The Royal Wedding

Any American that watches the Royal Wedding is fucking pathetic, in my opinion. This country was founded in opposition of monarchy. I think it's completely retarded that England even still has a "royal" family. This is worse than Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, etc, who were simply lucky enough to be born with a lot of money. The idea of a "royal family" means they believe they were given this status by "god". I couldn't imagine a more stone-age view, especially for a country like the UK that is obviously much less religious than America.

I have no respect for anyone that watches this bullshit, but I actually HATE any American that does it and I hope you die.

So there ya go. Fuckin' lobsterbacks.

^

Who was that ghastly bounder?

Let us de-bag him, instanter!

Oh, the Bread & Circuses thread, I think.

Thanks, SJ.

ANDY wrote:While I'm absolutely not a royalist myself, I find the opinion of the O.P. even more cartoonesque than actual royalty itself.

Captain Hi-Top is a caricature of himself

Wasn't it beautiful?


her dress was gorgeous, he has grown into a gentleman, the colours, the pomp & ceramony, the horses, her dress.....

i enjoyed it.
lucky young couple
best wishes to them

The most inane thing I've EVER heard in my entire life was someone on ER saying "I want to see her dress." How fucking pathetic does your life have to be...

ANDY wrote:You reall must think that you're country litteraly IS the ass-hole of the world if everything that passes has to go through the narrow gates of the opinion of some portion of its inhabitants.

Really, so someone in 2000-fucking-eleven who says they were ordained by god to be royalty doesn't piss you off?

Captain Hi-Top wrote:The most inane thing I've EVER heard in my entire life was someone on ER saying "I want to see her dress." How fucking pathetic does your life have to be...

Thanks.

hahaha it was you, LaRue?
I hope Captain is only kidding/provoking because there's nothing inane in saying that.

Captain Hi-Top wrote:Really, so someone in 2000-fucking-eleven who says they were ordained by god to be royalty doesn't piss you off?

I think you'll find, Corporal Hi-Top, that the last British monarch who espoused "The Divine Right of Kings" was Charles I- and this is what we did to him:


Execution of Charles I outside The Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.

Monarchy, of course, is entirely irrational- just like cathedrals.

The role of the present UK constitutional monarchy is to separate the role of Head of State from the government of the day: a bulwark against totalitarianism, in other words. Many a Johnny-come-lately nation has attempted to achieve the same end by other means- some more effectively than others- but none has comparable centuries of history and tradition behind it.

If you were drawing up a national constitution today, you wouldn't start from where the UK is now- but, mad as it is, the thing works.

Pure genius.

guacamayo wrote:hahaha it was you, LaRue?
I hope Captain is only kidding/provoking because there's nothing inane in saying that.

Twas indeed. It's ok, I ca live with my pathetic life...I thought the dress was absolutely beautiful and so was she!

ANDY wrote:Seriously: what kind of mental illness is it that justifies an American to be emotionally upset by the state structure of a befriended nation thousands and thousands of miles away?

The same one that makes them plaster bullshit about "royalty" and dresses all over every television channel, radio station and newspaper for the last month. Maybe you didn't get any press coverage wherever the hell you are, but here it was inescapable.

eddie wrote:I think you'll find, Corporal Hi-Top, that the last British monarch who espoused "The Divine Right of Kings" was Charles I

Then what right do they have to be royal? "Tradition?" Gimme a break

brb some royal bullshit is on tv and I change the channel...oh shit there it is again
brb I turn off my tv and walk to the kitchen, look a newspaper and a magazine with Kate Middleson on the cover
brb I go log on to my computer and google desktop news is telling me about who was and was not invited to the wedding
brb I open up a few forums and see dozens of threads about what dress she will wear
brb I get in my car to drive somewhere and some dick on the radio is talking about how Prince Whoever is going bald
brb I change the station to find some actual music but I can't
brb CD player is broken so I'm stuck listening to this shit

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

eddie wrote:I think you'll find, Corporal Hi-Top, that the last British monarch who espoused "The Divine Right of Kings" was Charles I

Then what right do they have to be royal? "Tradition?" Gimme a break

To summarise:

1. You're pissed off when monarchs claim "The Divine Right of Kings".
2. You're pissed off when monarchs don't claim "The Divine Right of Kings".

