anyway, while bodies pile up elsewhere, Royal wedding cost over 80 million pounds! [Archive]

markabilly

26th April 2011, 23:37

back to more important news:

What's the difference between this week's wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton and everyone else's? Logistics and money.
The affair -- no, make that spectacle -- is rumored to cost as much as 80 million pounds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8141237/Royal-wedding-Queen-and-Charles-to-pay-their-share-of-the-bill.html), according to reports in the U.K. press which couldn't be verified. Security alone it is slated at 20 million pounds.

:rolleyes:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-royal-wedding-247wallst.aspx?GT1=33038

they are rioting in Africa
they are starving in Sudan,
What nature does not do to us,
Will be done by our fellow man

Rollo

27th April 2011, 00:24

This is the wedding of the future King of the United Kingdom and fifteen other realms, and as Head of the Commonwealth which covers 54 sovereign states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/16/royal-wedding-bill-cost
Figures are difficult to come by for the total bill of Charles and Diana's ceremony – one estimate put the cost, including policing and security, at more than £30m

If you take the wedding of Charles and Diana as a guide, and use a relatively modest rate of inflation at 4% over 30 years, then the cost of their wedding was £97.30m
It works out more expensive than Phillip and Elizabeth's wedding in 1947 which was supposed to have cost £5m; that works out to be £61.53m in 2011 terms and that included post-war rationing.

Roamy

27th April 2011, 06:44

back to more important news:

:rolleyes:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-royal-wedding-247wallst.aspx?GT1=33038

they are rioting in Africa
they are starving in Sudan,
What nature does not do to us,
Will be done by our fellow man

35,000 dead in Mexico - Oh but I need my lines !!

Mark

27th April 2011, 08:08

I get the impression that half of America is in London this weekend anyway.

Daniel

27th April 2011, 08:14

This is the wedding of the future King of the United Kingdom and fifteen other realms, and as Head of the Commonwealth which covers 54 sovereign states.

Who gives a **** though? There are far better things to be spending all that money on than a wedding. I've nothing against the happy couple at all, but I find all of the hoohaa over this quite strange.

Mark

27th April 2011, 09:04

The coverage on the TV channels is up to the TV channels. The Royal family or Kate or William have no say in the matter.

As for the wedding costing £80 million, well, sure. But remember that money doesn't just vanish, it does go into the economy, plus this weekend is going to bring absolutely shed loads of foreign cash into the UK. I also assume foreign TV networks are being charged for the coverage feed?

Rollo

27th April 2011, 10:51

The coverage on the TV channels is up to the TV channels. The Royal family or Kate or William have no say in the matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/27/3201554.htm
Just two days before Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to tie the knot, ABC TV has been forced to cancel The Chaser's one-off live coverage of the event due to what it says are restrictions imposed by the royal family.
...
"Our obvious choice for a light-hearted commentary is The Chaser team. Clearly, the BBC and Clarence House have decided The Chaser aren't acceptable."

If The Royal Family or in this case their agents at Clarence House have made restrictions on what can be done with the coverage, then it would seem apparant they that have some degree over the control of that footage including things like TV rights and fees payable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Royal Wedding simply on TV rights ends up being a net money maker for the Royal Family.

Mark

27th April 2011, 10:55

You would hope that any money generated there would go to offset the cost of hosting the event, the policing etc, but knowing how these things usually work it probably won't be!

ArrowsFA1

27th April 2011, 12:08

What's the difference between this week's wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton and everyone else's? Logistics and money.
No **** Sherlock :laugh: Ace reporter uncovers shocking revelation. Not!!

Brown, Jon Brow

27th April 2011, 22:10

Too many Union Flags around now. It looks like BNP campaigning

Dave B

28th April 2011, 09:48

Rollo

28th April 2011, 14:04

The flags in Regent St just look sinister :s
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/8460602/Pictures-of-the-day-19-April-2011.html?image=11

Blimey, when does the "Two Minutes Hate" begin?

Still, mustn't grumble. I bet they're upping our chocolate ration for this event. :D

Back to work - times 14.5.10 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify

anthonyvop

28th April 2011, 21:33

I think its also worth noting to people who complain about the cost of the wedding that an awful lot of people in the UK (including myself) get the day classed as a Bank Holiday by our employers and get a full day of work with full pay. A hundred and fifty odd quid for sitting at home watching the wedding on TV and having a few pints isn't so bad.. ;) :)

So besides getting hit with a government expense business get a double hit? Sucks to be in the UK!

Brown, Jon Brow

28th April 2011, 21:47

Its quite sad its reached that stage where Union Flags are associated with such an idiotic party. If this wedding was in any other country like France, Italy, USA, Germany etc we'd see flags displayed with patriotic pride and there would be no association with racism or violence. I wonder why its suddenly wrong to be patriotic or wrong to use such a symbol for the UK?

I think it's quite sad that the only reason people have to be patriotic in the country is the Royal family. Is that all we have on this country?

Brown, Jon Brow

28th April 2011, 21:49

So besides getting hit with a government expense business get a double hit? Sucks to be in the UK!

I think businesses are having a great time selling overpriced Royal merchandise to Americans who find it 'cute'.

