Richard Hawley
http://richardhawleyforum.co.uk/

ROYAL WEDDING – WHO CARES?
http://richardhawleyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25676		 Page 5 of 9
Author:  maggie [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:04 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm sure Luke can think of something to rhyme with wanker.
Author:  Luke M [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Corporate bankers in ivory towers
Cameron's wankers wielding power :wink:
Author:  maggie [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 
....while Willy gets a golden wedding shower :*:
Author:  Luke M [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 
the golden shower might help take his mind off his worryingly bald pate :wink:
Author:  maggie [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:13 am ]
Post subject: 
I just hope the kids look like her
Author:  Luke M [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Another thing which gets me is how this Kate is meant to be "a commoner" and how great it is that "normal" people are joining the royals.

commoner? if she's common, then what are the rest of us to the royals? this is why many people in this country dislike them whilst it is chiefly the foreign tourists (specially the yanks) who love them. We're scum basically, the "lower orders" as the dear old queen mum used to say.

I'll bet there's no "John Smith" in Kate's family tree; "Johnson Smethington-Smythe", maybe :roll:
Author:  helenwatson [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Maggie, as my son would say, you rock! Righteous, poetic and rather brilliant.x
Author:  maggie [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Why thank you :*:
Author:  Craig [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Luke M wrote:
i've no intention to, but if we get rid of the royals do you fancy the idea of President Cameron? :wink:


What real difference would it be to Prime Minister than in name?

Bin the lot of them. Even *if* we did lose anything from tourism, don't forget that would be offset against what we'd save on their upkeep. And the history would still be there. So fucking what if there's a flag up or down on top.

Does old Charlie really need the £600k he gets a year in 'rent' for Dartmoor prison? Could think a few far better ways to be spending that.
Author:  maggie [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Exactly.

Can you imagine Lizzie 1 or her dad letting a bunch of knobs make all the decisions???

He'd have set fire to a few more monasteries and she'd have had a couple of wives murdered and shagged the husbands.

Now That's What I Call Royalty. :*:
Author:  Ignatz Wrobel [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Poppy Dog wrote:
Image


Finally there's something good coming from these celebrations: As a foreigner, I didn't know what the English word "mugshot" really meant, until I saw this picture. Thanks!
Author:  LaylahM [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Luke M wrote:
do you think they'd have the same appeal without the royals in situ though, a lot of the american visitors for example whom i know are "in love" with the royals themselves and not just the history and the buildings (which i find personally more interesting from a historical/tourism point of view).


As an American, I'd say that it's closer to say that Americans are "fascinated by" not "in love with" the royals. (Even the romantics that really only have the Coronation or Charles & Di's wedding to relate to or pictures of Disney princesses in their heads.) Of course you're seeing tourists who are there and are caught up in their vacation high and blathering about it. But, Royalty - or rather the rejection of it - is essentially the foundation of who we perceive ourselves to be, and the idea of living, breathing, actual-royalty is kind of surreal to many of us. Like something from the distant past come forward in time. We can't quite wrap our heads around what they do, or if they are for real, or if the Brits actually take them seriously or not. And I don't mean that disrespectfully, it's just not something we relate to at all. The closest we get is thinking of certain American political families as being in the eschelan of elite that nears royalty (the Kennedys, the Kings, etc.). But even then we'd stone them if they tried to claim that status themselves.

I personally didn't go to the palaces OR think twice about seeing the "royals" when I was there. And, aside from noting the fact that William's getting married in a kind of "oh good for him" way, I am not the least interested. I did watch Charles & Di's wedding on television when I was 10, but it was kind of unavoidable even over here.

But then I wanted to be Boba Fet (star wars) when I was a little girl, so maybe I'm not the best gauge for the princess-y fascination thing.
Author:  Poppy Dog [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
LaylahM wrote:
But then I wanted to be Boba Fet (star wars) when I was a little girl, so maybe I'm not the best gauge for the princess-y fascination thing.


After seeing the first Star Wars film in [about] 77 I wanted to be 'Chewie' - I was 21...
Author:  maggie [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Personally i can't, and wouldn't if I could, identify with the flag waving proloteriat who stand in line every time there's a whiff of something royal as if by buying in to it all they'll somehow be touched and improved by the perceived 'glamour'.

I think it's worrying that we've turned the Royals, even those on the fringes, into celebrities that we're so unhealthily obsessed with.

If we carry on at this rate everyone will know a 'celebrity' or a millionaire (with the Lottery being another obsession, albeit a fading one these days) and there'll be no genuinely interesting people left :cry:
Author:  Mandy G [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ignatz Wrobel wrote:
Poppy Dog wrote:
Image


Finally there's something good coming from these celebrations: As a foreigner, I didn't know what the English word "mugshot" really meant, until I saw this picture. Thanks!




Personally i cant wait for the Commemorative stuff that Viz will have in the next issue :? :*:
Page 5 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/