Just wondering if you will watch the wedding on Friday.

Question:
Will you watch the royal wedding on Friday?

Choices:
Of course!
Probably
I doubt it
Absolutely not!

 

You mean America has a Royal Family as well? And they're having a wedding on exactly the same day as ours? Well I never did...

I'm surprised that there's any interest in the wedding in the US, to be honest - generally speaking the American media don't seem to take much notice of what goes on in this country, certainly not compared with the obsessive interest that our media have in American affairs. Is there any particular reason for it?

Personally I have next to no interest in the Royal Family and certainly won't be watching. The last time I can remember a similar level of media frenzy was for the wedding of Charles and Diana in 1981, and we all know what happened with that one... The only good thing is that we Brits are getting an extra day off.

(By the way, what's this got to do with words?)

I'm absolutely devastated to say that I won't be able to watch the Royal Wedding or any of the gazillion associated programs on TV on Friday. Sadly, and it came as a great blow, it's the opening day of the Olde White Rose Black Country Beer Festival. There is a band on, thirty beers in addition to the dozen usual ones along the bar and, and this is the most disappointing thing of all, NO TV.

I shall try to contain my disappointment.

You mean America has a Royal Family as well?

Well, we used to have one, and it was the same as yours. I think the media are hoping that this one will be as popular as the Chuck/Di one was back in the day. Many cable services here include BBC America. Indeed, the new Doctor Who premiered on the same day here as it did in the UK. Probably most people here don't know or care anything about the British Royal Family. I happen to keep an eye on them, mainly from morbid curiosity of the what-will-they-do-next variety. I have a subscription (free) to the Royal Channel on YouTube, and occasionally watch the Queen or one of her family doing something. So, while I won't actively seek it out on TV, I'll probably see something about while flipping channels, or a potted video online. Of course, there still must be some Brits who like all this Royalty business, otherwise you would have gotten rid of them a while back. (I mean you did lop one of your king's heads off.) The first time I visited the UK, I saw a whole spectrum from pro- to anti-Royalty. (I was there in '76, and they were prepping for the Jubilee and the punks were still quite active, taking just two points out of the spread.) I just find it funny that you could adopt the metric system and decimalize your medieval currency, but still have a monarch as head of state, no matter how constitutional, but then we have our idiot government, too.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
I saw a whole spectrum from pro- to anti-Royalty.

There is the third position and it's probably the most common - "don't give a monkey's one way or the other."
I wish the couple well in the same abstract way that I wish everybody well but beyond that I really don't see what the fuss is about.

(I do find the furore about the fact that they haven't invited Tony Blair to be rather amusing though.)

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Of course, there still must be some Brits who like all this Royalty business, otherwise you would have gotten rid of them a while back. (I mean you did lop one of your king's heads off.)

That was over three centuries ago, and as I understand it the replacement was none too popular

Support for the monarchy here runs at around 70%. No mainstream political party has ever proposed abolishing it. As Bob suggests, the "couldn't care less" contingent is probably sizeable enough to ensure that the status quo continues.

quote:

I just find it funny that you could adopt the metric system and decimalize your medieval currency, but still have a monarch as head of state, no matter how constitutional, but then we have our idiot government, too.

We've never properly adopted the metric system. Beer is still sold in pints and distances on road signs are still shown in miles. In any case, there are several European nations that wholeheartedly embrace the metric system but still have monarchies: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden. I don't see much connection between the two issues.

One thing that is currently amusing the British media folks is that the American networks asked for the floodlights at the front of Buckingham Palace to be left on all night and were turned down. They will, instead, be switched off at 12.30 am. The networks wanted to be able to have their star presenters stand there when delivering their live prime time reports. Because of the time difference that would be in the small hours over here.

there are several European nations that wholeheartedly embrace the metric system but still have monarchies: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden. I don't see much connection between the two issues.

Yes, but you expect that sort of thing from the continentals, don't you. Not much of a connection, but close enough for me early this morning. I'll go back to etymologies and leave the humour to youse guys.

Well, heck, z. I thought it was funny!

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:


I'll go back to etymologies and leave the humour to youse guys.

Ah yes, but I took deep offence at your comments.

What you forgot was that there are still some of us who think that four farthings in a penny, twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound is MORE logical system.

Not to mention two shillings in a florin, two and a half shillings in a half-crown, five shillings in a crown and twenty-one shillings in a guinea.

And those of us who think that sixteen ounces in a pound,fourteen pounds in a stone, eight stones in a hundredweight and twenty hundredweight in a ton is more logical.

Oh yes, let's not forget twelve inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, twenty two yards in a chain, ten chains in a furlong and eight furlongs in a mile.

It's all so much better than those silly systems that use ten for everything.

Ah the good old days.


AND I'm in favour of the fine old tradition of chopping off monarch's heads. You colonials may not have monarchs but who among you can't think of at least one president that you believe would have done a better job if he'd been a foot shorter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...aHfMOg&feature=feedu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztySBQUcEw&NR=1 (advert plays first!)

quote:

who among you can't think of at least one president that you believe would have done a better job if he'd been a foot shorter?

I think Bush would have been better a Head Starter.

Hmmmm, I wonder why all the furor over a member of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family. Didn't you fight a war with those folks some seventy years ago?

Is it sponsored by the Spread Hemophilia Society?

It's getting closer and all over our news. I think people in the U.S. are jealous! Or maybe we just don't have enough to report that's positive.

