Page 1 of 1

The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
by Dayna
I was curious if you guys have been interested in all the coverage of this or not.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:56 am
by Hugh Weldon
No.

Some of us are opening our windows and playing loud music though. 'Garageland' by The Clash might be a good one to kick off with.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:03 pm
by Des
It'll be on in the background while I prepare stuff for a couple of workshops I'm doing. I'm not virulently anti-Monarchy, never was. Kate looks a nice gal.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:35 pm
by AndyM
I have dismayed most of my friends by saying I'll be watching it all on TV. Some of them are so anti they are leaving the country for the weekend ! My excuse, if I need one, is that some of things I teach courses/classes about are national identity and class - these will all be represented extensively at the wedding. So I'll be watching it, but working.

That's my excuse anyway.............

And there are other people I get more politically worked up about than the royals.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:04 pm
by Adam Blake
Indifferent. Even to the fact that it's hitting me in the pocket (self-employed, don't get paid for not working). I wish them all the best but no more or less than any other young couple about to get hitched. I feel sorry for her though. I wonder if she realises what she's letting herself in for.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:25 pm
by Jonathan E.
It's a classy event — here's a headline from The Guardian:
Bahrain 'torture service' official to attend royal wedding

Ambassador to UK was previously in charge of Bahraini agency that is accused of electric shocks and beatings

Full story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/bahraini-linked-to-torture-royal-wedding — I got an ad from De Beers at the top of the page, seemed sort of appropriate given the sordid history of that company.

I'm also impressed by the suspension of civil liberties when it comes to the filth thinking it OK to arrest people "preemptively".

One possible analysis of The King's Speech, which I did eventually watch in an AndyM kind of way, is that it's an examination of the psychological damage done to authority figures such as the royal family by the strenuous demands concerning their behaviour placed upon them by the peasants. However, ultimately, you have to ask where that authority is derived from and why it continues to be passed down based on nothing more than an accident of birth. Generally, I think royalty became royalty because they were the biggest, meanest bastards around — and, however good the current PR, see little reason to change that opinion.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:55 pm
by AndyM
From Stewart Lee's piece on the royal wedding, in today's Guardian, his account of some of those invited:

"From the world of government, the prime minister and Mrs David Cameron, and the deputy prime minister and Ms Miriam González Durántez, holding whichever suit the prime minister has chosen not to wear; from the faith communities, the Reverend Gregorius, Anil Bhanot, Malcolm Deeboo of the Zoroastrians, The Venerable Bogoda Seelawimala Nayaka Thera, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Optimus Prime, Yog-Sothoth, Captain Marvel and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor; and from the twin spheres of entertainment and sport, Mr Ben Fogle, Mr David Beckham and Mrs David Beckham, Mr Madonna Louise Ciccone, and Sir Elton Hercules John and Mr Sir Elton Hercules John. Candles in the wind all."

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:31 pm
by Des
I feel sorry for Kate too - she probably thought Wills was pretty dishy early on but he's rapidly losing his looks. Baldness is a terrible affliction - one which my own family shares with the Royals. Tragic.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:38 pm
by Hugh Weldon
Des:

one which my own family shares with the Royals


The only affliction anyone in my family shared with the Royals was a fondness for the turf and wagering theron. Difference is they can afford it.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:44 pm
by Des
Ooh, a nice lacy number. But enough about what I'm wearing - Kate looked lovely.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:22 pm
by Adam Blake
Jonathan E. wrote:I think royalty became royalty because they were the biggest, meanest bastards around


I've often thought that if you view history as one long gangster movie it all fits into place. If only I'd known that at school! I think it was Henry VII who first hit upon the notion of wandering about the country with his vast retinue staying at all the richest aristocrats homes one after the other, thereby depleting their fortunes on royal entertainments and hospitality so that they wouldn't be able to afford to recruit mercenary armies. He was a smart bastard. Henry VIII inherited £1m when he took the throne. He spent a lot on wine, women and loose living - the rest he just wasted (thank you, George Best.)

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:09 pm
by Jonathan E.
I think the Ritual Deflowering of the Bride went very well. Looked great on the internet.

Re: The Royal Wedding

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:16 pm
by will vine
Dayna's original question asked about the (media) coverage of events. Hugely overblown; An unbelievable amount of waffle and trivia. God save us from vox pops. Utter bollocks - the lot of it. sadly this is only the start of the frenzy.

My daughter apparently remarked on how happy William looked, whereupon my son in law, amazed at the boy's good fortune, replied "I'm not surprised. He's punching above his weight."

Anyway - Call that a fly-past? Why, at my wedding..............