AndyRAC

28th April 2011, 21:54

I think it's quite sad that the only reason people have to be patriotic in the country is the Royal family. Is that all we have on this country?

Quite often, being patriotic, is 'frowned upon'. However, remember the 2003 Rugby World Cup winners, Ashes in 2005, Olympic heroes of 2008...all had a pretty good turn out in London....

BDunnell

29th April 2011, 00:24

So besides getting hit with a government expense business get a double hit? Sucks to be in the UK!

Out of interest, how many public holidays do you have per year in the USA?

JackSparrow

29th April 2011, 01:37

Good for him!And people will starve regardless of how much his wedding costs.
For every birth there is a death,every full over consuming obese American there is a hungry African,and so on.

Rollo

29th April 2011, 07:52

Dame Lesley Strathie who is the Chief Executive of HM Revenue and Customs was just on ABC News 24, and she estimated that the Royal Wedding is likely to generate between £150m-£155m of additional taxation receipts to the UK.

You would hope that any money generated there would go to offset the cost of hosting the event, the policing etc, but knowing how these things usually work it probably won't be!

Basically due to increased tourism and people spending more money on tat and the general increased circulation of money through the economy, means that there is enough generated to offset the costs; maybe twofold.

Dave B

29th April 2011, 10:04

Daniel

29th April 2011, 10:32

It's not binary, though. It's like the "no to AV" campaign posters which would have you believe that we can either fund a referendum or baby incubators, but not both. Vote for us or the kid dies. :s

Hosting a Royal Wedding doesn't mean we can't or won't spend money on other areas. I'm totally "meh" about the whole thing, but resent the way some parts of the media would like to make out that if you don't care about the royals you're some sort of ranting republican.

Ditto. The parliamentary system here is a freaking joke, you've got people who aren't elected but are chosen to have a position of power. It's a system which has been shown to be corrupt and yet no one is proposing a senate like the US or Australia have where the lower house is decided in much the same way, but the senate is decided on the proportion of upper house votes your party gets. For example lets say 500,0000 votes are cast and there are 10 upper house seats and labour gets 250,000 of those upper house votes then of course they get 5 seats and if the BNP get 50,000 votes then they get a seat. So even if you're not popular enough in individual constituencies to gain a lower house seat, if you're a popular enough party then you'll get a senate seat and you will have a say. The way things are done here currently is completely moronic.

Hilariously the Lords were asked to vote on whether they should be elected or not with predictable results :laugh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Votes_of_March_2007 . Much like asking a fat kid to vote on whether he should get a pie or not.

AV is also needlessly complicated the way it's being done here. You have to put a number in every bloody box, in Australia if you want to you can put a 1 next to the candidate of your choice and then obviously your first preference is given to them and then any subsequent preferences are dictated as the candidate wishes OR you can distribute preferences as you wish.

AndySpeed

29th April 2011, 10:51

This is fantastic viewing on TV. A piece of history in the making, makes me proud to be British today.

I am enjoying it.

Sonic

29th April 2011, 11:30

Double win - the roads are soooooo quiet out and about :)

Daniel

29th April 2011, 11:30

This is fantastic viewing on TV. A piece of history in the making, makes me proud to be British today.

Not wanting to be confrontational, but why?

MrJan

29th April 2011, 12:08

Double win - the roads are soooooo quiet out and about :)

Total fail for me, the boss has made us work....and then not turned up himself :angryfire : That and the knowledge that the beautiful Dartmoor roads will be nigh on empty today is doing my nut in.

MrMetro

29th April 2011, 13:18

This is fantastic viewing on TV. A piece of history in the making, makes me proud to be British today.

I am enjoying it.

Same here mate :)

schmenke

29th April 2011, 14:25

While I'm at work today not giving a toss (like most on this side of the pond), the missus awoke early this morning glued to the t.v. :rolleyes:

Sonic

29th April 2011, 14:38

Not wanting to be confrontational, but why?

It is a little sad that a special event is required to elicit that kind of response. So many 'proud to be British' posts on facebook etc. When those same people are normally slagging the country.

Sonic

29th April 2011, 14:39

Total fail for me, the boss has made us work....and then not turned up himself :angryfire : That and the knowledge that the beautiful Dartmoor roads will be nigh on empty today is doing my nut in.

I feel your pain.

veeten

29th April 2011, 16:09

It is a little sad that a special event is required to elicit that kind of response. So many 'proud to be British' posts on facebook etc. When those same people are normally slagging the country.

That's because the whole event elicits a kind of 'feel good' effect, whereas other 'events' of a political nature can become very confrontational. Symbolic, in its very nature, weddings involving royalty or heads of state-or their family members-are often a bonanza for those looking for something to take the public's (be it regional, national, or international) mind off of more pressing matters.

Roamy

29th April 2011, 16:28

Thank God this crap is over so be can get back to the good stuff. Bombs and Muslims :)

Captain VXR

29th April 2011, 18:18

Brown, Jon Brow

29th April 2011, 19:02

Not wanting to be confrontational, but why?

I don't understand why it would. If anything I'm bit ashamed to live in a country where people camp outside in the middle of London just to catch a glipse of the Royal couple.

Maybe I'm just miserable.

Mark

29th April 2011, 19:25

Miserable? Sorry, but yes it does sound miserable. If people want to celebrate then why not?

Brown, Jon Brow

29th April 2011, 19:30

Miserable? Sorry, but yes it does sound miserable. If people want to celebrate then why not?

Each to their own.

Daniel

29th April 2011, 21:12

I don't understand why it would. If anything I'm bit ashamed to live in a country where people camp outside in the middle of London just to catch a glipse of the Royal couple.

Maybe I'm just miserable.

I feel a bit sad for the people who camp out, but it's their thing and if it makes them happy. I just find it a bit pointless.

AndySpeed

29th April 2011, 21:19

Not wanting to be confrontational, but why?

Because for once people weren't moaning about work, stress or whatever. It unified people. For those who took to complaining about the wedding instead then they're just living a sad, frustrated little life.

We also got to see the Union flag waving everywhere. Woohoo.

Don't get me wrong though, I still have thoughts about emigrating to Sweden or Germany sometimes.

I don't understand why it would. If anything I'm bit ashamed to live in a country where people camp outside in the middle of London just to catch a glipse of the Royal couple.

Maybe I'm just miserable.

You sound it! I would be ashamed to live in a place (note place, not country) where people like you are moaning about the actions of others. Some people might consider it sad to camp out to catch a glimpse of racecars at a track, but people do it. I see not much difference. Personally I'd never camp at a race track but would stay in a hotel or something. I don't look down on the choices of those who do though.

Daniel

29th April 2011, 21:32

Brown, Jon Brow

29th April 2011, 21:50

But why should it take two people to marry to make people happy?

This is what I don't understand. For me, this was just a glorified celebrity wedding.

JackSparrow

29th April 2011, 22:37

But why should it take two people to marry to make people happy?

Why does bird watching,mud wrestling,listening to Mozart,watching porn,keeping up with the Kardashians make people happy? Why? Why? So many questions so little time!

AndySpeed

29th April 2011, 22:39

But why should it take two people to marry to make people happy?

I don't know, I can't speak for everyone. But why shouldn't it?

Daniel

29th April 2011, 22:49

I don't know, I can't speak for everyone. But why shouldn't it?

If that isn't a BS answer to my question then I don't know what is.

I've got nothing against the Royal family at all and I wish the new couple the best as I would to anyone in the world who was getting married to someone they love, but that's all.

JackSparrow

29th April 2011, 22:56

I don't know, I can't speak for everyone. But why shouldn't it?

Well it shouldn't.Unless you have an agenda.

Roamy

29th April 2011, 23:00

F__k that wedding - the should have sent the money to Dafur and got married at regular church with 4 people in attendance

Daniel

29th April 2011, 23:04

Well it shouldn't.Unless you have an agenda.

Why should it though? I'd find it fricking weird if people who didn't know me were spanking themselves off in public to me getting married :mark:

JackSparrow

29th April 2011, 23:15

Why should it though? I'd find it fricking weird if people who didn't know me were spanking themselves off in public to me getting married :mark:

And you are?

Daniel

29th April 2011, 23:22

And you are?

A person who has the same amount of bones in his body as William.

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 00:18

Because for once people weren't moaning about work, stress or whatever. It unified people. For those who took to complaining about the wedding instead then they're just living a sad, frustrated little life.

Let's not pretend it unified everyone. I am utterly indifferent to it, just as I am utterly indifferent to any wedding involving people I don't actually know. Does that make me sad and frustrated?

You sound it! I would be ashamed to live in a place (note place, not country) where people like you are moaning about the actions of others. Some people might consider it sad to camp out to catch a glimpse of racecars at a track, but people do it. I see not much difference. Personally I'd never camp at a race track but would stay in a hotel or something. I don't look down on the choices of those who do though.

I would far rather we continued our attitude of healthy cynicism. Personally, I cannot understand the motivation of anyone who would camp out to watch part of a wedding between two people they don't know.

JackSparrow

30th April 2011, 00:24

A person who has the same amount of bones in his body as William.
So you'r not the son of a Prince,the grandson of a Queen,a Royal,and your mother wasn't Princess Di?
You just answered your own question my friend.Welcome to the real world.

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 00:27

So you'r not the son of a Prince,the grandson of a Queen,a Royal,and your mother wasn't Princess Di?
You just answered your own question my friend.Welcome to the real world.

The 'real world' of the Royal Family?

JackSparrow

30th April 2011, 01:26

The 'real world' of the Royal Family?
No the one that if you're a nobody, don't expect millions to watch your wedding on the tely.
Please keep up with the conversation,and how it got here.

Rollo

30th April 2011, 04:42

I would far rather we continued our attitude of healthy cynicism. Personally, I cannot understand the motivation of anyone who would camp out to watch part of a wedding between two people they don't know.

People will stand in line for days to get tickets for Wimbledon. People used to camp overnight to get in line to buy concert tickets. Just this last week we had people camping outside of a big arena so they could get a glimpse of Justin Bieber. People stand out in the rain, sleet, snow and slush facing temperatures below zero to see rally cars whizz past them.
In principle I don't see much of a difference.

Perhaps Royal watching isn't you're thing. Obviously for the people who packed out The Mall yesterday it was their thing. Also if you bear in mind that this is the wedding of potentially the future king of the United Kingdom, then this in itself is an event and a part of history.
Why did people camp overnight to see a wall come down? Why did people all opver the world watch telly to see one man be released from prison in 1990? Why did people pack the streets in 1997 to see one coffin go past?

Maybe you don't understand the motivation. Like you I didn't actually care and watched an Australian Rules football match. It meant something to the people who were there, and they'll probably remember it for the rest of their lives.

Dave B

30th April 2011, 08:51

I feel a bit sad for the people who camp out, but it's their thing and if it makes them happy. I just find it a bit pointless.
I heard one old dear on the news saying "we couldn't see a thing but we were just glad to be here".

With that in mind, anyone want to join me sitting in the Silverstone car park during the British Grand Prix?

Ranger

30th April 2011, 09:03

Sonic

30th April 2011, 10:04

Well watching another usurper to my throne get married was an excellent reason for me not to watch ;)

Daniel

30th April 2011, 10:31

People will stand in line for days to get tickets for Wimbledon. People used to camp overnight to get in line to buy concert tickets. Just this last week we had people camping outside of a big arena so they could get a glimpse of Justin Bieber. People stand out in the rain, sleet, snow and slush facing temperatures below zero to see rally cars whizz past them.
In principle I don't see much of a difference.

Perhaps Royal watching isn't you're thing. Obviously for the people who packed out The Mall yesterday it was their thing. Also if you bear in mind that this is the wedding of potentially the future king of the United Kingdom, then this in itself is an event and a part of history.
Why did people camp overnight to see a wall come down? Why did people all opver the world watch telly to see one man be released from prison in 1990? Why did people pack the streets in 1997 to see one coffin go past?

Maybe you don't understand the motivation. Like you I didn't actually care and watched an Australian Rules football match. It meant something to the people who were there, and they'll probably remember it for the rest of their lives.

What a load of rubbish. lets deal with your "points" in point form.

Wimbledon, people go to see people perform amazingly. Ditto with rally cars. I could have done what William did yesterday! So could Dave I suspect!

Comparing this to seeing the wall come down? The wall changed things directly for millions upon millions of people and indirectly for billions of people! There was no longer the possibility it seemed, of nuclear weapons raining from the sky and killing millions upon millions of people. Comparing this to a wedding is insulting!

Comparing it to Mandela being released and the changes this brought about for the Black people of South Africa is also most insulting.

The tears of those millions of people in 1997 for a person they never met and never knew (no, you didn't know her! No matter how many womens magazines you read about her) were one of the weirdest occasions in world history. IMHO grief should always be something which should belong to those who knew the person directly and had dealings with them. If one of my parents were to pass away I could understand people on the forum saying "My deepest sympathies" or something similar, but if people who didn't really know myself or my parents started saying how they were crying or that they were going to send flowers then I'd be wondering what was wrong with them.

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 10:42

Comparing this to seeing the wall come down? The wall changed things directly for millions upon millions of people and indirectly for billions of people! There was no longer the possibility it seemed, of nuclear weapons raining from the sky and killing millions upon millions of people. Comparing this to a wedding is insulting!

I couldn't agree more.

The tears of those millions of people in 1997 for a person they never met and never knew (no, you didn't know her! No matter how many womens magazines you read about her) were one of the weirdest occasions in world history. IMHO grief should always be something which should belong to those who knew the person directly and had dealings with them. If one of my parents were to pass away I could understand people on the forum saying "My deepest sympathies" or something similar, but if people who didn't really know myself or my parents started saying how they were crying or that they were going to send flowers then I'd be wondering what was wrong with them.

And, by extension, not just grief but also celebration. Am I somehow unduly weird, pompous or heartless in reserving my emotions, whether of happiness or sadness, for people I actually know?

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 10:44

No the one that if you're a nobody, don't expect millions to watch your wedding on the tely.
Please keep up with the conversation,and how it got here.

In what sense is it a 'real world' in which an ancient hereditary principle makes a person a 'somebody'?

Malbec

30th April 2011, 10:48

Perhaps Royal watching isn't you're thing. Obviously for the people who packed out The Mall yesterday it was their thing. Also if you bear in mind that this is the wedding of potentially the future king of the United Kingdom, then this in itself is an event and a part of history.
Why did people camp overnight to see a wall come down? Why did people all opver the world watch telly to see one man be released from prison in 1990? Why did people pack the streets in 1997 to see one coffin go past?

Maybe you don't understand the motivation. Like you I didn't actually care and watched an Australian Rules football match. It meant something to the people who were there, and they'll probably remember it for the rest of their lives.

Precisely. Whilst I celebrated the royal wedding by having the car washed and buying a few pots of paint I do appreciate there are people who love them enough to camp in London. I suspect there are more than a few people around the UK who think it utterly bizarre that anyone would get up really early in the morning just to watch some cars go round in circles or even waste time going on the internet to talk about them.

The royals DO matter to a significant number of people in the UK and none of them were forced to have street parties or come into central London. They seemed pretty happy yesterday and I have to say the mood of the country did seem lifted by the occasion.

Daniel

30th April 2011, 10:58

Precisely. Whilst I celebrated the royal wedding by having the car washed and buying a few pots of paint I do appreciate there are people who love them enough to camp in London. I suspect there are more than a few people around the UK who think it utterly bizarre that anyone would get up really early in the morning just to watch some cars go round in circles or even waste time going on the internet to talk about them.

