OMG: Two young people to get married

[ravdin]

The kindest thing I can say about the British royals is that they are thoroughly ordinary and uninspiring.

 

[TraneWreck]

When are you Brits going to get rid of this absurd royal family? At this point they're like the national appendix or male nipples: just some vestigial remnant of a primitive past.

Yet people can't get enough, "Look, a buck-toothed, inbred hemophiliac has chosen a similarly useless female coasting on the accomplishments of some long dead ancestor to mate with! How Grand!"

At least her DNA is far enough removed from his that the royal tree may get a few new limbs.

(Shamed as an American to admit that my retarded country would eat that up as well. Hell, we try to turn the Kardashians into royals...I suppose it's a weakness of humans in general, but at least we have a Constitution...)

 

[Agatha]

I'm no fan of the Royals, but they do sell papers and bring in tourists. They could continue to do that if we abolished them; they could run corner shops and be tour guides.

If we get a (paid) day off or three for the wedding, I'll be jolly pleased.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Speaking of credentials:

The Dutch royals descend from a twice-removed cousin of William the Silent.

the latter -of course- is known for standing up for human rights and kicking Spanish butt in the 80-year war. His cousin is known for, eh, being his cousin.

Anyway, this descendant of the cousin of good old William was faced with the Belgian revolt and reacted by sending his army down there, committing war crimes and losing the war.

This genius' first act was killing civilians, losing half the territory of the country and losing a war............to Belgium.

I don't think we have allowed them to make policy decisions after that first, fateful week.

 

[GlennB]

BBCi, CNN and even Al-Jaz are informing me that, as a UK citizen, I should be delerious with joy at the announcement. Truth is I was already totally fired-up about this and have reserved a place outside Westminster Cathedral where I'll live in a tent for the next year, just so's I can witness the happy couple jog past in their carriage.

But it seems they've been shagging each other senseless for some years already, so I do hope she doesn't wear white. Can't stand hypocrisy.

 

[uk_dave]

Ahhhhhhh royal wedding in the midst of a recession with a Tory government....so very 80s.........

.............

...........

...................

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Royals need to step it up and provide more entertainment. Tabloid coverage simply isn't enough. TV cameras, 24/7, in all the royal residences, and following them around. Reality show! I think it would be a huge ratings success, and would help make them feel useful. See the Queen making onion dip one afternoon. See Charles crying in the mirror about his ears. See Camilla beating her stepsons with a horsewhip, and see Harry enjoying the process way too much. They could call the show "Royality". And every week a different celebrity could be a houseguest, and interact with them! And they'd have to do a special task or challenge every week. This week, the Royals must operate a diner! Next week, the Royals must train a killer whale for a Sea World show! And at the end of the season, viewers call in and vote and one Royal will get voted off and have to go be a commoner.

 

[BobHaulk]

leeches

 

[TragicMonkey]

The more I think about it, the better it sounds. So many possible challenges, which would be educational both for the Royals and the viewers. See them go camping with a bunch of chavs! Watch them attempt to earn a living driving a taxi for a week! Marvel at their aplomb and sheer British pluck as they have to first judge, then compete on a special edition of American Idol!

 

[zooterkin]

I'm no fan of the Royals, but they do sell papers and bring in tourists. They could continue to do that if we abolished them; they could run corner shops and be tour guides.

If we get a (paid) day off or three for the wedding, I'll be jolly pleased.

If we do, I must remember to book the next day off too; last time I had a tremendous hangover, but had to go in to work as I'd left it too late to book that day off. All I did that morning was drink half a pint of milk and eat a cheese roll, very, very slowly.

 

[Agatha]

The poor cow is going to be wearing her dead, divorced mother-in-law's engagement ring.

Linkydinky

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My word, old chap, people still get married? This is news indeed

 

[desertgal]

The poor cow is going to be wearing her dead, divorced mother-in-law's engagement ring.

But think of all the money William saved. Now he can get Grandma that sooper dooper pooper scooper she's been bugging the kids for.

 

[Meed]

 

[WildCat]

Well she'd better pump out a kid or it's off with her head.

 

[Vorticity]

France has a guy with no head.

Nonsense.

He has a perfectly lovely brown head.

 

[Vorticity]

Well she'd better pump out a kid or it's off with her head.

Oh, that's no longer necessary.

If she fails to plop out the obligatory male heir and spare, he can just have Rowan pop 'round and declare the marriage contract null and void.

So convenient being the head of your own national church!

 

[FattyCatty]

The problem is: you don't know who will be your head of state. it is decided by pure chance.

Belgium has a scumbag.
Sweden has a sex-maniac (OK, entertainment value).
Holland is about to get a mediocre bore.
France has a guy with no head.

Chance is the decider (to greater and lesser extent) with any head of state. Whether elected, inherited, imposed, or whatever, Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone there (to paraphrase Joni Mitchell).

• Why is the King of Belgium a scumbag?
• Why is the King of Sweden's sex life anyone's business besides his and his family's?
• Why do you call the Prince of Orange a mediocre bore? He is interested in water management, he's a pilot, he flew as a volunteer for the African Medical Research and Education Foundation (AMREF) in Kenya, and in 1991 he spent a month flying for the Kenya Wildlife Service. Using the name "W.A. van Buren", one of the less well-known surnames of the House of Orange-Nassau, he has participated in the New York City Marathon, where his aunt, Princess Christina, and several cousins live. In the Netherlands, he was a participant in the Frisian Eleven Cities ice skating marathon.

When are you Brits going to get rid of this absurd royal family? At this point they're like the national appendix or male nipples: just some vestigial remnant of a primitive past.

I don't think the Royal Family is absurd, nor should your (or my) opinion as an American have any influence on their decisions (i.e., don't tell them what to do).

Yet people can't get enough, "Look, a buck-toothed, inbred hemophiliac has chosen a similarly useless female coasting on the accomplishments of some long dead ancestor to mate with! How Grand!"

I don't think Prince William is buck-toothed. He demonstrably is neither inbred (his grandmother was a commoner, though noble) nor hemophiliac. I have no evidence that Kate Middleton is a useless female, nor do I understand why you use that expression. I don't understand whose long-dead ancestor you mean, nor who that ancestor is. It just seems like a mean-spirited rant.

At least her DNA is far enough removed from his that the royal tree may get a few new limbs.

It's always good to add fresh blood to a royal line.

(Shamed as an American to admit that my retarded country would eat that up as well. Hell, we try to turn the Kardashians into royals...I suppose it's a weakness of humans in general, but at least we have a Constitution...)

Shamed as an American that someone would be so rude about another country's ruling family. I certainly am not interested in turning the Kardashians (however many they are) into royalty. I don't think it's a weakness of humans to appreciate that a Constitutional Monarchy is a valid form of of government, and, in my opinion, a superior form.

By the way, the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. According to Wikipedia:

Unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an unwritten, uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.

And according to Public Affairs for Journalists, Chapter 1: The British constitution and monarchy, by James Morrison, Oxford University Press:

So what are the primary sources of the UK's constitution? The constituent components are probably best split into the following five broad categories:

• statute - that is, individual laws, known as 'Acts of Parliament';
• common law - sometimes known as 'judge-made', or 'case' law;
• conventions - that is, customs, traditions, and long-standing practices;
• treatises - historical works of legal and/or constitutional authority;
• treaties - that is, EU and other international agreements.

 

[qayak]

I'd shag her outside her marriage.
If she'd let me.

You and me both . . . but I go first!

 

[commandlinegamer]

Have they opened the book of condolence yet?; I'd like to sign it.