I was flipping through the channels on a lazy Saturday afternoon and caught a repeat of a broadcast with commentary. I enjoyed trying to identify the famous people sitting in the audience at Westminster Abbey like Elton John and Ian McKellen, I think.It's not something I'd get up in the middle of the night to watch live, and I did get up several times to do stuff around the house, but it did not offend my sensitive nature. Of course, the glass of wine I had with lunch may have contributed... When Prince William was a young one, he looked more like his mother, but now at near thiry, the Royal Guelph genes are kicking in, and he's looking more like his father and grandfather. And when did Elizabeth Regina start looking like her mum?

Agreed about how William has suddenly begun to look more like his dad. 'Tis a pity. I was disappointed that the Queen didn't give Kate a princess title. Does anyone from England know why not?

A bicycle built for two: London's gift to the Royal couple

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded

Very cute!

I am here in Malta and was talking to a delightful gentleman from London. He said the reason the Queen didn't give Kate a princess title was 2-fold: 1) The Queen is conservative and wants to give the new Duchess time; after all, she is a "commoner." 2) The Queen didn't want to dredge up talk about Diana again (as if!).

That seems fair to me. Still, I was disappointed.

BTW, we had a signing of a memorandum of understanding tonight with 7 countries. They all had to give a little speech (supposed to be 30 seconds, but you know how that goes!). The gentleman from England was hysterical! He had the crowd roaring. For example, the president of our organization had said that this was like signing the Declaration of Independence, and he said he should have protested that comment!

A blonde and a brunette were riding a bicycle built for two up a steep hill. The brunette was drenched with sweat, pedalling like mad until the crest was reached.
"Wow!" she said. "I thought we'd never make to the top."
"I didn't either," said the blonde. "That's why I kept the beake on -- to make sure we didn't slide back downhill."

It must have been an expensive tandem. The cheap one I used to have only had brakes on the front handlebars. The stoker (That's bike speak for the rear rider) usually signals a need to stop or slow by strangling the captain (the one in front).

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I was disappointed that the Queen didn't give Kate a princess title. Does anyone from England know why not?

Well Sarah Ferguson didn't get a princess title when she married Prince Andrew; nor did Sophie Rhys-Jones when she married Prince Edward. In both those cases, as with William, the bridegroom was given a dukedom just before the wedding so that the bride became a duchess. I assume that's the normal practice.

Lady Diana Spencer became "Princess of Wales" because it's a courtesy title given to the wife of the Prince of Wales, but she was never a princess in her own right (she was commonly known as "Princess Diana", but that was an error). When Camilla Parker-Bowles married Prince Charles she became entitled to use the title "Princess of Wales", but she normally uses "Duchess of Cornwall" out of respect to the late Diana.

Wouldn't it have been great if they'd gone off on honeymoon on the tandem instead of in Daddy's Aston Martin?

quote:

Well Sarah Ferguson didn't get a princess title when she married Prince Andrew;

I don't know royalty at all, as you might imagine, but isn't William a lot higher than Andrew? I mean, he might be King some day, while Andrew won't be, will he?

quote:

but isn't William a lot higher than Andrew? I mean, he might be King some day, while Andrew won't be, will he?

Barring a royal coup de tat.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Wouldn't it have been great if they'd gone off on honeymoon on the tandem instead of in Daddy's Aston Martin?

That would have shown some real class! Hmmmm... I wonder if anyone's ever made a tandem penny-farthing.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

Well Sarah Ferguson didn't get a princess title when she married Prince Andrew;

I don't know royalty at all, as you might imagine, but isn't William a lot higher than Andrew? I mean, he might be King some day, while Andrew won't be, will he?

William is second in line to the throne; Andrew is fourth. Theoretically Andrew could become King one day, but both William and Harry would have to die before him (and without leaving any children), which is unlikely.

Barring a major upheaval to the British constitution, William will definitely be King when the current Queen and Prince Charles are both dead.

If the Queen dies and Prince Phillip is say 70, do you think he will give the King title to William? Or will he, as his mother and grandmother, take it on so there will never be a young, vibrant King?

If the Queen dies and Prince Phillip is say 70, do you think he will give the King title to William?

Do you mean Prince Charles?

I assume that Kalleh was confusing Prince Philip with Prince Charles. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is the husband of the current Queen, nearly 90 years old, and not in line to become King (though technically he's 521st in line to the throne, being distantly related to the Queen).

Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, is the current heir to the throne. He automatically inherits the King title when the Queen dies; he can't pass it on to someone else. There would have to be an Act of Parliament to change the order of succession to the British throne, as with the abdication of Edward VIII.

EDIT: In fact it would take rather more than this. The British monarch is head of state in sixteen different Commonwealth countries and the parliaments of all those countries would have to approve any change in the order of succession - see here. The logistics of such a change would be pretty formidable.

I think it's safe to say that, barring some sort of constitutional earthquake, Charles will be the next King.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Guy Barry,

Nicholas I thought Nicholas II would succeed him and we all know how far that went.

I'm the first to admit that I know nothing about the subject, but on a quick Google search it appears that Nicholas I died in 1855 and Nicholas II wasn't born until 1868. Are you quite sure about that?

Ah, well, it was a long labor. Besides, the Romanovs were primarily Germans, so the British and Russian crowns are related - kinda. Maybe that's why we gave up on kings over here - too darned confusing!

Now I'll go listen to Boris Godunov and shut up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVSOnvNYU-8

I'm not a historian. Just add "I" to each Nick's number.

Just add "I" to each Nick's number.

Again, if we're talking about the Romanovs, the Tsar after Nicholas II was to be the tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich. Nicky and Alexei were both shot on July 17, 1918. By that time, Nicholas had abdicated.

quote:

Do you mean Prince Charles?

Yes. So sorry. I have gotten Charles and Phillip mixed up for ages, and I don't know why.

There is a certain similarity of manner