• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

William & Kate Royal Wedding |OT| 2000 Guests, 8000 Media, Est.2Billion Watching

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michan

Member
elseanio said:
Not wanting to spark a massive debate, just looking for a simple answer (understand if there isn't one)

What would happen to the Crown Estate, should the Royal Family be overthrown, or whatever people want. Would it just become privately owned? Isn't it the Queens by her inheritance? The government takes over?
Click to expand...
The Last Emperor is a really tremendous film, if not a little depressing given that you are forced into Puyi's shoes. But still, give it a watch if you can!

It probably won't be quite as dramatic as that, though.
Unless maybe the BNP got in, lolol
 
N

numble

Member
Koodo said:
Horrible analogy. Principle about what? Since the royal family are nothing more than glorified socialites, their existence appears to have little or no impact on your life (slavery would obviously have an impact on the slaves, so there, your analogy was thrown out).

"But I'm unemployed and these people are born into luxury!" Again, would their continued existence or abolishment change anyone's circumstances? No, you'd still be unemployed. The existence of the monarchy (British one, at least) isn't a social repression nor would their abolishment be a social movement of any kind.

Given that the royal family represents tradition in the most superficial way, given that they unmistakably pull in hoards of tourism revenue (the wedding's popularity was due to them, not some decrepit building), and given that they provide me passing entertainment while at the check out counter in the supermarket, I am not convinced that (a) their existence is wrong out of principle, and (b) their abolishment would be justified by any improvement in anything.
Click to expand...
So the argument is inertia? Why are people in countries with defunct monarchies (but surviving lineages) opposed to reinstating their monarchies in passive roles, even if it means extra tourism income and entertainment?
 
S

Superimposer

This is getting weirder all the time
StuBurns said:
You can find an unflattering photo of anyone...

KateMiddletonPrinceWilliam21Aug2007.jpg


Pippa is better looking, fo sho.
Click to expand...

You can indeed find an unflattering photo of anyone, but like a poster above said, that unflattering photo of Kate is way less unflattering than the one of Pippa. As far as I'm concerned, with Kate it's the exception and not the rule, and the other way around for Pippa
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Superimposer said:
You can indeed find an unflattering photo of anyone, but like a poster above said, that unflattering photo of Kate is way less unflattering than the one of Pippa. As far as I'm concerned, with Kate it's the exception and not the rule, and the other way around for Pippa
Click to expand...
Well maybe, it's pretty creepy to be having this debate I think, so I'll concede.
 
K

Koodo

Banned
numble said:
So the argument is inertia? Why are people in countries with defunct monarchies (but surviving lineages) opposed to reinstating their monarchies in passive roles, even if it means extra tourism income and entertainment?
Click to expand...
Well, there's the likely fact that no other royal family is Hollywood-level tabloid fodder like the British family. But other than that, I don't know? I'm just failing to see how the British royal family represents a moral wrong or how their abolishment would do or improve anything. If the abolishment of the monarchies in other countries represent compelling reasons (by the way, this would be the source of a good analogy, not like the contrived slavery example in the prior page), no one in this thread has taken the effort to point those out to justify whatever is they actually want.
 
E

EricHasNoPull

Banned
Your Excellency said:
Some of the responses in this thread really are embarrassing. Honestly, even if the Queen generated £100 million in extra tourism, THAT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE IT OKAY TO HAVE A MONARCHY.

It's like saying "Slavery should be allowed because it increases the GDP of the nation by 10%". Fuck that shit. This is a matter of principle, out and out.
Click to expand...
ITT: Slavery = Modern day English Monarchy
 
N

numble

Member
Koodo said:
Well, there's the likely fact that no other royal family is Hollywood-level tabloid fodder like the British family. But other than that, I don't know? I'm just failing to see how the British royal family represents a moral wrong or how their abolishment would do or improve anything. If the abolishment of the monarchies in other countries represent compelling reasons (by the way, this would be the source of a good analogy, not like the contrived slavery example in the prior page), no one in this thread has taken the effort to point those out to justify whatever is they actually want.
Click to expand...
They're tabloid fodder in the English-language tabloids because well, they're English. I'm sure a putative Chinese royal family would command the same tabloid craze in Asia (just look how crazy they are over their celebrities, which is on a higher level of craze than in the US). The last emperor held symbolic title and a palace while others governed--at least 3 times they took him off the symbolic role and put him back there, I think--before they decided to do away with it for good. He died in 1967 and the heir still lives.
 
S

Splinter

Member
So, what do the royals actually do on a daily basis? Do they just hang out in castles all day? Can they go out without being bombarded? Do they require massive security detail like a president when going around?
 
M

Michan

Member
Splinter said:
So, what do the royals actually do on a daily basis? Do they just hang out in castles all day? Can they go out without being bombarded? Do they require massive security detail like a president when going around?
Click to expand...
Haha, whoops!
 
S

Salvor.Hardin

Banned
Some interesting figures:

More than 24m viewers in the UK watched the royal wedding on the BBC and ITV, industry body Barb estimates.

The BBC said a peak figure of 20m - a 70% share - tuned into the corporation's coverage at the end of the service in Westminster Abbey.

More than 34 million viewers watched at least part of the BBC's TV royal wedding coverage, it added. These figures include live iPlayer viewings.