The royals DO matter to a significant number of people in the UK and none of them were forced to have street parties or come into central London. They seemed pretty happy yesterday and I have to say the mood of the country did seem lifted by the occasion.

Come on, you can't compare motorsport to watching (or not actually getting to see, as it were) some person who's just been married who happens to be a Royal. I've nothing against the royals of course, they can only be what they are, but for people to get so worked up about the wedding of someone they don't even know is a bit weird you have to admit.

I've nothing against people doing what they did, I just find it deeply pointless :)

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 11:01

Precisely. Whilst I celebrated the royal wedding by having the car washed and buying a few pots of paint I do appreciate there are people who love them enough to camp in London. I suspect there are more than a few people around the UK who think it utterly bizarre that anyone would get up really early in the morning just to watch some cars go round in circles or even waste time going on the internet to talk about them.

But a motor race is an event laid on specifically for the benefit of spectators. A wedding isn't. This is why I don't consider the two to be comparable at all.

The royals DO matter to a significant number of people in the UK and none of them were forced to have street parties or come into central London. They seemed pretty happy yesterday and I have to say the mood of the country did seem lifted by the occasion.

If that's the case, then great. But don't expect everyone to join in, and certainly don't expect those whose opinions don't happen to match the majority to just meekly go along with the celebrations.

Malbec

30th April 2011, 11:05

Come on, you can't compare motorsport to watching (or not actually getting to see, as it were) some person who's just been married who happens to be a Royal. I've nothing against the royals of course, they can only be what they are, but for people to get so worked up about the wedding of someone they don't even know is a bit weird you have to admit.

I've nothing against people doing what they did, I just find it deeply pointless :)

Why can't you compare motorsport with watching a wedding? What is important and valuable for you isn't important to many other people. Ditto for the royals. How about respecting the fact that for millions watching two young people get married rocked their boat? And if you want to denigrate things based on how you value them then don't be surprised when others denigrate what you love because it is of no value to them.

You find it pointless, fine. So did I. But if you really can't take pleasure in other people's happiness that too is weird.

Daniel

30th April 2011, 11:09

But a motor race is an event laid on specifically for the benefit of spectators. A wedding isn't. This is why I don't consider the two to be comparable at all.

I suspect that this wedding was planned with spectators in mind. One thing that made me laugh about the pre-wedding coverage was when they talked about the trees which were inside Westminster Abbey and the reporter said (with a sense of urgency and massive importance I must add) "The four trees are NOT Oak as we first thought, but 2 maple's and 2 hornbeam. I repeat, rather than oak trees they will be having maple and hornbeam!". You just know at that point that everyone went on the internet and you probably can't buy a maple or hornbeam sapling for love nor money. This sort of fascination with the most inane details of the wedding is beyond me.

Daniel

30th April 2011, 11:15

You find it pointless, fine. So did I. But if you really can't take pleasure in other people's happiness that too is weird.

I do take pleasure in other people's happiness! When I went to Mark's wedding I was very happy for Mark and Karen, but that's because I know them.

To me this obsession with things which practice matter very little, symbolises a lot of what is wrong with modern society.

If the royals ALL just disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow but no one was told, would it actually have any practical impact on anyone?

Malbec

30th April 2011, 11:20

But a motor race is an event laid on specifically for the benefit of spectators. A wedding isn't. This is why I don't consider the two to be comparable at all.

Actually I think they are. The royals ARE popular amongst many people and their marriage IS an event. While a wedding may not be a spectator event royal/imperial weddings nearly always are. The fact that central London had to be closed down to help prepare for the masses of people who came to see it show that whether you like it or not it it certainly was a spectator event.

If that's the case, then great. But don't expect everyone to join in, and certainly don't expect those whose opinions don't happen to match the majority to just meekly go along with the celebrations.

Why? Were you forced to celebrate? Were there troops rounding people up to go to the Mall? I must have missed that bit. I don't think anyone was expected to celebrate or join in though plenty did. Bit of a strawman argument there no?

As someone who isn't bothered about the royals I did appreciate the fact that the mood of the country was lifted for a day or so even though I don't value the root cause of that. You'd have to be deeply cynical not to have felt the atmosphere lift in places yesterday.

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 11:35

Actually I think they are. The royals ARE popular amongst many people and their marriage IS an event. While a wedding may not be a spectator event royal/imperial weddings nearly always are. The fact that central London had to be closed down to help prepare for the masses of people who came to see it show that whether you like it or not it it certainly was a spectator event.

But it is not the primary purpose of the event. Forgive me for being simplistic, but the primary purpose of a wedding is for two people to get married, not spectator entertainment.

Why? Were you forced to celebrate? Were there troops rounding people up to go to the Mall? I must have missed that bit. I don't think anyone was expected to celebrate or join in though plenty did. Bit of a strawman argument there no?

As someone who isn't bothered about the royals I did appreciate the fact that the mood of the country was lifted for a day or so even though I don't value the root cause of that. You'd have to be deeply cynical not to have felt the atmosphere lift in places yesterday.

