FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Royal rave up today - don't care about 'the wedding' though!





watersoul
Well, it's finally happening, two people who I don't know are getting married and our overlord queen has decided in her wisdom that all her subjects can be allowed an extra day off work to 'celebrate' Rolling Eyes

It was already going to be a long weekend due to the national holiday on Monday anyway, but now most of Britain is looking forward to 4 days in a row off work. We've taken advantage of this in full, the Union flags are everywhere, the DJ's decks are set up in the garden, fire ready to be lit, and lots of food, drink, music and laughter is expected until the small hours tomorrow morning.

I've done a poll of pretty much everyone I know and so far I haven't spoken to anyone who actually gives a toss about the wedding, or the royals. It was a brilliant tactical move making the day a national holiday because now it appears that everyone is celebrating for the happy couple. In reality, I would suggest that the extra paid day off work is the real reason most people are celebrating.
I've no doubt there will be many royalist type folk who are excited for the wedding, but certainly where I'm at it's just an excuse for a party.

A couple of music producing DJ mates have even remixed 'God save the queen' and 'Rule Britannia' in a techno-house style so that should be good for a few laughs when they drop it into their set.
We're all hoping that by pretending to celebrate as good sheep-like royal subjects, maybe for once the miserable neighbours across the road might let us party all day without complaining. We'll see later I guess.

Anyway, time to get set up for a mad day of fun and silliness, congratulations to Wills and Kate, I don't know you or respect your 'royal' blood at all, but please say thanks to Liz for giving us an extra day off work - to be fair though, it's the least she could do because our taxes are paying for it all!

...feel free to share your thoughts on this outdated royal institution, or even defend it, if you do happen to be a brainwashed fan of the monarchy Wink
robinio_1965
Todat at work it was VERY bussy around the point of saying YES in our restaurant. Normaly its around this very quit BUT there is a big screen where it was shown.

Specialy the girls are taking a early lunch.
deanhills
I was not planning to watch the wedding, and for lack of anything worth watching, just happened to click on a channel just after they had exchanged their vows. And then found it interesting enough to keep watching. That Westminster Abbey is pretty impressive, wow! The camera man focused quite a lot from the ceilings down, what an amazing architecture. The bride and groom also looked quite normal and relaxed with each another. The crowds were quite overwhelming, must have been some special vibes floating around. So I'm not entirely unhappy that I just got to click by accident while the wedding was under way.

The part that must have impressed everyone in the world is how fastidiously all the arrangements had been. Everything worked like clock work. Including the crowds around Buckingham Palace.

I was unaware that Friday was made into a public holiday in the UK. Is this a one off, or are they going to celebrate this now on an annual basis? Twisted Evil

Although, I learned for the first time there is a Diamond Jubilee coming up next year for the Queen. Hope she keeps fit and healthy until then .....
loyal
watersoul wrote:
Well, it's finally happening, two people who I don't know are getting married and our overlord queen has decided in her wisdom that all her subjects can be allowed an extra day off work to 'celebrate' Rolling Eyes


Pretty much the only thing she has the power to do now lol

Peace.
Cal_123
No Dean, this is a one-off. Although any future 'Royal Weddings' will have the same affect as far as a national holiday goes. I think there is one lined up for next year, or even later this year. Roll on more days away from work and university Very Happy
truespeed
Apparently 2 billion people watched worldwide,a 3rd of the worlds population.

Some pictures for the 4 billion who missed it.













deanhills
Excellent photos Truespeed. I missed some of those, so this puts the wedding in a logical sequence. The bride really looked great, and I like her dress. Amazing how something as simple and elegant as that, can triumph the fancy bare shoulder dresses. For a commoner, she acted almost more royal than most I've seen. Except, of course she is now no longer a commoner. Does anyone know what she is going to be called from now on? Lady Catherine or Lady Kate? Twisted Evil
Cheeldash
I didn't watch neither on tv since i don't mind but some friends of mine went to see it and they've been lucky enough to see the queen.
I'd really like to see them King and Queen anyway Cool
deanhills
Cheeldash wrote:
I'd really like to see them King and Queen anyway Cool
I thought the King and Queen looked a bit dead. If I had visited it would have been more along the lines of witnessing how excellent the Brits are at organizing something of this magnitude. I've always thought them superior in pulling off PR events like these, to any others I've seen in other countries. I just hope for their sake that they are going to make some money out of it.
kirii
Im one of the 4 billion..not really interested in seeing other ppl wedding Shocked
Bluedoll
I thought the wedding was just lovely and wish for the couple every happiness. Perhaps the grooms mother smiles from a spiritual place of contentment.

Thanks for posting those pictures... they are so great! Wow!

It was cute to see the prince trying not to step on her gown, oh I wish they would have kissed in the church and to rebelously stood up in the moving carriage and just wave on .........
Very Happy
watersoul
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!
Royalty is only based on the bloodline of whoever had the most troops many hundreds of years ago and won whichever tribal battles. It's a ridiculous outdated institution which has no place in a modern society, and I find it offensive that my own son cannot aspire to be 'head of state' because of an accident of birth.

We had a brilliant party yesterday of course, but none of us were celebrating for Wills & Kate, just the fact that we all had an extra day off work!
If anyone really thinks that someone has the right to be head of a country because they were born in a particular family, then they really are brainwashed with no idea of what a democracy should be.
sonam
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!


This is good presentation how mass media have big influence on the peoples.

Sonam
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!
Different horses, different courses? For me there was something really good about this wedding. The couple acted completely natural and obviously were enjoying themselves. And that kind of enjoyment can be infectious. I was not interested initially, but something grabbed me and then I spent some time on the show. I find myself now completely curious about the couple whereas previously I had not thought that much of them. They made some spectacular photos as well. No duck faces .... Very Happy She was smiling all the time. Very Happy
watersoul
sonam wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!


This is good presentation how mass media have big influence on the peoples.


Totally true fella, like sheep following mainstream tv without the ability to question what they are supposed to be interested in.
I also wonder what crap government statistics (unemployment/healthcare waiting lists etc) were released yesterday and conveniently buried in the news because of the 'big story'
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!
Different horses, different courses? For me there was something really good about this wedding. The couple acted completely natural and obviously were enjoying themselves. And that kind of enjoyment can be infectious. I was not interested initially, but something grabbed me and then I spent some time on the show. I find myself now completely curious about the couple whereas previously I had not thought that much of them. They made some spectacular photos as well. No duck faces .... Very Happy She was smiling all the time. Very Happy


What made their wedding anymore important than anyone else who got married yesterday?
The fact that one of them happened to be born in a particular family?