The estimated figures for the BBC and ITV put the wedding in the all-time top 10 most-watched programmes, although more people watched the 1966 World Cup Final (32.3m) and Princess Diana's funeral in 1997 (£32.1m).

The wedding between the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer in 1981 attracted 28.4m viewers.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13248199

The last figure really stood out to me - The 1981 wedding attracted more viewers. I guess people really are increasingly becoming jaded about the Royals.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
The Princes do walk around without security at times. Go to clubs and things.

Maybe there are people always hidden ready to appear if something happened though, no idea.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
StuBurns said:
The Princes do walk around without security at times. Go to clubs and things.

Maybe there are people always hidden ready to appear if something happened though, no idea.
Click to expand...
Hmm, my cousin knows a couple of Royal Protection officers. Might ask him if he knows about this sorta stuff sometime.
 
K

Koodo

Banned
StuBurns said:
The Princes do walk around without security at times. Go to clubs and things.

Maybe there are people always hidden ready to appear if something happened though, no idea.
Click to expand...
Maybe? TMZ stands for thirty mile zone, to give you an idea about tabloids in general.
 
mclaren777

mclaren777

Member
William was probably a virgin when he got married, right?

I've gotta think that the Crown strongly discourages having illegitimate children.
 
A

apana

Member
Koodo said:
Well, there's the likely fact that no other royal family is Hollywood-level tabloid fodder like the British family. But other than that, I don't know? I'm just failing to see how the British royal family represents a moral wrong or how their abolishment would do or improve anything. If the abolishment of the monarchies in other countries represent compelling reasons (by the way, this would be the source of a good analogy, not like the contrived slavery example in the prior page), no one in this thread has taken the effort to point those out to justify whatever is they actually want.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this but if the British people actually wanted to I think they could get rid of the monarchy fairly easily since the monarchy has no actualy military that they can give orders to. So in that sense the monarchs continue to exist because of the will of the people.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
apana said:
I'm not sure about this but if the British people actually wanted to I think they could get rid of the monarchy fairly easily since the monarchy has no actualy military that they can give orders to. So in that sense the monarchs continue to exist because of the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Aren't the Navy and RAF technically under their command?
Or am I mistaken?
 
S

Safe Bet

Banned
Guy #1: "Down with Monarchy!"

Guy #2: "Hey, I heard the prince/princess wants to marry your son/daughter."

Guy #1: "Long Live the King!"

;-)

Seriously though...

It's an awesome relic of a ancient tradition.
 
I

_Isaac

Member
Seriously. That little girl freaks me out. The Middleton sisters are frikkin' gorgeous. Harry is damn hot. William is....William.
 
N

nastybastard

Member
Forgive me if this is old but I just noticed this.

Prince Phillip is rumored to be quite the ladies man. I just saw his personal monogram and it is a pair of tits. Proof positive?

Untitled.png
 
D

dejay

Banned
_Isaac said:
Seriously. That little girl freaks me out. The Middleton sisters are frikkin' gorgeous. Harry is damn hot. William is....William.
Click to expand...

It amuses me that William was, until quite recently, seen as the good looking one with his mum's beauty whilst Harry was seen as second best. Now Harry is the good looking one and William is fading fast before he's even 30.
 
L

Lothars

Member
I enjoyed the wedding and thought it was worth watching, I am canadian and really enjoy the monoarch and the history, I think it's alot of good but I also really don't understand alot of the hate some people have for it.
 
A

APZonerunner

Member
Kalnos said:
bu..bu..but 2 billion unique viewers!

KuGsj.gif


I realize that's only the U.S.
Click to expand...

A UK newspaper actually broke down, worldwide, how many people they'd need watching live to hit the 2 billion. Both the US and the UK have already exceeded that number so far, and that's without time shifts (when people watch highlights later, or record it to watch later, which is likely in the US due to the time of day). If other countries exceeded similarly - the African countries, France, Australia etc, they could actually be on track for 2.5 or 3.
 
W

WickedCobra03

Member
As a 20-odd year old straight male from America, I enjoyed the hell out of this wedding. Why was everyone so sick of it? Was there a ton of media coverage? I guess I missed most of it other than maybe 5 mentions on I saw/heard in mags, tv or on radio.

Thanks William for taking Catherine. I will now court Pippa. God did Pippa look good! I actually liked her dress far more than Kates Wedding dress. But I did like the simple elegance of Kates dress. I also have this weird thing that thinks it would be totes cute if Harry and Pippa got married.
 
K

kharma45

Member
CHEEZMO™ said:
Aren't the Navy and RAF technically under their command?
Or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Well yeah they are Her Majesty's Armed Forces and the Queen in the Commander-in-Chief, all members swear allegiance to her.
 
S

Subliminal

Member
Wow. I love reading through this thread. seeing people trying to defend the royals.

At a time when we've had loads of people complaining about politicians expenses and behaviour everyone likes to swallow the dick of the royal family.

Atleast politicians are elected, they represent the people. They weren't born into a life of ridiculous wealth and expected to shake hands and give a tiny amount to charity.

The simple fact is, although alot of politicians are from rich backgrounds, they've worked hard to better themselves, Thats why you see so many politicians coming from Oxbridge, They're the academic elite that have the ability to change things and get elected.

The royals are a bunch of inbred, unelected tossers who shit all over the idea of a meritocracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom