Well one of the richest religions, the Roman catholics had a good chunk of money paid for their trip by the government.
Quite happy contributing to the royal wedding fund ! Its peanuts when you look at the scale of things when theres all these chavvy families .... (usual rant about pikey chavs)
?20,000,000 just for security. So weres the "we have no money so thats why were cutting back on everything" Its all a farce.
as a Londoner , I'd rather they paid for that then a load of well off students on a jolly to trash the west end / city .. and loads more of late doing the same aka "rent a mob" who probably have never paid any tax or NI.
I'd like them to shift some of these protests around the country as Londoners are getting / footing the bill for none londoners trashing the place
I like the idea of everyone out and doing stuff as a community but I don't give a stuff about some kraut family that only happens to have lots of money/land/fame because their family stole/raped/pillaged/bought stuff many, many, MANY years ago.
/rant off lol :p
And they're not even the direct royal line descended from said medieval pillagers. The current line are descended (and not even that directly) from George I who was basically chosen by Parliament* who rejected around fifty of Queen Anne (the previous Queen)'s closer relatives because they were Catholics. Elector George of Hanover didn't get the throne because he was the next in line, he got it because he was the closest living Protestant relative of King James VI of Scotland.
The "rightful" claimants, the Stuarts, were in exile on the continent and made a couple of attempts to regain the throne, the most famous of which was "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in 1745.
*Since the 1688 revolution that overthrew the last Stuart King, James II, Parliament has asserted its right to basically intervene in the "line of succession" and choose a monarch. This is why stories about how some Aussie "should" be the "rightful" King are hogwash.
Might is right... The king who can raise the biggest army and slaughter all the other kings can enlarge his kingdom until it covers the country. If he dies of old age before someone manages to stick a sword in him then his son becomes king :)
Republican so not interested in the Royal Wedding. They seem a nice couple and it's nice that the Windsors seem to finally be allowing their offspring to fall in love properly rather than forcing them into arranged marriages but apart from that I'm pretty "meh" about the whole thing.
I think they should pay for it themselves. They can certainly afford it and it would be a nice gesture in what are very hard times for most of their "subjects". Don't see that happening, though.
Might is right... The king who can raise the biggest army and slaughter all the other kings can enlarge his kingdom until it covers the country. If he dies of old age before someone manages to stick a sword in him then his son becomes king :)
Again, that was thwarted in 1689 when Parliament removed much of the monarch's powers, including the right to raise an army without Parliament's consent. This was mainly to prevent another Charles I who raised his own army to fight Parliament earlier that century.
Might is right... The king who can raise the biggest army and slaughter all the other kings can enlarge his kingdom until it covers the country. If he dies of old age before someone manages to stick a sword in him then his son becomes king :)
It says on Yahoo news that only one in three councils have recieved applications to be able to host street parties to mark the Royal Wedding.
My eldest aunt mentioned one she and my grandparents participated in. It was surprising how they managed to get food for them considering a lot of food was still rationed. But my aunt said they had saved ration coupons for a while to help.
Anyone on here participating in one? I know my end of my road won't be because right opposite us, is a building site where they're building new houses and trucks with bricks, cider blocks and scaffolding need constant access.
In 1977 our street had a Silver Jubilee party. In 2002 there were none I knew of, as by the Royal family had had gone so far down in the estimation of the general public. No one I know of has mentioned a party for this wedding, and I wouldn't be interested if they did.
As others have said, on the one hand we've got our already inadequate health, legal, and council services being cut down again because this country is aparently short of cash, yet we can afford to pay a fortune for a wedding none of us are even invited too, plus of course our already overstretched police forces will have to provide more coppers to watch over things.
And it won't just be the day of the wedding either, that we'll be subjected to it. It'll be all over the media for days before and weeks afterwards.
I'm so glad I don't read newspapers, as the average rag will have the first fifteen pages or so about nothing else for days afterwards.
I'd like them to shift some of these protests around the country as Londoners are getting / footing the bill for none londoners trashing the place
Yeah, right.