Sorry Dean but it's outdated and wrong in so many constitutional ways, and I think if you paused for a moment and thought about it you could only come to the same conclusion.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
sonam wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!


This is good presentation how mass media have big influence on the peoples.


Totally true fella, like sheep following mainstream tv without the ability to question what they are supposed to be interested in.
I also wonder what crap government statistics (unemployment/healthcare waiting lists etc) were released yesterday and conveniently buried in the news because of the 'big story'
Come off it Watersoul. It's nice to have a hope story amongst all the doomsday messages. But yes, there is one awful situation that got under reported as a consequence, which are the tornadoes in the South of US. I'm sorry about that. Wow, it never rains but just pours, and apparently literally, as they are now expecting floods to follow the tornadoes. Hope there aren't any nuclear stations that have been affected by this.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
sonam wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Wow, I'm shocked that so many of you actually cared about a wedding between two people who you don't know!


This is good presentation how mass media have big influence on the peoples.


Totally true fella, like sheep following mainstream tv without the ability to question what they are supposed to be interested in.
I also wonder what crap government statistics (unemployment/healthcare waiting lists etc) were released yesterday and conveniently buried in the news because of the 'big story'
Come off it Watersoul. It's nice to have a hope story amongst all the doomsday messages. But yes, there is one awful situation that got under reported as a consequence, which are the tornadoes in the South of US. I'm sorry about that. Wow, it never rains but just pours, and apparently literally, as they are now expecting floods to follow the tornadoes. Hope there aren't any nuclear stations that have been affected by this.


Nah, come off it Dean, my taxes paid for that party yesterday and only because a member of the happy couple happened to be born in a particular family...explain to me why I should think that is acceptable?
standready
deanhills wrote:
But yes, there is one awful situation that got under reported as a consequence, which are the tornadoes in the South of US. I'm sorry about that. Wow, it never rains but just pours, and apparently literally, as they are now expecting floods to follow the tornadoes. Hope there aren't any nuclear stations that have been affected by this.

Yesterday morning, I struggled to find news about the tornadoes/storms. Almost all were reporting on that wedding instead of something important and very sad. And Dean, yes, there were nuclear power plants in the storms paths. One loss power. Shutdowns went well and no major damage reported.

watersoul wrote:
please say thanks to Liz for giving us an extra day off work.

Is 'Liz' paying you for the day off or is the business you work for footing it?

One of the four million that didn't watch!
Bikerman
<two of the 4 million>
watersoul
standready wrote:

watersoul wrote:
please say thanks to Liz for giving us an extra day off work.

Is 'Liz' paying you for the day off or is the business you work for footing it?

Neither, I missed out on a days pay and my taxes paid for all the public employees/civil servants to hav a day off Twisted Evil
truespeed
Although in principal i am against the idea of the Royal family,the fact is the UK had 2 Billion people worldwide watching a UK good news story. So from that perspective, it was a good PR exercise for the country.

PS: Is your name Melvin watersoul? Smile
watersoul
truespeed wrote:
Although in principal i am against the idea of the Royal family,the fact is the UK had 2 Billion people worldwide watching a UK good news story. So from that perspective, it was a good PR exercise for the country.

PS: Is your name Melvin watersoul? Smile

Lol, no that wasn't me! Smile
adri
<three of the 4 million>

I haven't watched it either because I had 8 hours of classes that Friday (from 8u30 - 12u30 and 14u-18u) and once I got home, all the news had already been broadcasted on the tellie. :p

adri
sonam
<four of the 4 million>

BTW, did England have the same situation with Diana and Charles?
Confused
Sonam
watersoul
sonam wrote:
<four of the 4 million>

BTW, did England have the same situation with Diana and Charles?
Confused
Sonam


I remember being given special commemorative books in school when Charles & Diana got married in 1981. Even as a small boy then I wondered why they were supposed to be any more special than anyone else, just two human beings who were lucky enough to be born in a certain family. Typical brainwash style marketing for an outdated institution.

The whole 'royal' family thing is ridiculous and I totally object to funding it as a British taxpayer.
When our country is borrowing over £180 billion just to pay the bills this year there is no place for extravagant parties for a select few who can only claim their position by birthright.

This is the 21st century and I'm completely shocked that billions of people around the world honestly think that a single family have the right to lead a country because they have 'royal' blood.
Absolutely pathetic stuff which belongs in the dark-ages.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
sonam wrote:
<four of the 4 million>

BTW, did England have the same situation with Diana and Charles?
Confused
Sonam


I remember being given special commemorative books in school when Charles & Diana got married in 1981. Even as a small boy I wondered why they were supposed to be any more special than anyone else, just two human beings who were lucky enough to be born in a certain family. Typical brainwash style marketing for an outdated institution.

The whole 'royal' family thing is ridiculous and I totally object to funding it as a British taxpayer.
When our country is borrowing over £180 billion just to pay the bills this year there is no place for extravagant parties for a select few who can only claim their position by birthright.

This is the 21st century and I'm completely shocked that billions of people around the world honestly think that a single family have the right to lead a country because they have 'royal' blood.
Absolutely pathetic stuff which belongs in the dark-ages.
You mean it is OK for the rest of the world to have their celebrities but not the UK? I don't agree with you.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
sonam wrote:
<four of the 4 million>

BTW, did England have the same situation with Diana and Charles?
Confused
Sonam


I remember being given special commemorative books in school when Charles & Diana got married in 1981. Even as a small boy I wondered why they were supposed to be any more special than anyone else, just two human beings who were lucky enough to be born in a certain family. Typical brainwash style marketing for an outdated institution.

The whole 'royal' family thing is ridiculous and I totally object to funding it as a British taxpayer.
When our country is borrowing over £180 billion just to pay the bills this year there is no place for extravagant parties for a select few who can only claim their position by birthright.

This is the 21st century and I'm completely shocked that billions of people around the world honestly think that a single family have the right to lead a country because they have 'royal' blood.
Absolutely pathetic stuff which belongs in the dark-ages.
You mean it is OK for the rest of the world to have their celebrities but not the UK? I don't agree with you.