I am perfectly happy with my argument, thank you very much. And I think you're going dangerously far down the road of suggesting that the subject should not even be a matter of debate. I will decide whether to be critical of something or not, thank you very much. Just because a lot of people did join in with the celebrations doesn't mean that this should not be questioned. I and others won't continue to feel anything other than utter indifference towards events such as yesterday's, nor reconsider our view that we are better off deriving pleasure from and feeling genuine sadness about those in our own lives, instead of those we merely see in the media.

Malbec

30th April 2011, 12:46

But it is not the primary purpose of the event. Forgive me for being simplistic, but the primary purpose of a wedding is for two people to get married, not spectator entertainment.

I am perfectly happy with my argument, thank you very much. And I think you're going dangerously far down the road of suggesting that the subject should not even be a matter of debate. I will decide whether to be critical of something or not, thank you very much. Just because a lot of people did join in with the celebrations doesn't mean that this should not be questioned. I and others won't continue to feel anything other than utter indifference towards events such as yesterday's, nor reconsider our view that we are better off deriving pleasure from and feeling genuine sadness about those in our own lives, instead of those we merely see in the media.

No you're talking about normal weddings. Royal weddings have been used in the past to end wars, forge alliances, save dynasties and the like, not to mention continuing the family lineage. They have long been spectator events in many countries.

As for your second paragraph i have not suggested that things not be questioned.

Perhaps you can clarify why you feel as if you were forced to celebrate as you initially posted. While I feel the existence of the royal family should always be questioned I find your high handed sneering dismissal of those that celebrated yesterdays event odious. You should at least be capable of separating the issue of the existence of the royal family from the fact that they are followed and loved by a large number of people.

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 14:35

Perhaps you can clarify why you feel as if you were forced to celebrate as you initially posted. While I feel the existence of the royal family should always be questioned I find your high handed sneering dismissal of those that celebrated yesterdays event odious. You should at least be capable of separating the issue of the existence of the royal family from the fact that they are followed and loved by a large number of people.

How can the two be separated, when if one didn't exist the other wouldn't be the case? Furthermore, I presume you are no lover of the 'celebrity culture' which is so prevalent nowadays? If so, I don't see why this unthinking worship of royalty is any different. Once, it may have been so. Now it's just another symptom of the manner in which people have an undue fascination with those they see in the media. The absurd, disturbing reaction to Princess Diana's death was just such an example, except one involving grief rather than celebration. Again, I ask, what is the difference?

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 14:36

As for your second paragraph i have not suggested that things not be questioned.

Yes, you have. You have described as 'odious' those who dare to express an opinion different from that of the majority.

Daniel

30th April 2011, 15:03

Malbec

30th April 2011, 15:08

Yes, you have. You have described as 'odious' those who dare to express an opinion different from that of the majority.

No, I described your attitude towards those who celebrated the wedding as odious. Specifically your attitude, not the fact that you have an opinion running against the majority (in fact I believe you would be comfortably within the majority if you merely didn't care about or didn't like the wedding itself).

Malbec

30th April 2011, 15:12

How can the two be separated, when if one didn't exist the other wouldn't be the case? Furthermore, I presume you are no lover of the 'celebrity culture' which is so prevalent nowadays? If so, I don't see why this unthinking worship of royalty is any different. Once, it may have been so. Now it's just another symptom of the manner in which people have an undue fascination with those they see in the media. The absurd, disturbing reaction to Princess Diana's death was just such an example, except one involving grief rather than celebration. Again, I ask, what is the difference?

You're right, I abhor celebrity culture of which the adoration of the Royals is an extension, but unlike you I will not judge those who saw the wedding as an event to celebrate. As I posted to Daniel once you denigrate those who enjoy things you see as worthless why should they not do the same to you? Isn't that how intolerance starts?

What makes you so special that you can pass judgment on others?

BDunnell

30th April 2011, 15:26

You're right, I abhor celebrity culture of which the adoration of the Royals is an extension, but unlike you I will not judge those who saw the wedding as an event to celebrate. As I posted to Daniel once you denigrate those who enjoy things you see as worthless why should they not do the same to you? Isn't that how intolerance starts?

What makes you so special that you can pass judgment on others?

The fact that I am free to express an opinion allows me to do so. Nothing more. Likewise, I don't care if other people choose to denigrate my life choices, but I would put up a spirited defence.

I am assuming from your viewpoint that you have never once passed judgment on anything anyone else has done, or the tastes of others, ever? You've never said, for instance, that a film, a TV programme or a song isn't very good? If you have, by extension, you by your own reckoning are being overly judgmental. After all, it's likely that millions of other people will have enjoyed that film, TV programme or song. There is no difference, surely, between making that sort of criticism of the tastes of others and what I'm saying about the wedding.

MrMetro

30th April 2011, 15:45

There are some people on this forum who really need to stay away from the keyboard and stop getting so worked up.

If people wanted to enjoy the Royal wedding, then good for them. If some people didn't watch it, then fair enough. If we all liked the same thing the world would be a very boring place.

Malbec

30th April 2011, 16:25

I am assuming from your viewpoint that you have never once passed judgment on anything anyone else has done, or the tastes of others, ever? You've never said, for instance, that a film, a TV programme or a song isn't very good? If you have, by extension, you by your own reckoning are being overly judgmental. After all, it's likely that millions of other people will have enjoyed that film, TV programme or song. There is no difference, surely, between making that sort of criticism of the tastes of others and what I'm saying about the wedding.