No pleasing you, is there?

LOL @ LaRue's 1st comment.

I watched the wedding and thought it was very nice, as expected. The main thing I like about Royal Family events like this is that lots of other people like them. There are street parties across the whole of the UK with people seemingly to be a lot nicer than usual.

I fundementally disagree with the whole heredity thing, but in truth, I am generally happy with where we are at the moment. I think the Queen does a terrific job. Charles, most likely our next King, also seems OK.... Although one (possibly major) issue with him is that he voices his opinion a bit too much. I on the whole agree with his publicly held opinions: He raised the profile of environmental issues long before it was fashionable & his small 'c' conservative views on architecture I also broadly share. Nonetheless, it is not his business to be speaking out on these issues and I do not believe he should be doing so. Especially when is he is king. William, our likely future King, seems friendly and down to earth. His brother has been an embarrassment, but appears to have grown into his role and I am yet to hear an opinion of someone who has met him who doesn't think he is an excellent person and very good ambassador for the UK. Of course, I doubt any of these people actually want to be Royalty, which is a rather sad state of affairs.

Basically, I think the current family do a pretty decent job so am happy for them to continue to do so. But what happens when you get some maniac in the position?!

I am not a Royalist, but it many ways I guess I am a constitutional monarchist. I think the current situation needs a lot of reform, but I believe we need a ceremonial head of state, so abolishing the Monarchy and replacing it with a President with the same role I think is largely pointless. There seems little benefit and it will just annoy a large amount of people who feel very strongly about it. The day the general public clearly wants a Republic, then so be it. At the moment, and certainly in the past, the Royal family provide a rather excellent international diplomacy service. Their other roles are also needed: appointing the Prime Minister, reading the Speech, etc. Other than that, they don't do much else other than charity work. They don't cost much either.

To me, there is a beauty that the descendents of the hereditary military dictators who founded the British monarchy no longer have power, but are now symbols of the way democracy replaced them. Often the power was gained through legal means, with the consent, even if reluctant consent, of the monarch of the day.

The original poster seems to have some issues, which is fine. I also presume the person hasn't met many women. I mean, seriously, women take a lot of interest in wedding dresses and weddings in general. The fact that many want to see what kind of dress the bride of one of the biggest weddings in recent history is wearing is not all that suprising. Sorry for the sexist observation there. I must say, I thought she looked very nice.... as did her sister.

eddie wrote:To summarise:

1. You're pissed off when monarchs claim "The Divine Right of Kings".
2. You're pissed off when monarchs don't claim "The Divine Right of Kings".

No pleasing you, is there?

See this post:

pinhedz wrote:And who was the first British Monarch who disavowed The Divine Right of Kings?

There is a bit of a problem here--if it's not a divine right, what kind of a right is it? Has anyone explained, post-Charles I, why the royals have the status they have, and why it is inherited through blood lines?

Lane Coutell wrote:I think the Queen does a terrific job.

What job?

I agree with Lane. Look at how happy this event has made so many people, what the hell is wrong with that? Spread some happiness, don't sit fermenting in anger.

pinhedz wrote:And who was the first British Monarch who disavowed The Divine Right of Kings?

Probably this Dutch geezer in 1688, the year of "The Glorious Revolution":



William III.

Wiki:

It can be argued that James's overthrow [and the accession of William III] began modern English parliamentary democracy: never since has the monarch held absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain.

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:I think the Queen does a terrific job.

What job?

Errrm, as head of state of the United Kingdom. Good grief, keep up man.

LaRue wrote:don't sit fermenting in anger.

Possibly my new sig. I'll have to think about it.

Lane Coutell wrote:Errrm, as head of state of the United Kingdom. Good grief, keep up man.

What does she do as the head of state? What decisions does she make? What qualifies her to make the decisions she makes?