You aren't paying for them Dean, I am, and so is every other tax payer in this country.
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? It certainly isn't a situation where the head of state is chosen by birth Shocked
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
You aren't paying for them Dean, I am, and so is every other tax payer in this country.
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? It certainly isn't a situation where the head of state is chosen by birth Shocked
Life is unfair with or without democracy. Why should some people get to earn millions while others remain poor? Why is it that a teacher notices one pupil in her class and makes a lasting impression on him that makes him want to excel, and ignores another?

Anyway, how would you want to deal with the Royalty? What are your dreams for them .... Twisted Evil
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
You aren't paying for them Dean, I am, and so is every other tax payer in this country.
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? It certainly isn't a situation where the head of state is chosen by birth Shocked
Life is unfair with or without democracy. Why should some people get to earn millions while others remain poor? Why is it that a teacher notices one pupil in her class and make a lasting impression on him that makes him want to excel, and ignores another?

Anyway, how would you want to have the Royalty? What are your dreams for them .... Twisted Evil


They can keep their fine homes and the odd palace if they fund the annual repair bills themselves, I've no problem with that, but they should have no place in the constitutional government of my country at all, and certainly not funded by my taxes.
Heads of state should be elected and not decided by an accident of birth, but if you disagree with that I'd be happy to hear a strong argument to support the case for unelected monarchies?
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
You aren't paying for them Dean, I am, and so is every other tax payer in this country.
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? It certainly isn't a situation where the head of state is chosen by birth Shocked
Life is unfair with or without democracy. Why should some people get to earn millions while others remain poor? Why is it that a teacher notices one pupil in her class and make a lasting impression on him that makes him want to excel, and ignores another?

Anyway, how would you want to have the Royalty? What are your dreams for them .... Twisted Evil


They can keep their fine homes and the odd palace if they fund the annual repair bills themselves, I've no problem with that, but they should have no place in the constitutional government of my country at all, and certainly not funded by my taxes.
Heads of state should be elected and not decided by an accident of birth, but if you disagree with that I'd be happy to hear a strong argument to support the case for unelected monarchies?
I don't disagree. I don't have a very strong opinion either. I just thought the wedding day was a testimony to British excellence at PR. I can also imagine that it must have provided jobs for many people, including wedding gowns, hats, catering, security, cleaning, etc. So there must have at least been some benefits for people who needed to be employed. I never intended to watch the wedding and it happened by fluke, and then just found I had to see more. It was natural, relaxed, almost effortless. And the bride was really worth watching. Even you have to agree Watersoul. She was smiling all the time. I wonder how much of luck it must have been for her, as I'm almost certain she must have worked pretty hard to master all the ceremony portions including the manouvrings of her veil and wedding gown. She was excellent at it!
watersoul
I'm with you there Dean, and to be honest I am actually happy for the two people who are in love and deciding to spend their lives together, marriage can be a beautiful thing and I wish them all the best for their future, even though I don't know them.

...I just don't want to pay for it though, because they really are no more important to me than any other 'common people' who I see every day Wink

standready
watersoul wrote:
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? Shocked

Democracy (according to one of my professors), "you all get to have a vote but 'I' decide". I am beginning to think he was correct!
watersoul
standready wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? Shocked

Democracy (according to one of my professors), "you all get to have a vote but 'I' decide". I am beginning to think he was correct!


Lol, I'll run with that! Surprised
deanhills
standready wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Have you no idea of what a democracy is? Shocked

Democracy (according to one of my professors), "you all get to have a vote but 'I' decide". I am beginning to think he was correct!
I like that Professor. Now that sounds wise to me! Very Happy
Greatking
I watched the wedding and it was a beautiful event.
Kate looked very elegant and simple at the same time.
And the prince looked dashing.
It was like s farytale.
Every girls dreem.
watersoul
Greatking wrote:
I watched the wedding and it was a beautiful event.
Kate looked very elegant and simple at the same time.
And the prince looked dashing.
It was like s farytale.
Every girls dreem.


I agree with everything you say, but you could probably say the same thing about most weddings if they had a massive budget funded by the people of this country.
I include the peasant folk exploited in years gone past with the modern day taxpayer of today.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
I include the peasant folk exploited in years gone past with the modern day taxpayer of today.
I hear what you are saying. But is that not the case with all of us. We're either born lucky or not, but is it really lucky, as that is relative too and in the eye of the beholder? For example, how many people would give their eye teeth to be living where you are living now. Yet maybe they are unable to. Almost like the lottery.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
For example, how many people would give their eye teeth to be living where you are living now. Yet maybe they are unable to. Almost like the lottery.


I'm not sure thats the best example you could have made.
I was a homeless (rough sleeping) 16 year old runaway many years ago and I built up everything I have now through my own efforts and motivation.
There was not much 'luck' involved there, just my own aspirations to get off the streets, finish my education, find work, and basically improve my life.
Apart from people living in an oppressive regime etc, with enough effort, education and hard work almost anyone can aspire to a life like mine.

I have a few friends who actually live in million pound houses near me, I don't envy them at all, they or their parents worked hard to get in that position and I'm pleased for them to be fortunate enough to be born into that created wealth.
Theres a big difference though, their wealth is the result of hard work and not from the taxes of me or my ancestors.

I'm sure with enough time, effort and the right plan in place I could also get the million pound house myself, if I really wanted to.
I cannot however, aspire to live a life of luxury funded by the taxes of others though, that is exclusively reserved as a privilege for one particular 'royal' family in this country Evil or Very Mad
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
For example, how many people would give their eye teeth to be living where you are living now. Yet maybe they are unable to. Almost like the lottery.


I'm not sure thats the best example you could have made.
I was a homeless (rough sleeping) 16 year old runaway many years ago and I built up everything I have now through my own efforts and motivation.
There was not much 'luck' involved there, just my own aspirations to get off the streets, finish my education, find work, and basically improve my life.
Apart from people living in an oppressive regime etc, with enough effort, education and hard work almost anyone can aspire to a life like mine.
Sorry Watersoul, I must have put it badly as that was not what I intended with what I wrote. This is not about you having received a hand-out. Quite a large number of others have also fought hard, however may be in countries or in situations where their fighting got them nowhere. I also had nothing to start with and feel lucky to be where I am. I worked really hard to get where I am. But there are many people out there who are working equally hard if not harder, however may just not be as lucky as you and I have been. For example they may have been born in a poor country that discriminates against their religion or their colour etc. Or simply never received a break. I sometimes think life is like rolling dice and making the best of the dices that come your way. I was born more or less free and feel lucky with the opportunities that came my way, but there may be others who have not been as lucky as I have been. Ditto these guys in the Royal family. It's not really their fault that they got born to be Royals, and who knows, maybe they'd have preferred not to be Royals as I can't think they're too keen to be seen as free loaders.

