This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Wedding

2»

Comments

  • They're a pair of right planks
    I need a Churbese glossary. "Planks?"
  • I need a Churbese glossary. "Planks?"
    Plank, as in a monumentally stupid person who is usually so stupid (or self absorbed/oblivious) to be aware that they're thicker than pigshit. From the saying "Thick as Two short planks", meaning much the same.
  • So I didn't end up staying away long enough to even watch the wedding for a little bit. I did, however, wake up to a bunch of messages on from my friend on Skype telling me how "fucking beautiful" the church was.
  • Didn't care.

    I'm calling the three-weeks-later Royal Divorce.
  • Didn't care.

    I'm calling the three-weeks-later Royal Divorce.
    Unlikely. The two by all accounts have been together for years, even lived together for a while before the wedding, and do genuinely love each other. A divorce may happen (it's always a possibility), but not in three weeks. Besides, you gotta pull for someone who convinces the Queen to get a Nintendo Wii. (Apparently, Kate got William one for Christmas one year and Queen Elizabeth loved it so much that she got one for herself).
  • 1) How does this affect my life?
  • 1) How does this affect my life?
    Do you live in England? if not probably not at all.. If you live in England you just watched a wedding your taxes paid for.. AWESOME :-p
  • I've done my job to get to that 2 billion viewers by watching a whole few minutes. Here is what I can conclude from that which I saw. One: there were lots of women screaming as the chariot went by, and two: her royal highness, in that dress, has a flat rack.
  • The only reason I knew there was something about a royal wedding is that I heard people complaining about other people caring about the royal wedding.
    View history in the making etc etc
    Can someone explain what this means? No, like, seriously. What's the historical significance of this?
  • Can someone explain what this means? No, like, seriously. What's the historical significance of this?
    There is none.
  • I had planned on watching the wedding, but once I found out David Beckham was attending, changed my mind. Not him personally, just the fact he was a Manchester United player...
  • It is strange that a group of people prone to enjoying historical dramas filled with court intrigue and fantasy novels that often feature royalty so bemoan an interest in some actual royalty. This isn't a criticism, just an observation.

    Personally, I have paid some attention to the debates in the UK regarding the relevancy, necessity, and desire to maintain the royal family. It was surprising to me that only 20% of the UK's population would like to dissolve the monarchy. These were framed in a rather poignant way by being in Dublin on Easter (I am making reference to the Easter Rising) and visiting Kilmainham Gaol on Easter Sunday.
    The economics of the wedding are worth noting as well. Despite the cost of the wedding, the intake of capital and commerce it generated is greater than the costs it incurred. It may be ridiculous pageantry and celebrity worship, but it is a shot in the arm to the UK economy. Moreover, any reason to have a day off of work (as many in the UK did) and party is a good one, in my opinion.
  • The Royal Family generates a lot more money than it spends and does so consistantly. That's a pretty darn good reason to keep them around.
  • The Royal Family generates a lot more money than it spends and does so consistantly. That's a pretty darn good reason to keep them around.
    Then why not sever the connection to public funds and allow them to operate more like a corporation? Let market forces decide what they're worth, how much they contribute to the British economy. If they're such a money-spinner, then they'd surely make a fortune, and be able to return some of that money to the public in taxes.
  • Because the money they make isn't directly connected to them like that. They are a tourist attraction, essentially. Their mere presence boosts the economy considerably. It's like funding a national park and reaping the benefits of tourist money, except instead of a park it's a family.
  • Because the money they make isn't directly connected to them like that. They are a tourist attraction, essentially. Their mere presence boosts the economy considerably. It's like funding a national park and reaping the benefits of tourist money, except instead of a park it's a family.
    Their "specialness" has a value, in the same way that the olympics has value, and the rights to it are sold for huge sums of money. If the wedding could have been seen by 2 billion people, the commercial opportunities for broadcast rights are staggering. And that's just one event. But no, it would have no doubt been too crass for the royals to cash in like that. They'll still take public money, though, that's not beneath them.
  • They'll still take public money, though, that's not beneath them.
    Isn't that, like, the history of monarchy? Taking money from the common folk and spending it on extravagance?

    This is why we deposed kings.
Sign In or Register to comment.