BBC, ITV and SKY guilty of Royal wedding excess

[Louisa]

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.

[Tractorlad]

Like it or loath it, its a major national event and 24 news channels have space to fill. If its royal free repeats you're after, try Dave!

[Robert Poste's Child]

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 It really is time to disband this horribly outdated and anachronistic institution.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.

[redjam]

How has the bride behaved badly? (Genuinely don't know, not been following it much.)

[Ellem86]

I don't think the bride has behaved badly at all, it seems to be her money grabbing family.

[JohnL]

She's going to walk up the aisle half on her own, half with Prince Charles.

Then no-one will give her away.

[Loz]

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.

[Mick Mac]

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.

[JoeLeg]

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...??

[rendelharris]

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!

[JohnL]

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)

[redjam]

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.

[uncleglen]

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!

[JoeLeg]

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.

[Louisa]

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.

[Seabag]

As a couple of young people in love, I wish them well. But can we just move on and get past it, the press stuff is ghastly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Is there a wedding happening?

[nxjen]

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.

[JoeLeg]

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.

[Quia Differt]

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 !

[Quia Differt]

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 !

[rendelharris]

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.

[Loz]

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.

[Louisa]

I think Brexit has already relegated the United Kingdom. Removing the monarchy doesn?t make a blind bit of difference.

Louisa.

[JohnL]

Can't we have a monarchy AND an executive president who we elect.

I know no-one else does but we can be first :)