watersoul wrote:
I have a few friends who actually live in million pound houses near me, I don't envy them at all, they or their parents worked hard to get in that position and I'm pleased for them to be fortunate enough to be born into that created wealth.
Theres a big difference though, their wealth is the result of hard work and not from the taxes of me or my ancestors.
Agreed. More money sometimes make people unhappy. Or happy, depending how they use their money.

watersoul wrote:
I'm sure with enough time, effort and the right plan in place I could also get the million pound house myself, if I really wanted to.
I cannot however, aspire to live a life of luxury funded by the taxes of others though, that is exclusively reserved as a privilege for one particular 'royal' family in this country Evil or Very Mad
Now that I share with you 100% Although I decidedly get the idea that I have to make a change, I'd like to start something new, and not sure what to do. So was really interested in your idea about plumbing, that sort of caught my imagination. While I was in Vancouver, those were the guys who made real money and it is always great working for oneself. Very Happy
Greatking
it was a great wedding, a fairytale actually.
i was at work so i could not watch the whole procession just bits and pieces.
but what i saw was OK
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
Sorry Watersoul, I must have put it badly as that was not what I intended with what I wrote. This is not about you having received a hand-out. Quite a large number of others have also fought hard, however may be in countries or in situations where their fighting got them nowhere. I also had nothing to start with and feel lucky to be where I am. I worked really hard to get where I am. But there are many people out there who are working equally hard if not harder, however may just not be as lucky as you and I have been. For example they may have been born in a poor country that discriminates against their religion or their colour etc. Or simply never received a break. I sometimes think life is like rolling dice and making the best of the dices that come your way. I was born more or less free and feel lucky with the opportunities that came my way, but there may be others who have not been as lucky as I have been. Ditto these guys in the Royal family. It's not really their fault that they got born to be Royals, and who knows, maybe they'd have preferred not to be Royals as I can't think they're too keen to be seen as free loaders.


Sorry not needed fella Smile I knew what you meant, and I only used the example to show that through my own efforts (and however much time I need), I can aspire to almost any position in my country, except head of state.

Although I've ranted about it a bit, on a side note, this story interests me...

Prince William's third RAF rescue a week after wedding
Quote:
...Prince William was among the crew of a rescue helicopter from RAF Valley on Anglesey who saved a 46-year-old man stranded on Tryfan mountain on Friday.

The man had tumbled a short distance near the summit and it is believed he had dislocated his shoulder.

The prince's helicopter was also involved in other two rescues in Snowdonia on Wednesday...


It could be good marketing/PR exercise to encourage us to love the future king, or it could be an example of a hardworking human being who commands my respect through his real service to the country.
My gut instinct is the latter, and as you said, he might well wish that he could live a 'normal' life sometimes, just like his service mates are able to do.

*edit* But I still don't think an accident of birth gives him any right to be the leader of my country...no matter how much I may or may not like the work he does for the people.
IceCreamTruck
Deanhills wrote:
dices


I love you, Dean!


watersoul wrote:
*edit* But I still don't think an accident of birth gives him any right to be the leader of my country...no matter how much I may or may not like the work he does for the people."


Many of us can appreciate that, and you have my full support, but I enjoy the British Monarchy from an international American perspective. I don't fully understand what they do but the people seem to be genuinely entertained by them and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

We have the Osborns and Oprah who are as wealthy as gods, and command a lot of respect. People can talk about how these people don't have power, but power is numbers and these people have it.

As long as people are born of families in capitalist based society there will always be drastic devisions in class that is a birth right. Some are born to influence, some money, others fame, and still others born to dig ditches and clean toilets. I personally don't care what you label it because it all sucks if you are on the bottom looking up, but you always need to learn to appreciate what you have -- basically a chance to change anything you like.

I recommend starting small...
watersoul
Of course there are celebrities in every country, but you have to ask yourself how many of them are funded directly by the tax payers with no choice to opt out? Again, i'm totally shocked anyone can defend this institution at all in the 21st century!
ProfessorY91
Though the event has passed, I would just like to throw in my two cents. We fought an entire war not to care about shit like this. Also, the monarchy sucks, its fallen into disuse, and the army is no longer controlled by the throne. The monarchy could have retained power. It could have remained a functional and effective ruling body, had they paid more attention to their loyal (or disloyal) subjects. I think a militaristic government would have been awesome, particularly because it is far more efficient in times of war. Then again, I don't condone unnecessary fighting, or disputes over land, or generally any fighting that satisfies the human inclination to be greedy. That pretty much rules out the majority of the motivations that people in power have exhibited over the years.
watersoul
ProfessorY91 wrote:
Though the event has passed, I would just like to throw in my two cents. We fought an entire war not to care about shit like this. Also, the monarchy sucks, its fallen into disuse, and the army is no longer controlled by the throne. The monarchy could have retained power. It could have remained a functional and effective ruling body, had they paid more attention to their loyal (or disloyal) subjects. I think a militaristic government would have been awesome, particularly because it is far more efficient in times of war. Then again, I don't condone unnecessary fighting, or disputes over land, or generally any fighting that satisfies the human inclination to be greedy. That pretty much rules out the majority of the motivations that people in power have exhibited over the years.


So, you think an unelected leader able to order a countries citizens into war is appropriate in the 21st century? I'd be interested in the reasoning to support this view.

IceCreamTruck wrote:
[...] I don't fully understand what they do but the people seem to be genuinely entertained by them and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. [...]


It's a bad thing when The Crown Estate (a pseudo commercial organisation which runs the royal family land assets) controls:

The Crown Estate wrote:
The marine estate which includes over half of the UK’s foreshore, tidal river-beds and almost all of the seabed within the 12 nautical miles limit – including rights to all minerals but excluding hydrocarbons


Quote:
Rights to all naturally occurring gold and silver


...plus many hundreds of thousands of acres of land on this island with tenants paying rent for the right to farm there. Ok, we're not in the peasant farmer days where the king\queens lord of the manor could simply steal a mans wife for his own, but it cannot be right that ownership of the land rests in one family so closely tied to the government - unelected, yet with symbolic official power over the masses.

