BBC, ITV and SKY guilty of Royal wedding excess

[nxjen]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Can't we have a monarchy AND an executive

> president who we elect.

>

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

Interesting idea. What would be his job description?

[redjam]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Can't we have a monarchy AND an executive

> > president who we elect.

> >

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

>

> Interesting idea. What would be his job

> description?

*Ahem* Or hers?

[nxjen]

Mea culpa !

[????]

Hello everyone

Yeah, can't wait for, at best, AT BEST, President: Fry, Lineker, or God forbid Blair and the grey, dull, municipal socialism of the Republic. In fact the 'elitist' Royal wedding has probably done more for race relations in this country than 10,000 of Owen Jones or Jezzas hideously white middle-class shouty 'rallies'. Good to see the normal bunch of lefty village idiots doing their thang on here. plus ca change

How the devil are you all?

[Robert Poste's Child]

I'm not left wing, just find the royal family an anachronism and increasingly ridiculous. A slimmed down version focused on the monarch wouldn't be so bad, but this extended celebrity family, using their position to carve out public roles for themselves in which they pose as morally superior to the rest of us, awarding themselves titles simply for existing, and spending more days on holiday than actually working, disgusts me. More importantly, the concept of 'royal' has become ridiculous - there are people out there with more royal blood than most of them - George, 4th in line to the throne, has less than 20%. They pay most of their employees peanuts too, despite their vast wealth.

ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't have to see it if you don't want to.

[Louisa]

I believe in democracy. Electing a head of state, and being able to remove that head of state via a ballot box is way more important to me than individuals or personalities. The symbolism of a class structure in which power is inherited rather than earnt is disgusting to me. These people are parasites, they?ll do anything and everything to cling onto their situation.

Louisa.

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

>

> ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage

> of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't

> have to see it if you don't want to.

I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid, po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their

> coverage

> > of the wedding has a collapse button so you

> don't

> > have to see it if you don't want to.

>

> I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can

> completely ignore their increasingly rabid,

> po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on the opinion pieces, works quite well.

[nxjen]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> there are people out there with more

> royal blood than most of them - George, 4th in

> line to the throne, has less than 20%.

Not forgetting the few drops he?s inherited through an illegitimate line from Charles II through his grandmother Diana

[Robert Poste's Child]

And Harry and Meghan's children, if they have any, may well only have those few drops.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Is it just me, or is the fact Megan is mixed race and American an attempt by the Royal Family to modernise - or am I being cynical?

(#expecting abuse)

When have we ever had a biracial princess before?

[Michael Palaeologus]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I believe in democracy. Electing a head of state,

> and being able to remove that head of state via a

> ballot box is way more important to me than

> individuals or personalities. The symbolism of a

> class structure in which power is inherited rather

> than earnt is disgusting to me. These people are

> parasites, they?ll do anything and everything to

> cling onto their situation.

>

> Louisa.

I can think of nothing more disgusting that President Blair, President Benn, President Thatcher or President Cameron.

In these times of political corruption and fakery, an apolitical Head of State is a blessing.

[nxjen]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Is it just me, or is the fact Megan is mixed race

> and American an attempt by the Royal Family to

> modernise - or am I being cynical?

>

> (#expecting abuse)

>

> When have we ever had a biracial princess before?

I think they are both genuinely smitten but the royal family are certainly taking the opportunity to put a message across. The cynical side of me says this is aimed at the Commonwealth to foster better trading links post Brexit, I believe it has been announced the happy couple intend working to strengthen those links.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I think the wedding was lovely - and yes - they looked very happy together :-)

[IlonaM]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> I think the wedding was lovely - and yes - they

> looked very happy together :-)

Absolutely! I think it was refreshingly delightful. I hadn't expected to watch it, but I popped in to see the dress and stayed for the service. Loved the Bishop Prelate's address - fantastic.

[flocker spotter]

oh dear

[dbboy]

Harry is apparently not Royal, being the supposed son of James Hewitt's liaison with Diana.

Was he at the wedding?? Their still trying to do away with him.

[Louisa]

Won?t last long. Diana was used by Charles to promote the positives of monarchy, look how that ended up. Divorce. These people have previous when it comes to using people to secure their situation. No doubt the publicity this wedding gives them was carefully choreographed to make them acceptable to a 21st century audience.

Parasites thrive when given the conditions to do so. They will do whatever it takes to remain in their position. This wedding is a god send to them. Anyone who falls for this stuff is a moron.

Louisa.

[Robert Poste's Child]

There's a school of family psychology that says the first child in a family lives out the overt values and aspirations of the more powerful parent and the second one the more covert values and aspirations of the less powerful parent. This seems to be playing out with William and Harry, though I suspect there is more sympathy between the two of them than that might sometimes imply.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > >

> > > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't

> > > have to see it if you don't want to.

> >

> > I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid,

> > po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

>

> I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on

> the opinion pieces, works quite well.

Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite useful for news (though rather less so than it used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster clickbait links all over the page (because - lets face it - they have to do something to get the nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a month for nothing).

[Loz]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Harry is apparently not Royal, being the supposed

> son of James Hewitt's liaison with Diana.

> Was he at the wedding?? Their still trying to do

> away with him.

I used to think he was obviously Hewitts's, but I'm not so sure now. As Harry gets older he's starting to look more like Charles than he does like Hewitt. Plus, Harry was conceived in very early 1984, which is a just little too soon.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Who knows? It's interesting that the rumours persist. Personally I think he looks like Charles around the eyes - small, round and rather close together - but more likely he just takes after his mother's family in his looks and colouring as there's a strong streak of reddish-mouse hair there, a very English colour.

The ancestor he reminds me of most is another Henry, the young Henry VIII, also a younger son and much admired at Harry's age. He too married an older, previously attached woman from another country (previously betrothed to his brother before he died), and was by all accounts very much in love with her romantically.

[IlonaM]

The Spencer's have auburn hair in their genes, so I've always thought the Hewitt rumour was wrong.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite

> useful for news (though rather less so than it

> used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster

> clickbait links all over the page (because - lets

> face it - they have to do something to get the

> nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a

> month for nothing).

You don't see any contradiction in saying they're quite useful and that asking for subscriptions is demanding money for nothing? The two chief rightwing "broadsheets" demand payment, why do the right find it so risible that the Guardian should ask for a voluntary payment, and why do you insult people who think it's appropriate to do so? Why aren't you mocking people who pay for the Times (where the quality of journalism is far lower, by the way). There are a million sources for you to get the news, if you don't like the Guardian don't use it, but stop talking about it as if it has some sort of duty, which it's betraying, to conform to your point of view.

[dbboy]

SO when the current Queen dies Charles III will become King and Camilla will become Queen, I really can't see that being acceptable or won't do the Royals any favours based on Camilla's track record. Them William will eventually inherit the throne William V maybe in 20 years with Katherine (Kate) becoming Queen. That will be followed by George VII, Queen Charlotte and potentially King Louie. Can't see Harry becoming King Harold III.

I have no problem with William onwards taking their future Royal roles although. They are flesh and blood the same as we are, their privilege being inherited makes them no better or worse than any other man, women or child in the UK, Commonwealth or World.

In 1937 Edward VIII married an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson, you'd have thought the monarchy would have learnt from history. It seems Harry's wife already has made it clear she wants to continue with her campaigning and being a feminist. I wonder how the Royals and the Court see her?