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 It really is time to disband this horribly outdated and anachronistic institution.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 don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years      
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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