A modern day problem is the high rents being charged by the crown for off-shore wind farms. The Crown Estate is looking at making millions and while they do 'pay tax' to the treasury, the entire amount could be paid to the country without this freeloading 3rd party family taking a cut along the way.

People may be 'entertained' by them, but these are the same sheep-like people who watch x-factor, America's got talent, or whatever other brainwashing mass media ticks the boxes in their head.

If you are a fan of the unelected monarchy system in this country then please feel free to support them in this topic, but it would be helpful to stick to arguments along the lines of what is democratic and fair, instead of "oh the dress was lovely" or "it was like a farytale". None of that is relevant to the argument I (and many others) have which is that our taxes fund the whole thing and we have no option to vote them out of the equation.
IceCreamTruck
I totally understand what you are saying, and again you have my full support, but I'm not sure how you should go about asking the royal family to step down. Should they offer to sell the land they are leasing? If they truly have no power then why haven't they been displaced yet? I have a lot more BIG questions.
truespeed
The monarchy is a British institution,being born into that institution it could be argued is more of a burden than a benefit,from day one (Especially for the first born male) you have no choices,your whole life is mapped out before you. You can't even get married without the world watching,your whole life is lived in the public eye,would anyone really want to be born into that?

Yes you can abdicate like Edward VIII,but you can never get away from who you are,the press and the public would never let you forget.

I agree with watersoul that it is outdated and not really needed now,although i am not convinced by all of his arguments for getting rid,i have read somewhere that the royal family generate more money via tourism and the like than they cost the public in taxes,i don't know how true this is and to what extent if it is,and i can't be bothered googling to find out. Smile
IceCreamTruck
truespeed wrote:
the royal family generate more money via tourism and the like than they cost the public in taxes,i don't know how true this is and to what extent if it is,and i can't be bothered googling to find out. Smile


Exactly... these people generate economy, and you can't remove them without at least first trying to understand the people that rely on that economy to survive. Anytime you displace a large group of people's interest you have levels of unrest the remaining economic structure has trouble working past. You don't want to end up with yet another dependent population group.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
truespeed wrote:
the royal family generate more money via tourism and the like than they cost the public in taxes,i don't know how true this is and to what extent if it is,and i can't be bothered googling to find out. Smile


Exactly... these people generate economy, and you can't remove them without at least first trying to understand the people that rely on that economy to survive. Anytime you displace a large group of people's interest you have levels of unrest the remaining economic structure has trouble working past. You don't want to end up with yet another dependent population group.


Sorry guys, I will have to see if any real studies have been done on this, but are you really trying to say that if the royal family funded their own lifestyle, were allowed to retain their palaces etc, but lost the unelected involvement in the government of the country that we would suddenly lose millions of pounds worth of tourism?!!

Absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Even if it were true and the royal family were 'the only' reason people visit Britain then I still struggle to see how this benefits anyone outside London.
I shall search for any figures regarding this, but that old chestnut has been going on for years and I cannot see how the UK economy could be any more damaged than it already is.

Oh, and as far as them 'generating economy', even if it were true, so does Richard Branson, but that doesnt give him any right to be head of my country.
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Even if it were true and the royal family were 'the only' reason people visit Britain then I still struggle to see how this benefits anyone outside London.


It's a trade industry spread over a larger area than just London. I did not watch the wedding, but I'm under the understanding that none of the proceedings happened in London, so you are way off base to say the royal family structure only exists in London, and for some smaller towns that claim loyal heritage either by birthright or marriage this is their only claim to fame, and any funds or publicity they receive as a result is the very economy of which we speak.

Here's another point... when the queen speaks people listen. This is power. You have some measure of power on frihost of this sort because we have all come to know you as a fairly level headed individual who sounds like a lot of fun to hang out with, but even with a few friends at frihost you cannot hope to hold a candle to her ability to sway public opinion.

Some people adore her, and utter "God save the queen" with so much breath you wonder when they are going to start turning blue from general lack of oxygen. Where that reverence comes from we may never understand, but certainly respect for the queen is not beyond you. If you cannot respect her I strongly suggest keeping to the shore line, and getting on a boat and making a break for France if there's trouble. Haha! We might not be very strong support in your defiance of the queen! Smile
Ghost900
I am not sure about exact figures but there seems to be a lot of interest in the British royal family as has been found with all the news coverage of the wedding. I don't know if that's the entire reason people go to visit London, more like one more reason to go see London.
IceCreamTruck
Ghost900 wrote:
I am not sure about exact figures but there seems to be a lot of interest in the British royal family as has been found with all the news coverage of the wedding. I don't know if that's the entire reason people go to visit London, more like one more reason to go see London.


It's not easily quantified, but that doesn't make it any less real. Call it people living out their fantasies vicariously through them, or whatever you like it's a powerful force that is undeniable. It extends past political boundaries as well as the royal family would even be able to solicit help outside their country even if they weren't able to garner much assistance from within that political boundary.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
If you cannot respect her I strongly suggest keeping to the shore line, and getting on a boat and making a break for France if there's trouble. Haha! We might not be very strong support in your defiance of the queen! Smile


Wow, again shocked Shocked
You live in a constitutional republic and are telling me that if I disagree with my unelected head of state then I should leave the country because I am against hereditary rules having any place in a modern government?!

OK, I'm open to your line of reasoning... any chance you could share the statistics you've found regarding the loss of tourism if the queen lost her constitutional role yet retained the palaces etc?
I've searched a lot over the years and its all anecdotal, in fact, the only figures I can ever find is that Windsor castle is in the lower half of the top 20 visitor attractions in the UK - but remember when you visit it you won't get to see any royal family members.

I'm also very interested in your political argument to defend an unelected head of state? Please don't say 'lots of people seem to like it' as I know many many people who don't, or the ones who do are just sheep-like folk who cannot accept that human beings are human beings with blood as red as each others - 'Royal' is BS and the birth of anyone in a particular family does not in itself command respect. Obviously if you disagree, I'd be happy to see your reasoning.

Ghost900 wrote:
I am not sure about exact figures but there seems to be a lot of interest in the British royal family as has been found with all the news coverage of the wedding. I don't know if that's the entire reason people go to visit London, more like one more reason to go see London.

Absolutely right, it is of course a contributing factor, and an added bonus I'm sure, but to define the overseas visitors contribution to the British tourism industry on some perceived love of the royals by the rest of the world is absurd.
Obviously, if anyone has any concrete figures I'd love to see them, but as far as I've searched (many times over the years), there are no studies that I know of which state tourists would stop coming to the UK if the royal family link was removed from the government of my country.

