The Royal Wedding

[Breeze]

I'm like most...I think too much attention was paid to the wedding, but it was a nice change from the sadness and violence in the world. And I stayed up and watched most of it. Finally faded out half way throught the ceremony. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming of violence, sadness and another bloody election, lol.:wacko:

[West Coast Dude]

As a hardened English anti monarchist/Republican I thought I’d hate it. But, much to my surprise I actually found myself tuning in and actually quite enjoying the wedding.

 

In the current climate of financial hardship, wars, and all the death and destruction going on in the world in was nice to turn on the TV and get some respite from all the depressing news of late. For one day we can put everything else on the back burner and maybe break into a small smile at the news for just once this year.

 

Don’t get me wrong my views on the monarchy haven’t changed one iota, but even I begrudgingly admit that this event has put a smile on the nations face and the record breaking 2 billion + television audience around the world.

 

You do realize you pay extra to have them around right? Your money pays for their expenses

[DragonFire]

You do realize you pay extra to have them around right? Your money pays for their expenses

 

Oh I'm well aware of that, but on this occasion I believe the wedding has more or less paid for itself with the added media coverage and tourists it's attracted to London.

 

On the larger issue of keeping them in the style they've become accustomed to... and we pay for, well, don't even get me started.

[Prince Duchess]

Well seeing as I declined an extended invitation to go to the Royal Wedding and participate and the events afterwards, I do have to say that I enjoyed watching the Royal Ceremony. Something about it just made the air so refreshing today! Everyone I saw was in a good mood, light hearted everyone smiling. And thats what the world needs, we dont need to hear everyday about how a tornado destroyed a town and such amount of people died or injured. I get it, it lets those watching that your day wasnt as bad as you thought it was but its also depressing.

 

And you can never go wrong when it comes to the Royals and their fashions. How about all those fascinators? And the bride looked absolutely breathtaking!

 

 

[West Coast Dude]

As much as the monarchy has modernised in recent years, I don't think they're at that stage just yet. lol.

 

I will also point out that the monarch is also head of the Church of England, which is why no catholic, by law, can ascend to the British throne.

 

Technically in several years, a commoner will be ruling the english people. How does that even make sense oO?

[Tomas]

Oh! Was there a Royal Wedding? Hadn't really noticed. I suppose if it had any impact on my life or they were paying my bills, I may have paid more attention.

 

The last non-fiction Royal event that I paid any attention to was listening to a broadcast from the BBC, on the shortwave radio, of the coronation of Elizabeth II when I was a sophomore in high school. No worldwide TV or Internet coverage in those days, hence the shortwave radio.

 

IMHO much ado about nothing.

[DragonFire]

Technically in several years, a commoner will be ruling the english people. How does that even make sense oO?

 

Technically a commoner, IE the Prime Minister and cabinet, already does!

 

As for the monarch, her role holds no real power, which always lies, as it should, with the elected government of the time. All the pomp and ceremony is just tradition. Kate is the first commoner married to the heir for some time. It remains to be seen if this is carried on for future generations.

 

[West Coast Dude]

Technically a commoner, IE the Prime Minister and cabinet, already does!

 

As for the monarch, her role holds no real power, which always lies, as it should, with the elected government of the time. All the pomp and ceremony is just tradition. Kate is the first commoner married to the heir for some time. It remains to be seen if this is carried on for future generations.

 

 

 

Is this like the first case of a commoner marrying into the royal family?

[paya]

So basically you pay money, so they can have a nice life, where you guys could keep the money for yourself and party!!

 

WCD, 1) you're derailing the topic

 

 

2) This was already discussed - in the thread that was about when the wedding date was announced. It was also stated that the whole wedding was paid from the Queen's money, Prince of Wales' and the Middleton's money. The state itself paid only for security - as there were fears that some nutcase from Al-Quaida would bomb the crowd of hundreds of thousands people.

 

3) Everybody already understood your opinion - and DragonFire told you his opinion, so why are you dragging on? Moreover, given the numbers of the royal wedding parties all over the UK, the citizens of the UK partied as well.

