy?

...they aren't doing anything that causes British life to be shittier are they? Nope, I think they leave that to 10 Downing Street.

In fact, they got a holiday for the wedding didn't they?

I dunno. I don't think the Royals are hurting anyone and their story is endlessly interesting to me. I'd be more than a little upset if they weren't around.

Exactly this.

I think that if we had an absolute monarchy and the Queen actually ruled the country herself, and by making some unpopular decisions caused people to hate her (and the royal family by extension) then fair enough. As this isn't the case, however, I don't think that they've done anything to deserve such hate -- The Queen just sits about being the Queen and that's it. She doesn't really do anything and it's not even like they have a choice in being royalty as they either marry into it or are born into it. To slag them off for simply being who they are strikes me as a little harsh.

That said, one of the little girls was a really ugly kid! (The one who was leaning on the balcony looking really bored (and ugly) and Kate had to tell her to wave to the crowd.)

EDIT: I also love how so many people were wearing spurs on their boots -- totally pointless and yet so awesome!

This post has been edited by Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast: 29 April 2011 - 05:28 PM

[rhulad]

I'm firmly entrenched in the group of Canadians that don't care.

[QuickTidal]

rhulad, on 29 April 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

I'm firmly entrenched in the group of Canadians that don't care.

Okay, then I guess I'll lead the group of Canadians who DO care.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

QuickTidal, on 29 April 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

rhulad, on 29 April 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

I'm firmly entrenched in the group of Canadians that don't care.

Okay, then I guess I'll lead the group of Canadians who DO care.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[MTS]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 April 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

Illy what I meant is that the idea of having a royal family is very ingrained in our culture. If we got rid of it, it wouldn't be good. I really believe that. Also, why do anti-monarchists keep mentioning the whole German thing? The last ruling Monarch who was actually German was George III if I remember my History lessons correctly... The name changed from a German one in 1917 for crying out loud... There hasn't been a drop of German blood in their for about a century! When are people going to start realising that they are just as British as the rest of us! Anyone else who was born in Britain to parents who were born in Britain to parents who were born in Britain etc would be quite easily considered British...

The royal family now are probably the most 'British' they've been for centuries, and even Charles has a fair bit of 'foreign' blood in him. Now, before Cougar comes in ranting about British national identity, he's right. Unless my British history is off, before the House of Hanover you had a Dutch king in William III, mostly Scot kings in the Stuarts, the Tudors had a lot of French and Welsh blood in them, the Plantagenets were very much French, the Normans were descended from Danes, who also ruled England prior to 1066, and even before that you had the Saxons who ultimately hailed from? You guessed it: Germany. Then before that were the Romans and the Belgae...

ANYWAY, English royal purity is a complete and utter myth and always has been, so the fact the royal family has/d German blood in it is totally irrelevant, especially when you're making a point about the royals defining national identity. It's culture that counts, not blood.

That said, I don't really give a flying fuck about the royal wedding since I didn't get a day off and as far as I can tell all the Governor-General does these days is cut ribbons at ceremonies.

[Abyss]

i THOROUGHLY enjoyed the part where Kate's family charged the procession with clubs and William had to fight them off with that blunted sword and then throw her over his shoulder and batter his way through to the altar. Whoever gave Harry that black eye during the second wave deserves a medal. Charles using Camilla's purse as a shield AND flail was pure win!

That said, the celebratory beheadings were a bit dull. I enjoyed Chuck and Di's way more when all the sacrifices had to kneel in chains before their turn and watch. The 'orf with their 'eads all at once' thing was over too quickly. And i'm sorry but putting Red Bull etching on the executioners' axes was just in poor taste. Some things are sacred.

[stone monkey]

As, technically, HRH The Queen is my employer, I guess I'm supposed to give a shit. But basically; today two people I don't know got married, one of whom (now both, I suppose) represents an institution I despise. The Royal Family, I guess, might be considered vaguely tolerable if they had no constitutional role and existed solely as a theme park representation recalling the Bad Old Days, but they don't. The day off work was nice enough, I got plenty done and even had time for a nice walk in the sun, but tbh I would have quite happily had a day at work whilst those two got hitched. If the Royal Family is key to our national identity in the UK, then there's something deeply wrong with that national identity because it would seem to be based on the idea of us all being a bunch of servile forelock tuggers.

Personally I think beheading Royalty was probably the only good idea Oliver Cromwell had.

[McLovin]

Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast, on 29 April 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

It's more of an addition rather than a step down. It's not like he stops being a prince or anything; he just gets a couple of extra titles.

But...who was Duke before him? Was it just vacant? Or did the Queen just make it up?

