Royal wedding

Crazy hats up in that shit.

I've gotta listen to the bastard thing on the radio at work. I forgot how bloody long and boring all this wedding stuff is.

one would completely and utterly smash her back doors in. what?

What a load of piss. Its on Irish TV too.

1.I dont give a shit about anyones wedding that Im not friends with.

2.I dont give a shit about the royal family (except for the TV show)

That said,

  On 4/29/2011 at 12:47 PM, keltoi said:

one would completely and utterly smash her back doors in. what?

+1

  On 4/29/2011 at 12:47 PM, keltoi said:

one would completely and utterly smash her back doors in. what?

N' stick mah mucky dick up 'er sister n'all. Urgh.

  On 4/29/2011 at 12:47 PM, keltoi said:

one would completely and utterly smash her back doors in. what?

+1000

nah her sister's not got the same posh-bird appeal.

You would think that the younger generation of Royals would be embarrassed to represent such an obscene waste of tax payer funds. Particularly given the current economic situation.

Fuck 'em I say.

Ignore them.

I hear she promised to take it up the wrong'un on her honeymoon.

  On 4/29/2011 at 1:15 PM, rumbo said:

an obscene waste of tax payer funds. Particularly given the current economic situation.

Very well said, sir. Not even putting the telly on today, fuck all this moronic shit.

  On 4/29/2011 at 1:15 PM, rumbo said:

You would think that the younger generation of Royals would be embarrassed to represent such an obscene waste of tax payer funds. Particularly given the current economic situation.

 

Fuck 'em I say.

gawd you miserable lot.

The people who oppose the monarchy are very heavily underrepresented in the media - their voices are not heard at all. Everyone just assumes that all of the British public are onboard with them. They are an outdated, elitist group of people who create a division of wealth and "I'm better than you attitude" between them and the general public.

What Bread said.

  On 4/29/2011 at 2:50 PM, Bread said:

The people who oppose the monarchy are very heavily underrepresented in the media - their voices are not heard at all. Everyone just assumes that all of the British public are onboard with them. They are an outdated, elitist group of people who create a division of wealth and "I'm better than you attitude" between them and the general public.

They do have their good side tho. Think about all the money they put into the country through tourism etc. This wedding alone has foreigners from all over the world attending. Without the royal family we have nothing.

Well we can always keep places like Buck House and the like, but we do we need the royal bastards themselves? How many tourists come here and actually even catch a glimpse of the fuckers themselves? It seems like the symbolism of royalty that attracts tourism, events like royal weddings happen (thankfully) once in a blue moon.

  On 4/29/2011 at 2:58 PM, AcrossCanyons said:

  On 4/29/2011 at 2:50 PM, Bread said:

The people who oppose the monarchy are very heavily underrepresented in the media - their voices are not heard at all. Everyone just assumes that all of the British public are onboard with them. They are an outdated, elitist group of people who create a division of wealth and "I'm better than you attitude" between them and the general public.

They do have their good side tho. Think about all the money they put into the country through tourism etc. This wedding alone has foreigners from all over the world attending. Without the royal family we have nothing.

According to Johann Hari, only one of the top 20 attractions in Britain is connected to the Royals and that's Windsor Castle at something like no. 17. Britain has plenty going for it and would be well rid of those disgusting spongers.

lol wat?

why do you think these people have no lives at all? being followed by the paparazzi 24/7. you shouldn't confuse the old concept of monarchy with the new one. in the new monarchy their function is nothing but a "cherry on top". don't go all " it's immoral" on something which is not much more than a play.

they're just two people getting married at the end of the day. I wish them good luck and happiness.

  On 4/29/2011 at 2:58 PM, AcrossCanyons said:

  On 4/29/2011 at 2:50 PM, Bread said:

The people who oppose the monarchy are very heavily underrepresented in the media - their voices are not heard at all. Everyone just assumes that all of the British public are onboard with them. They are an outdated, elitist group of people who create a division of wealth and "I'm better than you attitude" between them and the general public.

They do have their good side tho. Think about all the money they put into the country through tourism etc. This wedding alone has foreigners from all over the world attending. Without the royal family we have nothing.

But what is more important - my statement, or tourism money? If we want progression, outdated structures should be questioned. I don't know about you but I want to live in a society where elitism is a thing of the past, and equality throughout is promoted in all areas. I doubt the implication of losing that tourism money is going to create huge problems for the UK government. There are other ways and means of creating revenue which the government has not even explored yet. I hear this "tourism money" argument endlessly all the time, it is such a weak argument to keep the monarchy going.

  On 4/29/2011 at 3:06 PM, BCM said:

they're just two people getting married at the end of the day. I wish them good luck and happiness.

Look at what they are part of, what they represent. Not everyone has a huge wedding like this, costing millions of pounds.

  On 4/29/2011 at 3:06 PM, BCM said:

they're just two people getting married at the end of the day. I wish them good luck and happiness.

  On 4/29/2011 at 3:07 PM, Indicator said:

double yes.

  On 4/29/2011 at 3:06 PM, goDel said:

lol wat?

 

why do you think these people have no lives at all? being followed by the paparazzi 24/7. you shouldn't confuse the old concept of monarchy with the new one. in the new monarchy their function is nothing but a "cherry on top". don't go all " it's immoral" on something which is not much more than a play.

Oh, poor them. They are born into absolute wealth, something which they have not necessarily "earned". Their contributions are charitable to an extent, but I'm sure if ANYONE were given the wealth they had, EVERYONE would be doing charitable work without a doubt.

So you acknowledge that their role in society is minimal, and a mere "cherry on top" - why do we need them then? To keep a nonsensical, expensive "play" going, as you call it? Does not make any sense, and if people rationalise this through emotions, and "loving" the Royal Family, then the argument being proposed is even more weak because emotions are subjective as we all know. These emotions are not shared by everyone.