BS: The Royal Wedding

Subject: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:35 AM

Is anybody else a bit 'meh' about this coming event? I wish the couple well of course, but as expected, the Press and the Internet are making a meal out of the whole shebang, with rumours, scurrilous articles and accusations of alleged lies with regard to Meghan's family.

I feel it would have been better to have chosen a much lower-key ceremony (and to have spent less!) I'm also a bit bored by it all, which is strange for me, as normally I like the spectacle and pomp etc of a royal event.

Neighbour-across-the-road has asked to borrow our Union Jack bunting and has put red, white and blue decorations all over her front garden.
I don't even think I'll bother to watch it live on TV, just catch the News later on. Perhaps I'm getting old!

Anyone else not terribly interested?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:56 AM

Not interested in the wedding as such but will watch it as a decent entertainment for a Saturday afternoon. Nor am I overly interested in football but I will follow the wedding with the FA cup final for the same reason. By the time that lot is all over I will have been suitably entertained enough and have run out of Saltaire Blonde :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:56 AM

I am not in the slightest interested. Royalty mean nothing to me, the fact that two young people are getting married is a cause for pleasure, but no more so than any two young people anywhere in the world. And the pomp and ceremony divert from more productive activities. I won't even watch it on the news. Maybe I will see how RT cover it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:05 AM

It's the same day as the FA Cup Final, something else I'm not interested in.
Perhaps its a good day to visit my local Brewdog pub (no TV).
Or maybe I'll take the opportunity to visit a couple of other Brewdog pubs to tick them off my list of branches visited.

My only real interest in the Royal Wedding is to know what music (Hymns and Anthems) are used, and the programme for that will probably be reported in the newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:22 AM

I don't give a monkey's flying fart and I won't be looking at a telly, except for the cup final, for fear of being polluted by it. The beautiful young woman in question must be a bloody fool for marrying into that tribe of dysfunctional thickos.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:34 AM

You won't be polluted by it, Steve, you are stronger than that :-) Treat it as pre-match entertainment :-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:40 AM

I feel no sympathy for her. She's a self-promoter, she knows the score but she's happy to take whatever the risks may be in order to keep herself high on the media's list, on the front pages, on the TV News, and in the money.

Let's hope that, when she's done what's required of her and produced the requisite offspring, she's happy to fade away quietly. We don't want any more nasty 'accidents', do we?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:51 AM

I wonder what colour hair the offspring will have... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 May 18 - 05:47 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one not particularly bothered.
My husband will be watching the football, so I'll make us a nice TV snack tray.
Handed over the bunting this morning. There won't even be a little street party (We had a huge event for the Jubilee at the village hall, but nothing has been arranged for this)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 May 18 - 05:50 AM

The TV snack tray will be for the football of course, not the Wedding.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 May 18 - 06:07 AM

Not bothered in the least.

Won't be watching it or following in any media, in the same way that I don't follow football, Formula 1, soap operas or "Britain's Got Some Really Strange Talent".

I'll be doing British Military Fitness, then a 16 km run with a 25 lb pack (training for an endurance event) that day, which will be a bloody sight more enjoyable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 18 - 06:25 AM

It will be a wonderful occasion, and we shall enjoy every minute of this happy occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 May 18 - 06:39 AM

I wonder what colour hair the offspring will have... :-)

Whatever the result, you will be in a win-win situation, Steve. If the children don't have red hair, you will be able to make snide remarks relating to their parentage. If they do have red hair, you will have more victims to poke fun at. The smiley at the end of the post doesn't make it any more acceptable.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 16 May 18 - 06:51 AM

I'm just hoping she will be wearing a simple, elegant dress instead of the usual meringue. Other than that I'm not bothered (and I don't even know which teams are playing in the football, it is so uninteresting).

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 May 18 - 07:08 AM

Good gracious Rob, you must be extremely fit and strong!

We were married in a Registry Office as my husband's a Muslim.
The Registrar had the duty to speak to each of us privately to ensure we each understood what we were doing. He asked me if I was aware that Muslim men could have up to four wives, but only one would be legal. I replied that I hoped he would go for four, as one could do the ironing, another the cooking, another the cleaning and I could put my feet up.
He had a job to hide his smile...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 May 18 - 08:50 AM

I'm a bit overweight, Senoufou, but for my age (62) I'm pretty fit, I think. I do British Military Fitness 4 times a week, and usually get in a couple of 10 km runs and a bit of rock climbing on top of that (and ice climbing in winter).

I do half marathons in just over the 2 hour mark these days, but hope to get back under that before the end of the year. I generally do 4-5 a year. I've recently taken up Endurance Marches, which are all-day events (sometimes 2-3 days).

I failed miserably on my last one, though (36 km over pathless bogs in the Brecon Beacons carrying a 50 lb pack and a scaffolding pole, in the wind, rain and low visibility). I gave up after about 13 km, as I was going far too slowly to make the cut-off time for successful completion. If you're interested in what these involve, see: IronMan Blog . I'm NOT the Rob mentioned in that Blog, as I gave up at RV 3 on my own attempt!

Still, however wet, cold and miserable I got on that one, I'd do it again in a heartbeat rather than watch a couple of youngsters getting married on TV! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Charmion
Date: 16 May 18 - 09:08 AM

The megacity of Toronto, where Ms Markle's TV show was filmed for the last several years, is all agog because, ya know, she was *almost* a resident of their fair burg. That would be because she spent about six months of the year working there and consequently has bought a condominium apartment in one of the cliff-dwellings that clog the downtown. I think some pubs in TO might tune their oversized televisions (the ones that usually show hockey 24/7) to the doings at Windsor Castle.

