Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I had to turn the radio and television OFF simultaneously just now. Most major channels are solely concentrated on this wedding. I don?t care about it, most people I know don?t care either. Why do we need so much coverage? I don?t mind one dedicated channel or station, but this really is just excessive.


Louisa.

Totally agree, Louisa; Radio London has been talking about nothing else this week it seems. It's nauseating and seems in even poorer taste than usual given the behaviour of the bride and her family, including the media's own part in fuelling that. It really is time to disband this horribly outdated and anachronistic institution.


On the positive side, surely Fergie must be welcomed back into the royal family with open arms after this.

Ellem86 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think the bride has behaved badly at all,

> it seems to be her money grabbing family.


I feel really sorry for her father. Blackmailed by the paparazzi and stressed him out so much he's in hospital with heart problems, missing the wedding completely and the honour of walking his daughter up the aisle.

Ellem86 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think the bride has behaved badly at all,

> it seems to be her money grabbing family.


eh? where did you get that from.


If you ask me, they are lucky to have her. She outranks him significantly in personal achievement, and genuine popularity.


But I cant see it working long term. She has a career and has achieved a lot already - I don't know how she's going to come to terms with royal life in the longer term.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ellem86 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


>

> But I cant see it working long term. She has a

> career and has achieved a lot already - I don't

> know how she's going to come to terms with royal

> life in the longer term.


To paraphrase the late, great Mrs Merton...


?So what first attracted you to the famously wealthy Royal Prince...??

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Ellem86 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

> >

> > But I cant see it working long term. She has a

> > career and has achieved a lot already - I don't

> > know how she's going to come to terms with

> royal

> > life in the longer term.

>

> To paraphrase the late, great Mrs Merton...

>

> ?So what first attracted you to the famously

> wealthy Royal Prince...??


Such cynicism! She's worth $5M apparently, so probably the status rather than the money that attracted her - after all you can have all the money in the world but you don't get to live in Kensington Palace. And she does seem genuinely smitten with him, and he seems a fairly decent sort of cove. As a fellow human, I wish them all the best. As a taxpayer and a republican I wish everyone would just shut up about it and I wish we weren't paying for it!

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Mick Mac Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Ellem86 Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> >

> > >

> > > But I cant see it working long term. She has

> a

> > > career and has achieved a lot already - I

> don't

> > > know how she's going to come to terms with

> > royal

> > > life in the longer term.

> >

> > To paraphrase the late, great Mrs Merton...

> >

> > ?So what first attracted you to the famously

> > wealthy Royal Prince...??

>

> Such cynicism! She's worth $5M apparently, so

> probably the status rather than the money that

> attracted her - after all you can have all the

> money in the world but you don't get to live in

> Kensington Palace. And she does seem genuinely

> smitten with him, and he seems a fairly decent

> sort of cove. As a fellow human, I wish them all

> the best. As a taxpayer and a republican I wish

> everyone would just shut up about it and I wish we

> weren't paying for it!


Harry's actually not a bad person considering (and he admits he's had problems)IMHO


Taking out the royalty I'd have her down as his sort (independent)

I reckon after a few months of excruciatingly boring diplomatic meet-and-greets and opening ceremonies, and having every tummy bulge analysed for signs of pregnancy, she?ll realise that life as a modern princess is a long way from the Disney fantasy and she?ll be heading back to the (Hollywood) hills as fast as she can.


That said, er, happy wedding day, guys! Don?t know why I didn?t get an invite.

All the ostentation makes me sick- especially since it is at OUR expense.

I feel sorry for all the young couples out there who can't even afford to have a small wedding because of the expense and they are having their noses well and truly rubbed in it.