PS, Mod's if this is getting too political please feel free to move the topic Wink
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
Wow, again shocked Shocked


I'm merely stating that in a political mudslinging contest you would lose against the queen, plain and simple. I'm saying worry for your personal safety because the people you are talking about upsetting swing political clout as well as substantial influence over the general public. Hence why they remain the unelected leader of your country. I'm probably stupidly pointing out that your statements would carry much more weight if you were the unelected leader of your country but you are not.

You have my support and I understand your argument, but isn't it a little like telling Oprah she can't make appearances on TV anymore only in the fact that it would make a bunch of people angry who like seeing her on TV? Wouldn't a sizable portion of the population side with the queen? What ever the case you are looking at civil war currently until they loose more sway with the general public which is bound to happen sooner or later. I doubt the people will retain them in positions of power for much more of human history and it's going to be up to royal family to bow out gracefully unless they want people to die.

I see you are just about ready to fight for your freedom from a system you don't care for, and understandably so. I don't mean to keep enraging you by bringing up counter points, but it's almost as if you refuse to consider the extent to which they are rooted into your society and thus you don't know your enemy very well if that's the position you choose.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
You have my support and I understand your argument, but isn't it a little like telling Oprah she can't make appearances on TV anymore only in the fact that it would make a bunch of people angry who like seeing her on TV? Wouldn't a sizable portion of the population side with the queen? What ever the case you are looking at civil war currently until they loose more sway with the general public which is bound to happen sooner or later. I doubt the people will retain them in positions of power for much more of human history and it's going to be up to royal family to bow out gracefully unless they want people to die.

I see you are just about ready to fight for your freedom from a system you don't care for, and understandably so. I don't mean to keep enraging you by bringing up counter points, but it's almost as if you refuse to consider the extent to which they are rooted into your society and thus you don't know your enemy very well if that's the position you choose.


You're not enraging me at all fella Smile I take the counter argument as an opportunity to present my own. Honestly, there are many people who feel the same as me, including many more prominent figures than myself (elected British members of the European/UK/Scottish/Welsh parliments/assemblies and also senior lawyers - who ironically hold the formal title of Queens Counsel)

Source: republic.org.uk

I totally understand how deeply rooted it is in a large section of society, but it does depend on the age and socio-economic position of the people polled.
As far as 'knowing the enemy' is concerned though, as each generation is born and we all become more educated about what democracy really is, the numbers are certainly dwindling.
I said previously (and stand by it) that it was a brilliant tactical move to make 'the wedding' a national holiday as the amount of pseudo royalists it created for the 4 day weekend was unbelievable.
I lost a lot of money for that day off, yet everyones taxes paid for millions of public servants to chill out on full pay. When your family is effectively the state and the taxpayer funds the celebration, I guess you can get away with anything Rolling Eyes
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
I lost a lot of money for that day off, yet everyones taxes paid for millions of public servants to chill out on full pay. When your family is effectively the state and the taxpayer funds the celebration, I guess you can get away with anything Rolling Eyes


That sucks, but at least you got a day off. I pay high taxes, get taxed twice all the time, and still don't get a day off so I hope you enjoyed your four day weekend for me as well.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:
I lost a lot of money for that day off, yet everyones taxes paid for millions of public servants to chill out on full pay. When your family is effectively the state and the taxpayer funds the celebration, I guess you can get away with anything Rolling Eyes


That sucks, but at least you got a day off. I pay high taxes, get taxed twice all the time, and still don't get a day off so I hope you enjoyed your four day weekend for me as well.


Lol, I did have a mad weekend as mentioned in the OP, cheers, and we still have another two to look forward to on 30th May and 29th August.
You're completely welcome around here then if you want, as we're bound to be partying on those weekends as well, just make sure theres no celebrating any archaic institutions though, royalists aren't invited! Wink

...that sounds uncool with your taxes but I'd be totally shocked if you gave a greater percentage of your earnings than I do each year. As far as I understand from US folk I meet in other forums, we pay a huge amount more than you guys?
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:
I lost a lot of money for that day off, yet everyones taxes paid for millions of public servants to chill out on full pay. When your family is effectively the state and the taxpayer funds the celebration, I guess you can get away with anything Rolling Eyes


That sucks, but at least you got a day off. I pay high taxes, get taxed twice all the time, and still don't get a day off so I hope you enjoyed your four day weekend for me as well.


Lol, I did have a mad weekend as mentioned in the OP, cheers, and we still have another two to look forward to on 30th May and 29th August.
You're completely welcome around here then if you want, as we're bound to be partying on those weekends as well, just make sure theres no celebrating any archaic institutions though, royalists aren't invited! Wink

...that sounds uncool with your taxes but I'd be totally shocked if you gave a greater percentage of your earnings than I do each year. As far as I understand from US folk I meet in other forums, we pay a huge amount more than you guys?


It's hard to tell, but I know one thing for sure: if I change my money to pounds, and go shopping, then I'm amazed at how expensive things are for you guys. Sure, you make more money because of the high prices of goods, but I imagine this isn't always the case, and that it does actually boil down to an expense for you that I don't normally have to pay. Maybe this is the queen in your pocket stealing your bills.. I dunno! Smile Cigarettes, alcohol, food, and entertainment are all more expensive in England than I am used to spending on these things.

I can't imagine what the prices were hiked to within 40 kilometers of the wedding itself. It must have been mad price hike moment in British history especially since most were getting ready for the long weekend.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:
I lost a lot of money for that day off, yet everyones taxes paid for millions of public servants to chill out on full pay. When your family is effectively the state and the taxpayer funds the celebration, I guess you can get away with anything Rolling Eyes


That sucks, but at least you got a day off. I pay high taxes, get taxed twice all the time, and still don't get a day off so I hope you enjoyed your four day weekend for me as well.


Lol, I did have a mad weekend as mentioned in the OP, cheers, and we still have another two to look forward to on 30th May and 29th August.
You're completely welcome around here then if you want, as we're bound to be partying on those weekends as well, just make sure theres no celebrating any archaic institutions though, royalists aren't invited! Wink

...that sounds uncool with your taxes but I'd be totally shocked if you gave a greater percentage of your earnings than I do each year. As far as I understand from US folk I meet in other forums, we pay a huge amount more than you guys?


It's hard to tell, but I know one thing for sure: if I change my money to pounds, and go shopping, then I'm amazed at how expensive things are for you guys. Sure, you make more money because of the high prices of goods, but I imagine this isn't always the case, and that it does actually boil down to an expense for you that I don't normally have to pay. Maybe this is the queen in your pocket stealing your bills.. I dunno! Smile Cigarettes, alcohol, food, and entertainment are all more expensive in England than I am used to spending on these things.

I can't imagine what the prices were hiked to within 40 kilometers of the wedding itself. It must have been mad price hike moment in British history especially since most were getting ready for the long weekend.


To be fair to the queen (did I just say that?!) her family costs a relatively small percentage of the UK budget and the majority of my taxes really funds the bloated public services we have here. I don't actually mind paying what I do as long as I can pay for my own 'wants' while being screwed by the treasury, but It does annoy me that the system we have encourages lazy people to have a life with satellite TV and other such luxuries while sitting on their arse doing nothing except telling lies to the department of work and pensions every two weeks about the jobs they haven't actually been applying for!
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Of course there are celebrities in every country, but you have to ask yourself how many of them are funded directly by the tax payers with no choice to opt out? Again, i'm totally shocked anyone can defend this institution at all in the 21st century!
Good point. Oprah is making a contribution to many economies, including South Africa's by investing in education there! Since that comes from her own purse, I have to agree with you, it somehow does have a more meaningful ring to it than Prince William turning up for a Charity presentation. Very Happy
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Of course there are celebrities in every country, but you have to ask yourself how many of them are funded directly by the tax payers with no choice to opt out? Again, i'm totally shocked anyone can defend this institution at all in the 21st century!
Good point. Oprah is making a contribution to many economies, including South Africa's by investing in education there! Since that comes from her own purse, I have to agree with you, it somehow does have a more meaningful ring to it than Prince William turning up for a Charity presentation. Very Happy


I agree with you guys, but we have large banks on the payroll that do nothing but take our money and mismanage it, and yet we bail them out when they get into trouble.

Every society has leeches, but I do think the royal family does give back to the country. It still takes Prince William's time to show up for a charity event, and the charity event wouldn't be as successful without him there, so you have to give a little credit where credit is due.

Honestly I'm against anyone receiving state money as a birth right, as this goes against the form of government which we hold dear here in the US which is democracy -- rulers elected by vote of the general population and zero born rulers.

The royal family in England will always have some political sway that some people find unfair even if they are asked to step down and relinquish the remaining power they have. They are rich, and like anyone won't give up wealth they feel belongs to their family, and I don't really think they should be asked to do this either. Only if cheating, theft, or general misconduct is the reason they have money could it be rightfully taken away, but then who do you give it to? Once the victims have been compensated there may be a surplus... should that be thrown back in the tax pool?

The royal family will always use their influence and money to push their agendas as they have always done. Even if you remove their birthright they will still be very powerful, and people will still almost worship them for reason that are not obvious to us. Some people just live to be ruled... I live because I rule! Smile
truespeed
The Queen at 84 attended 444 offical engangements last year,with 57 trips abroad to complete a lot of them.

Details.
missdixy
truespeed wrote:
The Queen at 84 attended 444 offical engangements last year,with 57 trips abroad to complete a lot of them.

Details.


Christ, what an exhausting life....especially at that age! I could never live that way.

Anyway, as for the royal wedding, I didn't watch it and I didn't really realize it was happening so soon or whatever. I knew it was in the works because I'd seen them all over the magazine covers lately but as a college student, I don't have a TV and I don't really read entertainment news much so.....anyway. I don't really see why this was such a big deal? Especially in the U.S...?
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
The Queen at 84 attended 444 offical engangements last year,with 57 trips abroad to complete a lot of them.

Details.
Blimey .....! Very Happy When I was listening to an interview of one of the commentators during the wedding, the guy said her engagements had been reduced during the year, so wonder what it must have been like when she had been on full schedule! Shocked
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
The Queen at 84 attended 444 offical engangements last year,with 57 trips abroad to complete a lot of them.

Details.
Blimey .....! Very Happy When I was listening to an interview of one of the commentators during the wedding, the guy said her engagements had been reduced during the year, so wonder what it must have been like when she had been on full schedule! Shocked


God save the Queen! Smile
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
God save the Queen! Smile
Here's the best ever rendition of "God Save the Queen"! On the top of Buckingham Palace no less .... Twisted Evil Has to be a once a lifetime fantasy come true for any rock star and no one better than Brian May ... really powerful!



This one is not too bad either. Can just imagine it has to be Bikerman's favourite .... Twisted Evil

watersoul
LMAO! I give up!

While you're all caught up in mutual masturbation over the royal family there's a war going on here in the South West! Can you not see that the whole wedding was just a distraction for the masses while the rainbow pony fighters started their massacre in the sleepy English countryside!

If you don't believe me then take a look at this topic, or will your controlled monarchist sympathiser brains not allow you to see whats really happening in this country Evil or Very Mad


...Lol Wink
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:

If you don't believe me then take a look at this topic, or will your controlled monarchist sympathiser brains not allow you to see whats really happening in this country Evil or Very Mad

...Lol Wink


I think I have awoken a sleeping giant! Smile What have I done?!?!?


Although you did add the unique perspective of comparing the royal wedding to a circle-jerk... interesting.

I want to know what's not to like about the royal family. I haven't heard any juicy conspiracy theories on them in years. Not since Princess Die, died. </morbid humor> too soon?
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
I want to know what's not to like about the royal family. I haven't heard any juicy conspiracy theories on them in years.

They're all shape-shifting rainbow ponies?! Laughing

Quote:
Not since Princess Die, died. </morbid humor> too soon?

Probably, for some people anyway Shocked
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:

Quote:
Not since Princess Die, died. </morbid humor> too soon?

Probably, for some people anyway Shocked


Do I sense some royalist sympathy? Yes I do! Smile
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
I want to know what's not to like about the royal family. I haven't heard any juicy conspiracy theories on them in years.

They're all shape-shifting rainbow ponies?! Laughing
Right! Introducing Princess Celestia Very Happy :


And her carriage:
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:

Quote:
Not since Princess Die, died. </morbid humor> too soon?

Probably, for some people anyway Shocked


Do I sense some royalist sympathy? Yes I do! Smile


Argh! NO!

...I just remember the emotions when people were almost wailing in the street after she died.