 

 

 

 

To return on-topic, I very much enjoyed the event. I was always really sorry I was born too late to see last such occasion - the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Even if I'm not British, I acknowledge this was a world-scale event - not only because of the media coverage (which wouldn't be here if other people than the British weren't interested), but also because formally it really encompassed the whole world - UK, Canada, NZ, Australia and many others.

 

Last but not least, a jest for the conclusion: I thoroughly enjoyed that the news proved that "the world" doesn't equal "the U.S." who are so self-centered that in the films produced in the US, "to save the world" equals "to save America", i.e. the US. If I had to decide between the Royal Family and the Hollywood, I for sure wouldn't go for the latter.

 

 

[Westie]

You do realize you pay extra to have them around right? Your money pays for their expenses

 

Our money pays for "head of state" expenses. The civil list provides only for the Monarch's official functions, and for the upkeep of royal palaces (which, even without a monarchy we would have to pay for anyway as historical monuments. Indeed, since HM The Queen paid personally for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the 1991 fire, it would probably cost us considerably more without them.)

 

 

The Queen's personal income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster (personal property) on which she fully pays income tax. The monarchy costs us considerably less than it did in 1991 in real terms. And indeed, since the Crown Estates bring income in excess of £250m per annum into the treasury, and with the advent of a republic many of these estates would become the Personal Property of Mrs Elizabeth Windsor (a vexed legal point, but in fact an accurate one in true English Law) - The country from a purely financial standpoint doesn't really support the monarchy at all.

 

Technically in several years, a commoner will be ruling the english people. How does that even make sense oO?

 

Im not sure where you get this from, but its BS. HRH Prince William (Now the Duke of Cambridge) will become King. His wife will be the Queen Consort (and thus, not actually reign, but hold a title due to the position of her husband). Their children will not be commoners because they will be born of royal blood and in fact be styled as Prince or Princess. Could I also point out that although a member of the Aristocracy, Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was a commonor before she married the Duke of York, later becoming George VI (the current Queen's father) - so its not like the situation hasn't arisen before.

 

 

 

So basically you pay money, so they can have a nice life, where you guys could keep the money for yourself and party!!

 

I think Paya has already pointed out, but just to reiterate - the state paid for security and policing to ensure public safety, as is the duty of Governments. The cost of the wedding was borne by HM The Queen (from the Duchy of Lancaster), HRH The Prince of Wales (from the duchy of Cornwall) and the Middleton Family, who are self made millionaires in their own right.

 

 

There are many ways to criticise the monarchy (as dragonfire and others legitimately argue), but I think its pretty important to argue the FACTS as opposed to some off the off the cuff speculation indulged in above.

 

 

 

 

West

 

 

[Contest4jen]

twas the most boring thing i have ever watched.....but props to them and all

[West Coast Dude]

WCD, 1) you're derailing the topic

 

 

2) This was already discussed - in the thread that was about when the wedding date was announced. It was also stated that the whole wedding was paid from the Queen's money, Prince of Wales' and the Middleton's money. The state itself paid only for security - as there were fears that some nutcase from Al-Quaida would bomb the crowd of hundreds of thousands people.

 

3) Everybody already understood your opinion - and DragonFire told you his opinion, so why are you dragging on? Moreover, given the numbers of the royal wedding parties all over the UK, the citizens of the UK partied as well.

 

 

 

 

To return on-topic, I very much enjoyed the event. I was always really sorry I was born too late to see last such occasion - the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Even if I'm not British, I acknowledge this was a world-scale event - not only because of the media coverage (which wouldn't be here if other people than the British weren't interested), but also because formally it really encompassed the whole world - UK, Canada, NZ, Australia and many others.

 

Last but not least, a jest for the conclusion: I thoroughly enjoyed that the news proved that "the world" doesn't equal "the U.S." who are so self-centered that in the films produced in the US, "to save the world" equals "to save America", i.e. the US. If I had to decide between the Royal Family and the Hollywood, I for sure wouldn't go for the latter.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended you or Paya. It's interesting that in Canada there's so much hype about the royal wedding, but when the royals come here to visit, not a lot of people go to see them. And really the younger generation in Canada don't seem interested in them. Maybe 2 out of my friends watched the wedding...(Hope this doesn't get me in trouble and have people seething at me..)