And coming on top of the 3rd baby to the other pair, and she says she will not rule out a fourth- again- there are couples out there who cannot afford ONE child let alone 3 or 4!

rendelharris Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------

>

> Such cynicism! She's worth $5M apparently,


Pocket money next to the insane wealth of the Windsors.


so

> probably the status rather than the money that

> attracted her - after all you can have all the

> money in the world but you don't get to live in

> Kensington Palace. And she does seem genuinely

> smitten with him, and he seems a fairly decent

> sort of cove.


I think it?s fair to say that William and Harry have learnt to play the media game far better than their dad did. Plus all the stuff he?s done with the Invictus games, help for injured veterans and the mental health charities is good.



As a fellow human, I wish them all

> the best. As a taxpayer and a republican I wish

> everyone would just shut up about it and I wish we

> weren't paying for it!


Indeed. It?s not often I find myself in agreement with Uncleglen, but while I recognise they tried to dial it back from the previous gross excesses and pomp of royal weddings, I still feel this has the smell of ?bread and circuses? about it.

All that said, the royal family is changing. If we?re stuck with them, the least they can do is behave less like arses, which those two seem to understand. Although it?s debatable whether that stems from a desire to help and serve or something closer to self-preservation.

The light at the end of this dark tunnel of undemocratic monarchic rule for republicans, is simply the fact Charles remains next in line to the throne. And there?s no escaping that.


Once the present Queen passes on, despite all the clever marketing and supposed popularity surrounding William and Harry, I cannot see how Charles will maintain the levels of popularity both his mother and sons have enjoyed, especially in the last couple of decades.


I still hold out hope we will get a referendum for constitutional change at some stage. And let?s face it, no better time than when Charles takes over.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The light at the end of this dark tunnel of

> undemocratic monarchic rule for republicans, is

> simply the fact Charles remains next in line to

> the throne. And there?s no escaping that.

>

> Once the present Queen passes on, despite all the

> clever marketing and supposed popularity

> surrounding William and Harry, I cannot see how

> Charles will maintain the levels of popularity

> both his mother and sons have enjoyed, especially

> in the last couple of decades.

>

I suspect the clever marketing of William and Harry - and their children - will continue once Charles becomes king to compensate for his unpopularity. They are a very practical family when it comes to their own survival.

Precisely.


Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway, but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus it?s tied up with many other constitutional issues.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there a wedding happening?


YES rahrahrah I can NOT believe you haven't heard !!! How could you have missed the news ???


My Auntie Gertie is getting re-married to my Uncle Bertie again at Castle Howard in North Yorkshire at 3.00 pm.


Don't Be Late !

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The light at the end of this dark tunnel of

> undemocratic monarchic rule for republicans, is

> simply the fact Charles remains next in line to

> the throne. And there?s no escaping that.

>

> Once the present Queen passes on, despite all the

> clever marketing and supposed popularity

> surrounding William and Harry, I cannot see how

> Charles will maintain the levels of popularity

> both his mother and sons have enjoyed, especially

> in the last couple of decades.

>

> I still hold out hope we will get a referendum for

> constitutional change at some stage. And let?s

> face it, no better time than when Charles takes

> over.

>

> Louisa.


You may well change your view when you see the " Harry" chair now available for a limited time only at IKEA.


ONLY ?35 smackerooneys !

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Precisely.

>

> Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them

> than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be

> seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway,

> but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many

> years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus

> it?s tied up with many other constitutional

> issues.


Yep, not in our lifetimes I'm afraid.

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Precisely.

>

> Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be

> seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway, but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many

> years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus it?s tied up with many other constitutional

> issues.


Casting aside the ideological sentiments of the anti-monachists, a more practical view would ask, "why change"? It works, does the job well and any replacement would be no cheaper. The royals are popular around the world - a meeting with Liz is probably the top of any country leader's wish list (especially as POTUS is not exactly flavour of the month).


Replacing the monarchy would relegate the UK Head of State to the world equivalent of Frank-Walter Steinmeier. And if your first thought is "who is he", then I rest my case.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  5. Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility. With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
    • Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 
    • Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...