Every event MUST be in London (its the law apparently) so the rest of the country get dragged down there for no good reason (example - 4 Northern clubs left in the FA cup - Lets play all the games in London) so I insist you get all the riots like you get everything else. I assume you just want to pick and choose the nice events do you?.
In 1977 our street had a Silver Jubilee party. In 2002 there were none I knew of, as by the Royal family had had gone so far down in the estimation of the general public. No one I know of has mentioned a party for this wedding, and I wouldn't be interested if they did.
As others have said, on the one hand we've got our already inadequate health, legal, and council services being cut down again because this country is aparently short of cash, yet we can afford to pay a fortune for a wedding none of us are even invited too, plus of course our already overstretched police forces will have to provide more coppers to watch over things.
And it won't just be the day of the wedding either, that we'll be subjected to it. It'll be all over the media for days before and weeks afterwards.
I'm so glad I don't read newspapers, as the average rag will have the first fifteen pages or so about nothing else for days afterwards.
yeah we had a street party in 77, i have a photo of us all sat there, i was 8, ive still got some silver coins too
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
Again, that was thwarted in 1689 when Parliament removed much of the monarch's powers, including the right to raise an army without Parliament's consent. This was mainly to prevent another Charles I who raised his own army to fight Parliament earlier that century.
(History nerd, I do apologise... :-P)
again, might is right... if the monarch wanted to overthrow the government, they just have to get head chopping :)
I assume you just want to pick and choose the nice events do you?.
not at all, there are other places that get the nice "events" , nothing goes on at the N.E.C and Manchester Arena etc ?!
the Olympics is an interesting one.. how many Londoners who forked out for it will get tickets? not too many, we are forking out for the corporate fat cats / Olympic "family" to get the perk of it.
I'd have liked them to spread it across the country (and the cost ;) ) .
As for footy, thats private sector.. and again I'm sure the Met's policing bill for Wembley etc stuff isn't cheap.
how many places up north have the capacity ? also it's the semi's / finals ? you want the kudos of winning at wembley ? hehe
If London doesnt like people going there to protest then send them to Birmingham and the Olympics and everything else. Its more central to the country than the south east anyway. But keep that Fascist family down there you can have um. I reckon if there was a poll in this country which is very unlikely the country would say sod the Royal family. The days of flying the flag is over.
not at all, there are other places that get the nice "events" , nothing goes on at the N.E.C and Manchester Arena etc ?!
The only really big event at the NEC that isn't replicated in London that I can think of is Crufts. As far as the Manchester Arena is concerned I don't know of anything there except music concerts which will be part of a tour - also taking in London. (BTW - Most big music gigs in Brum are at the NIA not the NEC - they stopped having using the NEC for things like that years ago, you still get the odd gig but not many)
As for footy, thats private sector.. and again I'm sure the Met's policing bill for Wembley etc stuff isn't cheap.
how many places up north have the capacity ? also it's the semi's / finals ? you want the kudos of winning at wembley ? hehe
I thought the riots were in the private sector or are they government subsidised?
When football fans were asked the vast majority (about 80% IIRC) wanted the "new" Wembley to be in the NEC complex.
With respect to capacity Old Trafford, Villa Park, Hillsborough and the Millennium Stadium have all been used in recent years. That doesnt include the Highbury (now rebuilt bigger as the emirates but in London so irrelevant in this case) and Maine Road (replaced by the smaller but future expandable City of Manchester Stadium) Newcastle and Sunderland (Big grounds but further from civilisation than London :) ) so plenty of venues exist that fans are more than happy with. The only reason the games are at Wembley is because of gross mismanagement of the rebuilding by the FA and the need to fleece the fans to pay for it. Notice how prices for a lot of games (especially Ingerland friendlies have had to be massively reduced to get anybody to go. When Ingerland were playing there home games away from Wembley it was full houses at every venue. Very few football fans care about Wembley anymore, its not the same place, just another overpriced, difficult to get to stadium with a poor playing surface - the old ground was famous for the quality of the pitch, so is this one but at the other end of the scale.