[Y_B]

WCD, 1) you're derailing the topic

 

2) This was already discussed - in the thread that was about when the wedding date was announced. It was also stated that the whole wedding was paid from the Queen's money, Prince of Wales' and the Middleton's money. The state itself paid only for security - as there were fears that some nutcase from Al-Quaida would bomb the crowd of hundreds of thousands people.

 

3) Everybody already understood your opinion - and DragonFire told you his opinion, so why are you dragging on? Moreover, given the numbers of the royal wedding parties all over the UK, the citizens of the UK partied as well.

 

To return on-topic, I very much enjoyed the event. I was always really sorry I was born too late to see last such occasion - the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Even if I'm not British, I acknowledge this was a world-scale event - not only because of the media coverage (which wouldn't be here if other people than the British weren't interested), but also because formally it really encompassed the whole world - UK, Canada, NZ, Australia and many others.

 

Last but not least, a jest for the conclusion: I thoroughly enjoyed that the news proved that "the world" doesn't equal "the U.S." who are so self-centered that in the films produced in the US, "to save the world" equals "to save America", i.e. the US. If I had to decide between the Royal Family and the Hollywood, I for sure wouldn't go for the latter.

 

 

Papaya, you're my hero. Edited April 30, 2011 by Yang Bang

[hh5]

It was cool to catch the documentaries of Past Weddings on the monarchs in the last 100 years

 

* QE wedding - I like the use of the coaches - all the time

* It looks like the male side has to have some form of military background, PH look like he has more of it than PW. I wonder if PW got his pilots license

* Question is which is better - the church that PC wedded at or the Abby? PC pick the church because its acoustically sounds better

* PK - yes her train was the best compare to PD 25 foot one

 

I caught some movies and parts of some - depicting PW growing up from age 16 to proposing to Kate ... gosh ... what a life ... but also gosh how supportive PC is with his boys ... my mom comments PC being weak ... but I rather say he made a great father ... being involved in their lives ... working out his mistakes with PD ... by raising the kids.

 

Its a PW&PK is great fairy tale .... kinda like Grace Kelly ... to be wedded to Royalty ... is like wow

 

I briefly checked her wiki page ... King Rainer rain on her parade in staring in film roles ... she died at age 53 ... thats young ... usually women live to like 80 and then kings live to like 60 to 70

 

Soon QE will be giving the throne up to PW or PC ... that will be a media event .. when PH gets maried .. it will be another good economic boom ... then you have Olympics 2012 another good thing

 

The usa seems to not see the hosting benefits ... NYC mayor wanted the event but its people did not ... that is so bad .. it could have been a wonderful privilege ... parts of the city could have been modernize and events share in like NJ or CT

 

I hope PW and PK will bridge the gap between the young adults and the monarchy ... especially around the world ... The royals seem to be very silent at times like we don';t notice them.

Perhaps now they have a reason to be notice once again

 

In the movie, PC seems to be a conservationist .... so there .... ih his heart ... he's a Go Green kind of guy.

[Nephylim]

Did anyone else but me hear this bit???

 

or maybe it was just me who interperated it the way I did. I just wondered what the hell gave them the right (and they chose this version which was written in 1928) to make this kind of comment

 

 

I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.

 

So yes I did watch... right up to the point I walked out of the room. (I didn't like the part where they were told to bring up their children in fear either)

[Westie]

Did anyone else but me hear this bit???

 

or maybe it was just me who interperated it the way I did. I just wondered what the hell gave them the right (and they chose this version which was written in 1928) to make this kind of comment

 

 

I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.

 

So yes I did watch... right up to the point I walked out of the room. (I didn't like the part where they were told to bring up their children in fear either)

 

Well, the 1928 Book of common Prayer is based on the 1662 version..... but i think you have interpreted incorrectly. What this means is that marriage has to be based on God's laws of eligibility (i.e. they cannot be siblings, already married, or meet any other criteria for ineligibility as laid out in Leviticus). And let us not forget that this is not just a marriage, but these two chose to wed in sight of god "according to his Holy Ordinance". And there may also be a distinction between CIVIL law and ECCLESIASTICAL law to be made here - so i wouldnt read too much into it.