While walking past the growing shrine outside the town hall, I stupidly said to my friend how ridiculous I thought it was as no-one actually knew her. Oops, I said it too loud and was almost lynched by a load of over-reacting crazy women - I actually ran away as there was absolutely no reasoning with any of them, and the rest of the crowd started turning on me as their attention was attracted my way due to the almost incoherent screaming!

I may be anti-monarchy but I haven't got a death wish! Lol Wink

deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
I want to know what's not to like about the royal family. I haven't heard any juicy conspiracy theories on them in years.

They're all shape-shifting rainbow ponies?! Laughing
Right! Introducing Princess Celestia Very Happy :


LMAO! Smile
Bikerman
I was in Australia when the bint got bent - just getting ready to fly back to the UK. Every official I met commiserated on the death and I had to repeat, many times, that thought I would not wish anyone dead, i didn't know her, didn't like the bits i did know, and didn't really give a toss. At the time i was seen as something little short of a monster, but i regard people who went around wailing as shallow and rather pathetic.
IceCreamTruck
Bikerman wrote:
I was in Australia when the bint got bent - just getting ready to fly back to the UK. Every official I met commiserated on the death and I had to repeat, many times, that thought I would not wish anyone dead, i didn't know her, didn't like the bits i did know, and didn't really give a toss. At the time i was seen as something little short of a monster, but i regard people who went around wailing as shallow and rather pathetic.


People love tragedy and drama! Everyone seems quick to take a crutch to explain sad behavior. Belittling you is their last ditch effort to make themselves look good, so you'd have to pick your battles wisely and try to pick off the ones that are by themselves, young, or are weak with age in order to convince any of them that they are actually in the wrong. It would be easy to get overwhelmed by even a small grouping of wailers and idiots, so it was probably a rough time for you and your common sense.

There are sometimes when I hate the phrase "when in Rome..." because what if everyone is a sheep and the herder is running everyone towards the white cliffs of Dover? What then? Just do as the "Romans" and act like an idiot and die? No thanks!

I can't count the number of people I've seen cry because Jesus was nailed to a cross... I feel the same inability to get worked up over something that happened an UNBELIEVABLY long time ago to someone that I know next to nothing about because most of his history is literally made up fiction, and I too am ridiculed for this a-typical behavior. I am no sheep or lemming, and I see through their rouse.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
I was in Australia when the bint got bent - just getting ready to fly back to the UK. Every official I met commiserated on the death and I had to repeat, many times, that thought I would not wish anyone dead, i didn't know her, didn't like the bits i did know, and didn't really give a toss. At the time i was seen as something little short of a monster, but i regard people who went around wailing as shallow and rather pathetic.

Lol! I can appreciate that sentiment, it was classic crowd mentality, media fuelled pseudo-grief.
I remember how difficult it was trying not to upset people because I didn't really give a toss, it was almost a relief when they finally buried her and people moved on to the next celebrity story. Rolling Eyes
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I was in Australia when the bint got bent - just getting ready to fly back to the UK. Every official I met commiserated on the death and I had to repeat, many times, that thought I would not wish anyone dead, i didn't know her, didn't like the bits i did know, and didn't really give a toss. At the time i was seen as something little short of a monster, but i regard people who went around wailing as shallow and rather pathetic.

Lol! I can appreciate that sentiment, it was classic crowd mentality, media fuelled pseudo-grief.
I remember how difficult it was trying not to upset people because I didn't really give a toss, it was almost a relief when they finally buried her and people moved on to the next celebrity story. Rolling Eyes


What? Charlie Sheen is dead? OMG that is so sad! He is so young!

(He's not dead, but I wouldn't put it past him to rumor the story just for public face time again... it's a circus)
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:


What? Charlie Sheen is dead? OMG that is so sad! He is so young!

(He's not dead, but I wouldn't put it past him to rumor the story just for public face time again... it's a circus)


I'm glad he's not dead, he's going to be an integral part of my presidential campaign when we form the United Democratic Peoples Republic of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

Sorry, change that to the United Democratic Peoples Republic of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, since the Scottish National Party took power in this months elections, they're chasing independence! Lol @ tiny Scotland wanting to go it alone, but good luck to them if it means my taxes in England stop subsidising their bloated public services! Wink
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
Change that to the United Democratic Peoples Republic of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, since the Scottish National Party took power in this months elections, they're chasing independence! Lol @ tiny Scotland wanting to go it alone, but good luck to them if it means my taxes in England stop subsidising their bloated public services! Wink


What do you call yourselves? The UDPREWNI? LOL
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:


What do you call yourselves? The UDPREWNI? LOL


Hmm, I know, it doesn't quite have the same 'roll off the tongue' finesse as UK really, I'll have to look over my plans again.
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:


What do you call yourselves? The UDPREWNI? LOL


Hmm, I know, it doesn't quite have the same 'roll off the tongue' finesse as UK really, I'll have to look over my plans again.


You could try ....

Young United Kingdom

Better yet!

Young United Cristian Kingdom

Really just rolls off the tongue! Smile

PS> I am fooling around in full knowledge that this is your topic, watersoul! Smile All you have to do is tell me to stop
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
Young United Cristian Kingdom

Really just rolls off the tongue! Smile

PS> I am fooling around in full knowledge that this is your topic, watersoul! Smile All you have to do is tell me to stop
Well, guess we have become specialists at hijacking threads .... *hee hee* .... thanks to you ICT .... anyway, thought that the name for the party was spot on, as then they would not need to change the national anthem .... got to listen to it again, just can't get enough of it .... Angel
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
watersoul wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:


What do you call yourselves? The UDPREWNI? LOL


Hmm, I know, it doesn't quite have the same 'roll off the tongue' finesse as UK really, I'll have to look over my plans again.


You could try ....

Young United Kingdom

Better yet!

Young United Cristian Kingdom

Really just rolls off the tongue! Smile

PS> I am fooling around in full knowledge that this is your topic, watersoul! Smile All you have to do is tell me to stop

Lol, no worries, I'm not sure many Frihosters give as much of a toss as I do about the democratic wrongs in an unelected monarchy, so I'm happy for this thread to go wherever Smile
It is a silly/serious topic to be honest, my views are strong about it all but I'll admit I'm too lazy to actually campaign against it myself!

Not sure about YUK though... Perhaps Democratic Republic of the United Neo Kingdom? Laughing
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Not sure about YUK though... Perhaps Democratic Republic of the United Neo Kingdom? Laughing
How about the Anti-Royal Kayaking Freedom Fighters? Very Happy
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.