These are the burning questions that keep me awake.

[Ribald]

Didn't Hitler and Eva Braun get married on the 29th April 1945?
Nice wedding anniversary to remember.

[stone monkey]

The title was one that lies within the gift of the Crown. There are loads of them just basically lying around ready to be given out to royal spawn. For instance, when Prince Andrew dies, the title of Duke of York won't fall to a member of his immediate family, it'll go back to the Crown to be given to the 2nd son of the reigning monarch at the time, should she/he think he deserves it.

[QuickTidal]

stone monkey, on 29 April 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

As, technically, HRH The Queen is my employer, I guess I'm supposed to give a shit. But basically; today two people I don't know got married, one of whom (now both, I suppose) represents an institution I despise. The Royal Family, I guess, might be considered vaguely tolerable if they had no constitutional role and existed solely as a theme park representation recalling the Bad Old Days, but they don't. The day off work was nice enough, I got plenty done and even had time for a nice walk in the sun, but tbh I would have quite happily had a day at work whilst those two got hitched. If the Royal Family is key to our national identity in the UK, then there's something deeply wrong with that national identity because it would seem to be based on the idea of us all being a bunch of servile forelock tuggers.

Personally I think beheading Royalty was probably the only good idea Oliver Cromwell had.

But why? How have they wronged you so? What is it they do that pisses you off to such a degree that they get your hatred?

Can you explain what it is they do that personally affects you enough to earn such ire?

(just curious is all, no offense meant)

[McLovin]

I just had an idea to make the UK a ton of money.

There are titles just sitting around waiting to be given by the Crown. Well, don't give them away, PUT THEM ON EBAY. I mean think what you could get for one. Maybe enough to buy back that aircraft carrier.

[Cyphon]

McLovin, on 29 April 2011 - 06:18 PM, said:

I just had an idea to make the UK a ton of money.

There are titles just sitting around waiting to be given by the Crown. Well, don't give them away, PUT THEM ON EBAY. I mean think what you could get for one. Maybe enough to buy back that aircraft carrier.

David Lloyd George anyone?

Also: http://en.wikipedia....ash_for_Honours

We're a step ahead you old chap.

This post has been edited by Cyphon: 29 April 2011 - 06:22 PM

[Abyss]

Ribald, on 29 April 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

Didn't Hitler and Eva Braun get married on the 29th April 1945?
Nice wedding anniversary to remember.

Speculation swings back on forth on whether the Hitlers got hitched on the 28th or 29th, tho it's generally accepted it was around midnight so it could have gone either way.

Coincidence....??? Harry's recreational costume of choice makes one wonder....


- Abyss, notes the subject was rife for an application of Godwin's Law...

[stone monkey]

QuickTidal, on 29 April 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

But why? How have they wronged you so? What is it they do that pisses you off to such a degree that they get your hatred?

Can you explain what it is they do that personally affects you enough to earn such ire?

(just curious is all, no offense meant)

What they represent is entirely wrong. And that's pretty much the beginning, middle and end of it. You, disagreeing with me (which I shall allow just this once ), might counter saying they represent British history, culture and tradition. But what they truly represent is inherited privilege; that idea that someone is better than another person simply by being born to a particular family or lineage. And, in one form or another, that particular idea has been a blight on humanity for about as long as there have been people. Simply by existing they wrong you, me and almost every other human being who has ever lived.

[QuickTidal]

stone monkey, on 29 April 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 29 April 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

But why? How have they wronged you so? What is it they do that pisses you off to such a degree that they get your hatred?

Can you explain what it is they do that personally affects you enough to earn such ire?

(just curious is all, no offense meant)

What they represent is entirely wrong. And that's pretty much the beginning, middle and end of it. You, disagreeing with me (which I shall allow just this once ), might counter saying they represent British history, culture and tradition. But what they truly represent is inherited privilege; that idea that someone is better than another person simply by being born to a particular family or lineage. And, in one form or another, that particular idea has been a blight on humanity for about as long as there have been people. Simply by existing they wrong you, me and almost every other human being who has ever lived.

Okay, I can totally understand that. Thanks for explaining.

However, like someone said upthread...the current royals didn't choose that life, they were born into it. Isn't your argument therefore with the idea of royalty or nobility and not with the folks who happen to be born into the life? That they represent such nobility isn't their fault...and probably falls into the lap of someone like King Arthur who was the supposed proper first king of Britain...but to tell him you'd need a time machine...bah nevermind.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 29 April 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

......and probably falls into the lap of someone like King Arthur who was the supposed proper first king of Britain...

King of the who?


- Abyss, waits for it...