 

 

Can i just point out also that all civil ceremonies include the line, that if a man or woman knowingly fails to declare an impediment to their marriage, that said marriage is not lawful either. However, note that while such a marriage may not be LAWFUL, it is nevertheless recognisable in law (in as much as a bigamous man may be required to pay settlements to both wives upon dissolution of those marriages etc).

 

 

[Westie]

Soon QE will be giving the throne up to PW or PC ... that will be a media event .. when PH gets maried .. it will be another good economic boom ... then you have Olympics 2012 another good thing

 

 

Sorry to double post - but this probably wont ever happen. HM The Queen made a personal vow to her people that "my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service". Also bear in mind that following Edward VIII the word "abdication" is still not welcomed in royal circles. The Queen Mother would turn in her grave - and so for her daughter it is unlikely to cross her mind.

 

 

 

[Nephylim]

Well, the 1928 Book of common Prayer is based on the 1662 version..... but i think you have interpreted incorrectly. What this means is that marriage has to be based on God's laws of eligibility (i.e. they cannot be siblings, already married, or meet any other criteria for ineligibility as laid out in Leviticus). And let us not forget that this is not just a marriage, but these two chose to wed in sight of god "according to his Holy Ordinance". And there may also be a distinction between CIVIL law and ECCLESIASTICAL law to be made here - so i wouldnt read too much into it.

 

 

Can i just point out also that all civil ceremonies include the line, that if a man or woman knowingly fails to declare an impediment to their marriage, that said marriage is not lawful either. However, note that while such a marriage may not be LAWFUL, it is nevertheless recognisable in law (in as much as a bigamous man may be required to pay settlements to both wives upon dissolution of those marriages etc).

 

 

 

I get that, but how many people listening to that ceremony have any idea what cannonical or ecclesiatical law is? i am not going to press my point any further because it is very much a political one. I was just surprised that no one anywhere had commented on it when it hit me in the face the instant it was out of his mouth.

 

The dress was lovely and the canary... um Queen was very dignified and almost smiled once or twice.

 

On a side note I think Kate's sister is a real babe

[West Coast Dude]

I get that, but how many people listening to that ceremony have any idea what cannonical or ecclesiatical law is? i am not going to press my point any further because it is very much a political one. I was just surprised that no one anywhere had commented on it when it hit me in the face the instant it was out of his mouth.

 

The dress was lovely and the canary... um Queen was very dignified and almost smiled once or twice.

 

On a side note I think Kate's sister is a real babe

 

Some of the hats were interesting.

 

 

The princess in the beigie, her hat, it's a little bit too much isn't it?

 

And you're right about Pipa, I bet she's going to be one of the he most elidgible women in athe UK now

 

[Nephylim]

It's probably committing treason to say so but i think that hat is totally ridiculous. I mean... WHAT???

 

Pipa on the other hand.... Mmmm... I wonder if she'd consider a well worn Welsh woman with a dicky back and hair to match her dress

[West Coast Dude]

It's probably committing treason to say so but i think that hat is totally ridiculous. I mean... WHAT???

 

Pipa on the other hand.... Mmmm... I wonder if she'd consider a well worn Welsh woman with a dicky back and hair to match her dress

 

What do you mean by dick back? Harry and her seemed to be having quite a few moments, inside jokes etc during the wedding Clearly they are friends or ??? Yeah that's what I thought I was like what designer came up with that hat, and where did she get the sense to wear it. Hope people aren't pissed of by this post!

 

What do you mean by dick back? Harry and her seemed to be having quite a few moments, inside jokes etc during the wedding Clearly they are friends or ??? Yeah that's what I thought I was like what designer came up with that hat, and where did she get the sense to wear it. Hope people aren't pissed of by this post!

 

 

This is the hat we're talking about folks...

[Tomas]

OMG! Who in their right mind... (no offense intended) She's lovely, but that hat... where's the eye bleach?

[West Coast Dude]

OMG! Who in their right mind... (no offense intended) She's lovely, but that hat... where's the eye bleach?

 

What designer came up with that hat?

[Former Member]

I know right? You should have seen Victoria Becham's hat. Did I fall asleep for twenty years and miss a gigantic fashion leap or what? =D

[paya]

The Cost of the UK Royal Family explained!