You're getting confused now. If I don't like a particular song that would be equivalent to you not liking the wedding. I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is your attitude towards those who celebrated or enjoyed the wedding. To make your comparison more accurate that would be like me claiming that anyone who did like that song has personality issues. See the difference?

JackSparrow

30th April 2011, 18:15

In what sense is it a 'real world' in which an ancient hereditary principle makes a person a 'somebody'?

In the sense that a "nobody" can troll down the street without being bothered,thus no one will care for his existence, and 2 billion people will not watch his wedding. That's how it's been in the real world since ancient times.I'm surprised you're just realizing this.

JackSparrow

30th April 2011, 18:21

, I just find it deeply pointless :)

And a billion people will find pointless something you and I do,or are into. :rolleyes:

JackSparrow

30th April 2011, 18:32

But it is not the primary purpose of the event. Forgive me for being simplistic, but the primary purpose of a wedding is for two people to get married, not spectator entertainment.

Than why do even none royals spend millions on their weddings and invite 1000s? Why does the regular girl spend 6000$ on a wedding dress?2000$ on a cake? Don't people "actually" get married in city hall? Why all that?
Spectator entertainment.Bragging rights. Believe me I have been to many weddings.

Brown, Jon Brow

30th April 2011, 18:57

Than why do even none royals spend millions on their weddings and invite 1000s? Why does the regular girl spend 6000$ on a wedding dress?2000$ on a cake? Don't people "actually" get married in city hall? Why all that?
Spectator entertainment.Bragging rights. Believe me I have been to many weddings.

They certainly don't do it for the entertainment of strangers. They spend money on their own wedding to make themselves feel special.

Bagwan

30th April 2011, 20:13

The best part of the whole evemt was when Kate smiled sweetly , upon hearing the words "for richer or poorer" during the vows .

They could have left that "poorer" part out .

British military precision . Quite an amazing bit of organization .
She was to arrive at 11:00am , and the footman had his hand on the handle of the car door at precisely 11:00am .

That 80million pounds that just went out was spent largely in the UK , and those people paid to put it on , will now be going out to spend some of it .

That's over and above the economic stimulation the locals receive with the bazillion people that flocked in .

These things are great from an economic point of view .

And , they do seem to lift the spirits of the public in general , at the same time .

Sometimes , any reason is a good reason for a party .

BDunnell

1st May 2011, 00:04

In the sense that a "nobody" can troll down the street without being bothered,thus no one will care for his existence, and 2 billion people will not watch his wedding. That's how it's been in the real world since ancient times.I'm surprised you're just realizing this.

Tell me why you and others care for the existence of a member of the Royal Family.

BDunnell

1st May 2011, 00:07

You're getting confused now. If I don't like a particular song that would be equivalent to you not liking the wedding. I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is your attitude towards those who celebrated or enjoyed the wedding. To make your comparison more accurate that would be like me claiming that anyone who did like that song has personality issues. See the difference?

I do see the difference, but, to me, as odious as I apparently am, there is still an equivalence between the two points.

I'll ask you again. Did you not consider the reaction to the death of Princess Diana disturbing and strange? I recall an item in the Guardian regarding a girl whose parents were killed in a car accident on the same day, but whose best friend would not go round to see her, on the grounds that they 'had' to go to Kensington Palace to sign the book of condolence. How could one not judge such a person?

bowler

1st May 2011, 09:43

My wife, who knows such things, tells me that the Royal Family and the Middleton family paid serious money for this event. Middletons some UKP4million, probably the same or more from the Royals. That, to cover the personal costs of the wedding, is a significant amount in anyones book.

Malbec

1st May 2011, 10:18

I do see the difference, but, to me, as odious as I apparently am, there is still an equivalence between the two points.

I'll ask you again. Did you not consider the reaction to the death of Princess Diana disturbing and strange? I recall an item in the Guardian regarding a girl whose parents were killed in a car accident on the same day, but whose best friend would not go round to see her, on the grounds that they 'had' to go to Kensington Palace to sign the book of condolence. How could one not judge such a person?

How can you judge such a person indeed, someone you do not know based on third or fourthhand information seen through the distorting prism of a media outlet with its own pro or anti-royalist spin? A media that often omits or is unaware of all the information but wants a sensational line to add. A child who does not see things with the same crystal clarity of an intelligent unbiased adult such as yourself? Yes Ben, how can you judge?

As for Diana's death the public reaction was strange but it was also overblown by the media (just as the positive reaction to this wedding was to some degree). How many people did you know that felt grief in the way we were told millions did?

Also funerals are for the most part deeply private. People do not feel comfortable reaching in and joining a funeral for someone they do not know which is what made Diana's funeral such an odd experience. Weddings are different. At my wedding for example when we stepped out onto the street people driving by honked their horns. Passersby congratulated us and at one point a crowd outside a pub broke out into spontaneous applause. That would not have happened at a funeral, passersby would not have passed on their condolences.

To make it simple for you, while the reaction to Diana's death was odd the reaction to William and Kate getting married wasn't considering they are public figures.

markabilly

1st May 2011, 11:54

:dozey:
The best part of the whole evemt was when Kate smiled sweetly , upon hearing the words "for richer or poorer" during the vows .