To be honest the average real football fan on the terraces couldn't give a damn about Wembly now - Its lost all the magic it had.
not at all, there are other places that get the nice "events" , nothing goes on at the N.E.C and Manchester Arena etc ?!
the Olympics is an interesting one.. how many Londoners who forked out for it will get tickets? not too many, we are forking out for the corporate fat cats / Olympic "family" to get the perk of it.
I'd have liked them to spread it across the country (and the cost ;) ) .
As for footy, thats private sector.. and again I'm sure the Met's policing bill for Wembley etc stuff isn't cheap.
how many places up north have the capacity ? also it's the semi's / finals ? you want the kudos of winning at wembley ? hehe
We're only buying tickets for certain swimming events at the Paraympics as my eldest has a strong chance of competing in swimming events. Despite not having any legs, she sure is a top swimmer.
(If she doesn't compete, then we'll sell the tickets to someone else at cost price)
Im working the day of the wedding so it'll pass me by, i'm not all that bothered really.
What if you get the job of being the priest who marries them? It could happen, due to a mix up at work, and then you'll have to be bothered 'cos you'll have to get them to say "I do" and stuff. Actually, you could get them to say all sorts of thing, just for a laugh.
You could say "If you Katey, want to marry into this mix of money, privilege and inbred hypocrates, say 'ker-ching'", and "If you, William or is it Harry, I don't give a toss which, to be honest, I hate you both you parasites, want to throw your life away when with all your cash when you could be ****ing a different bird every night, and I'm talking real crackers here, not the dogs Rubberkeys moons after, then repeat after me "I ****ing hate the Welsh, the ****s, when I'm king I'm gonna bomb the ****ers off the planet".
Then a bit later, when you say that "If anyone here presents knows any reason why they can't get married" line you can then throw your voice and say in the Queen's voice "I say, they can't get married - I've just found out that they're not even blood related. **** this, let's **** off and bomb the ****ing Welsh, that'll be a ****ing laugh".
If it's going to be in the news for the next three months then we may as well get a laugh out of it.
again, might is right... if the monarch wanted to overthrow the government, they just have to get head chopping :)
Erm, no. :-P
The whole point was that the monarchs were stripped of the sort of powers that allowed them to raise their own armies and have peoples' heads chopped off. Basically, they became sort-of "co-rulers"; then, a couple of decades later, they were reduced to influential but symbolic heads of state with a handful of highly-compromised "reserve powers". Latterly, the influence has basically vanished and the "reserve powers" are, despite what some think, impossible to use effectively without the permission of Parliament.
Since 1688, the reality has really been a fa?ade of monarchy which concealed a power-grab by Parliament - first leading to an "aristocrat's republic" ruled by the House of Lords and, latterly, a democracy ruled by the House of Commons.
The reason, in my opinion, we bothered keeping the monarchy was a fear of a power vaccum. By making all power, constitutionally, derive from the monarch but taking away the monarch's effective power stability was ensured without tyranny. The whigs (who evolved from the Parliamentarians during the Civil War and pretty-much invented the modern monarchy) even thought it was the perfect system of government before the United States demonstrated that republics were workable after all.
The whole point was that the monarchs were stripped of the sort of powers that allowed them to raise their own armies and have peoples' heads chopped off. Basically, they became sort-of "co-rulers"; then, a couple of decades later, they were reduced to influential but symbolic heads of state with a handful of highly-compromised "reserve powers". Latterly, the influence has basically vanished and the "reserve powers" are, despite what some think, impossible to use effectively without the permission of Parliament.
Since 1688, the reality has really been a fa?ade of monarchy which concealed a power-grab by Parliament - first leading to an "aristocrat's republic" ruled by the House of Lords and, latterly, a democracy ruled by the House of Commons.
The reason, in my opinion, we bothered keeping the monarchy was a fear of a power vaccum. By making all power, constitutionally, derive from the monarch but taking away the monarch's effective power stability was ensured without tyranny. The whigs (who evolved from the Parliamentarians during the Civil War and pretty-much invented the modern monarchy) even thought it was the perfect system of government before the United States demonstrated that republics were workable after all.
The whole point was that the monarchs were stripped of the sort of powers that allowed them to raise their own armies and have peoples' heads chopped off. Basically, they became sort-of "co-rulers"; then, a couple of decades later, they were reduced to influential but symbolic heads of state with a handful of highly-compromised "reserve powers". Latterly, the influence has basically vanished and the "reserve powers" are, despite what some think, impossible to use effectively without the permission of Parliament.
If you get the army and police on your side and slaughter all opposition it makes no difference what you have "permission" to do...
Obviously I don't see Liz riding into the Palace of Westminster trampling MPs underfoot before chopping off Cameron's head... But if she did, I suspect Clegg would just stand there looking on gormlessly :)
Comments
?20,000,000 just for security. So weres the "we have no money so thats why were cutting back on everything" Its all a farce.
as for ?20 mill .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8692756.stm
as a Londoner , I'd rather they paid for that then a load of well off students on a jolly to trash the west end / city .. and loads more of late doing the same aka "rent a mob" who probably have never paid any tax or NI.
I'd like them to shift some of these protests around the country as Londoners are getting / footing the bill for none londoners trashing the place
well the point of the thread was that only one in three councils received applications for street parties which means lots of people must not care :)
And they're not even the direct royal line descended from said medieval pillagers. The current line are descended (and not even that directly) from George I who was basically chosen by Parliament* who rejected around fifty of Queen Anne (the previous Queen)'s closer relatives because they were Catholics. Elector George of Hanover didn't get the throne because he was the next in line, he got it because he was the closest living Protestant relative of King James VI of Scotland.
The "rightful" claimants, the Stuarts, were in exile on the continent and made a couple of attempts to regain the throne, the most famous of which was "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in 1745.
*Since the 1688 revolution that overthrew the last Stuart King, James II, Parliament has asserted its right to basically intervene in the "line of succession" and choose a monarch. This is why stories about how some Aussie "should" be the "rightful" King are hogwash.
I think they should pay for it themselves. They can certainly afford it and it would be a nice gesture in what are very hard times for most of their "subjects". Don't see that happening, though.
Again, that was thwarted in 1689 when Parliament removed much of the monarch's powers, including the right to raise an army without Parliament's consent. This was mainly to prevent another Charles I who raised his own army to fight Parliament earlier that century.
(History nerd, I do apologise... :-P)
Civ IV beyond the sword scenario game :D
In 1977 our street had a Silver Jubilee party. In 2002 there were none I knew of, as by the Royal family had had gone so far down in the estimation of the general public. No one I know of has mentioned a party for this wedding, and I wouldn't be interested if they did.
As others have said, on the one hand we've got our already inadequate health, legal, and council services being cut down again because this country is aparently short of cash, yet we can afford to pay a fortune for a wedding none of us are even invited too, plus of course our already overstretched police forces will have to provide more coppers to watch over things.
And it won't just be the day of the wedding either, that we'll be subjected to it. It'll be all over the media for days before and weeks afterwards.
I'm so glad I don't read newspapers, as the average rag will have the first fifteen pages or so about nothing else for days afterwards.
Having seen some of your posts on here I am having some difficulty believing that. :)
Yeah, right.
Every event MUST be in London (its the law apparently) so the rest of the country get dragged down there for no good reason (example - 4 Northern clubs left in the FA cup - Lets play all the games in London) so I insist you get all the riots like you get everything else. I assume you just want to pick and choose the nice events do you?.
give them a break, they've lumbered themselves with the Olympics next year :)
I bet the chocolate in those coins has gone a bit manky by now.
again, might is right... if the monarch wanted to overthrow the government, they just have to get head chopping :)
not at all, there are other places that get the nice "events" , nothing goes on at the N.E.C and Manchester Arena etc ?!
the Olympics is an interesting one.. how many Londoners who forked out for it will get tickets? not too many, we are forking out for the corporate fat cats / Olympic "family" to get the perk of it.
I'd have liked them to spread it across the country (and the cost ;) ) .
As for footy, thats private sector.. and again I'm sure the Met's policing bill for Wembley etc stuff isn't cheap.
how many places up north have the capacity ? also it's the semi's / finals ? you want the kudos of winning at wembley ? hehe
The only really big event at the NEC that isn't replicated in London that I can think of is Crufts. As far as the Manchester Arena is concerned I don't know of anything there except music concerts which will be part of a tour - also taking in London. (BTW - Most big music gigs in Brum are at the NIA not the NEC - they stopped having using the NEC for things like that years ago, you still get the odd gig but not many)
I thought the riots were in the private sector or are they government subsidised?
When football fans were asked the vast majority (about 80% IIRC) wanted the "new" Wembley to be in the NEC complex.
With respect to capacity Old Trafford, Villa Park, Hillsborough and the Millennium Stadium have all been used in recent years. That doesnt include the Highbury (now rebuilt bigger as the emirates but in London so irrelevant in this case) and Maine Road (replaced by the smaller but future expandable City of Manchester Stadium) Newcastle and Sunderland (Big grounds but further from civilisation than London :) ) so plenty of venues exist that fans are more than happy with. The only reason the games are at Wembley is because of gross mismanagement of the rebuilding by the FA and the need to fleece the fans to pay for it. Notice how prices for a lot of games (especially Ingerland friendlies have had to be massively reduced to get anybody to go. When Ingerland were playing there home games away from Wembley it was full houses at every venue. Very few football fans care about Wembley anymore, its not the same place, just another overpriced, difficult to get to stadium with a poor playing surface - the old ground was famous for the quality of the pitch, so is this one but at the other end of the scale.
To be honest the average real football fan on the terraces couldn't give a damn about Wembly now - Its lost all the magic it had.
We're only buying tickets for certain swimming events at the Paraympics as my eldest has a strong chance of competing in swimming events. Despite not having any legs, she sure is a top swimmer.
(If she doesn't compete, then we'll sell the tickets to someone else at cost price)
but they can keep all the tramps and homosexuals. :p
What if you get the job of being the priest who marries them? It could happen, due to a mix up at work, and then you'll have to be bothered 'cos you'll have to get them to say "I do" and stuff. Actually, you could get them to say all sorts of thing, just for a laugh.
You could say "If you Katey, want to marry into this mix of money, privilege and inbred hypocrates, say 'ker-ching'", and "If you, William or is it Harry, I don't give a toss which, to be honest, I hate you both you parasites, want to throw your life away when with all your cash when you could be ****ing a different bird every night, and I'm talking real crackers here, not the dogs Rubberkeys moons after, then repeat after me "I ****ing hate the Welsh, the ****s, when I'm king I'm gonna bomb the ****ers off the planet".
Then a bit later, when you say that "If anyone here presents knows any reason why they can't get married" line you can then throw your voice and say in the Queen's voice "I say, they can't get married - I've just found out that they're not even blood related. **** this, let's **** off and bomb the ****ing Welsh, that'll be a ****ing laugh".
If it's going to be in the news for the next three months then we may as well get a laugh out of it.
Erm, no. :-P
The whole point was that the monarchs were stripped of the sort of powers that allowed them to raise their own armies and have peoples' heads chopped off. Basically, they became sort-of "co-rulers"; then, a couple of decades later, they were reduced to influential but symbolic heads of state with a handful of highly-compromised "reserve powers". Latterly, the influence has basically vanished and the "reserve powers" are, despite what some think, impossible to use effectively without the permission of Parliament.
Since 1688, the reality has really been a fa?ade of monarchy which concealed a power-grab by Parliament - first leading to an "aristocrat's republic" ruled by the House of Lords and, latterly, a democracy ruled by the House of Commons.
The reason, in my opinion, we bothered keeping the monarchy was a fear of a power vaccum. By making all power, constitutionally, derive from the monarch but taking away the monarch's effective power stability was ensured without tyranny. The whigs (who evolved from the Parliamentarians during the Civil War and pretty-much invented the modern monarchy) even thought it was the perfect system of government before the United States demonstrated that republics were workable after all.
If you get the army and police on your side and slaughter all opposition it makes no difference what you have "permission" to do...
See Also: every deposed dictator :)
Very topical.