They could have left that "poorer" part out .

British military precision . Quite an amazing bit of organization .
She was to arrive at 11:00am , and the footman had his hand on the handle of the car door at precisely 11:00am .

That 80million pounds that just went out was spent largely in the UK , and those people paid to put it on , will now be going out to spend some of it .

That's over and above the economic stimulation the locals receive with the bazillion people that flocked in .

These things are great from an economic point of view .

.

Except they all buy stuff made in china and other countries, not really putting anybody back to work in GB~~ :dozey:

I bet even the souveneirs sold to everyone, including dumb Americans who were dumb enough to go, were made in China.

I was going to go, but I had to work late putting the finishing touches on Obama's new birth certificate.......

markabilly

1st May 2011, 12:22

Than why do even none royals spend millions on their weddings and invite 1000s? Why does the regular girl spend 6000$ on a wedding dress?2000$ on a cake? Don't people "actually" get married in city hall? Why all that?
Spectator entertainment.Bragging rights. Believe me I have been to many weddings.
Brings to mind a couple of quotes alleged to have come from PT Barum, about suckers born every minute and never going broke underestimating taste or intelligence..

My wedding cost was not much up front...one shotgun shell........but the later "fees" were quite high and continue to grow.

Bagwan

1st May 2011, 15:13

:dozey:

Except they all buy stuff made in china and other countries, not really putting anybody back to work in GB~~ :dozey:

I bet even the souveneirs sold to everyone, including dumb Americans who were dumb enough to go, were made in China.

I was going to go, but I had to work late putting the finishing touches on Obama's new birth certificate.......

Nah , Billy , they did most of it "in house" , so to speak .

And , you can bet that , although all those Union Jacks flying were likely to have largely made abroad , those flag sellers made a ton more profit .

How much did that birth certificate cost , speaking of wasting money ?
And , was your pen made in China ?

Bagwan

1st May 2011, 15:18

Brings to mind a couple of quotes alleged to have come from PT Barum, about suckers born every minute and never going broke underestimating taste or intelligence..

My wedding cost was not much up front...one shotgun shell........but the later "fees" were quite high and continue to grow.

I never saw a gun during the whole broadcast ..........but I bet they were there , wearing the coolest of gargoyle costumes . That's likely where a lot of that money went . It's not easy making Kevlar look like stone .

BDunnell

1st May 2011, 23:40

How can you judge such a person indeed, someone you do not know based on third or fourthhand information seen through the distorting prism of a media outlet with its own pro or anti-royalist spin? A media that often omits or is unaware of all the information but wants a sensational line to add. A child who does not see things with the same crystal clarity of an intelligent unbiased adult such as yourself? Yes Ben, how can you judge?

As for Diana's death the public reaction was strange but it was also overblown by the media (just as the positive reaction to this wedding was to some degree). How many people did you know that felt grief in the way we were told millions did?

Also funerals are for the most part deeply private. People do not feel comfortable reaching in and joining a funeral for someone they do not know which is what made Diana's funeral such an odd experience. Weddings are different. At my wedding for example when we stepped out onto the street people driving by honked their horns. Passersby congratulated us and at one point a crowd outside a pub broke out into spontaneous applause. That would not have happened at a funeral, passersby would not have passed on their condolences.

To make it simple for you, while the reaction to Diana's death was odd the reaction to William and Kate getting married wasn't considering they are public figures.

Believe me, I didn't think the reaction to the wedding was odd at all. It was entirely as I expected.

Again, I have to express my doubts as to whether you have ever judged another individual on the basis of their behaviour. You would be a veritable saint if so.

JackSparrow

2nd May 2011, 06:28

Tell me why you and others care for the existence of a member of the Royal Family.

Because the NFL is in a lockout.And I need my entertainment.

Malbec

2nd May 2011, 20:09

Again, I have to express my doubts as to whether you have ever judged another individual on the basis of their behaviour. You would be a veritable saint if so.

Not on the basis of a throwaway line in some newspaper article, no. Try and stop twisting my posts Ben. I made it clear that I think its odd to judge someone you don't know personally based on a media article, not to judge anyone at all.

BDunnell

3rd May 2011, 01:13

Not on the basis of a throwaway line in some newspaper article, no. Try and stop twisting my posts Ben. I made it clear that I think its odd to judge someone you don't know personally based on a media article, not to judge anyone at all.

Nor am I judging people on the basis of a throwaway line in any newspaper article. I have read no newspaper articles on the subject of the wedding, as far as I recall, unless you know better than I do. And nowhere have I 'twisted' any of your posts.

donKey jote

3rd May 2011, 08:32

2776 :s ailor:

Malbec

3rd May 2011, 09:35

Nor am I judging people on the basis of a throwaway line in any newspaper article. I have read no newspaper articles on the subject of the wedding, as far as I recall, unless you know better than I do. And nowhere have I 'twisted' any of your posts.

My mistake Ben, the girl you referred to who didn't go to her best friend's parents funeral because of Diana's death, the one you said you couldn't not judge, I thought you'd read about her in a newspaper somewhere. I didn't realise she was your personal acquaintance. Apologies.