Here in Stratford, we will continue in our normal merry way. Now that spring is here and the tourist season has begun, our primary focus is finding a parking spot within spitting distance of the nice coffee shop on Market Square.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 18 - 02:47 PM

Things always seem to happen in weddings, especially big weddings, that weren't supposed to happen.

Watching out for that could be fun. If Meghan's dad doesn't make it, and her Mum goes down the aisle with her, that would definitely be an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:18 PM

I've read your latest post Rob to my husband and he's full of admiration. He'd have loved to have been in the Army. For his age he's very fit, but starvation during his earlier years has left his bones somewhat fragile, sadly.

Weddings can be hilarious McGrath. I expect afterwards people can have a good laugh at the memories. I do think a couple shouldn't forget the actual marriage is what's important, not a big expensive 'do'. As Jos says, I hope The Dress is reasonably simple in style and not a meringue.

I wore a very inexpensive flowery skirt and top for our wedding, and no hat. Husband wore his first ever suit and looked absolutely delicious. We only had two of my dearest friends as witnesses, and afterwards went back to one of their flats for a small iced cake and a cup of tea!
Although I shan't bother watching the thing, I do sincerely hope Harry & Meghan are as happy as we have been over many many years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:24 PM

Witnessing the Royal Rubbing of parts to declare consummation is whose job? Or is that just in the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:26 PM

Heeeeeuuuuwwwweeeeeeeeee! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 03:44 PM

We've already seen Harry indulging in the royal rubbing of parts. That little video with his bare bum in thrust mode giving that young lady one from behind... Wonder whether Megan ever saw that one...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 18 - 07:09 PM

What's the betting that we're going to see a headline about "Princess Sparkle"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 07:12 PM

I'm betting that I won't see one. I've become a bloody expert at averting my eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 May 18 - 08:32 PM

Two anthropology programs played on PBS last night and after the second came an hour of public television wedding watch. I had to stir myself to get up and turn it off when they finally reached a point of gushing about the style of the bride's mother . . . PBS had to bring in Meredith Viera because apparently none of the network-grown news anchors were willing to gush an hour an evening until this thing happens. It's embarrassing to watch.

That said, more power to the couple. They have taken up good causes and aren't in danger of inheriting the throne. Maybe they'll have something resembling a real life once all of this is over. Clearly the 4chan folks are smearing the bride, hopefully people can ignore that nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: robomatic
Date: 16 May 18 - 09:43 PM

I have a soft spot for HRH Queen Elizabeth II. I think she's done her best for her country with great forbearance and endurance. To put it in basic American: "She's a classy broad."

As for the RW, I don't expect to tune in for it. As long As HRH is happy, I'm good.

As far as the race angle goes, I don't see that it should matter a bit, but it's probably good for the royal family to incorporate a bit of hybrid vigour, if that is in fact the case. Good on 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 May 18 - 04:07 AM

One just can't escape the blooming thing can one? The TV News seemed to devote an awful lot of time to the coming Wedding. It showed lots of absolutely daft people camping out, covered in flags and bunting, in the street outside Windsor Castle. It's been awfully chilly recently; I bet they were cold during the night. Must be utterly bonkers!

And now it seems the couple are having TEN tiny tots as pages and bridesmaids. Ages ranging from TWO (!) to seven. It will look like a kindergarten outing. I can imagine the little puddles appearing on the floor of the chapel...

I'm actually surprised at myself, because as I said above, I'd have thought I'd have been far more excited and interested than this. Instead I seem to be a bit scornful and irritated.
I'd forgotten about Ramadan (started yesterday), so no TV snacks for poor husband during the football. Not even a glass of lemonade, until dusk falls.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 18 - 04:56 AM

Looks like my plans may be altered as there is a 1940s weekend in Haworth that we quite fancy going to. Wonder if they will have a 1940s wedding street party? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 May 18 - 05:40 AM

That sounds lots more fun Dave. As long as they don't have ghastly Spam sandwiches. I hate Spam - grooo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 18 - 05:42 AM

I am sure spam will be involved somewhere along the line :-) I quite like it but it is far from healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 May 18 - 06:55 AM

Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! (Monty Python)

It looks as if the weather will be quite good for the weekend, so I shan't be sitting indoors watching all that on the TV. I reckon I'll do a huge weeding stint. Husband says he'll cut the lawns in the morning and watch his football in the afternoon.
We're also experimenting with growing Scotch Bonnet Chillies in our greenhouse. They need a lot of heat to germinate. All the pots are ready to set the seeds, so shall get on with that too.

I'm sure Meghan and Harry can manage to get married without me...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 18 - 06:57 AM

{{Gasp}} Sen! How can you possibly hate Spam? Spam fritters - ambrosia!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 May 18 - 07:14 AM

Scotch bonnets, Habeneros, other hot chillies, I have grown them but they never get very big. And I can buy them very easily in Mattas in Liverpool, so for me growing them is not worth the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 17 May 18 - 07:16 AM

Senoufou:I'd forgotten about Ramadan (started yesterday), so no TV snacks for poor husband during the football. Not even a glass of lemonade, until dusk falls.

....but then he can have Iftar! Ramadan Kareem to him.

Actually, it must be quite a strain for Muslims in latitudes away from the tropics when Ramadan falls in the summer months. At least in the middle east the sun sets by about 7pm, and rises about 0530-0600 this time of year. Must be really tough on Muslims in Tromsoe or Reykjavik!

Just to clarify my previous post, although I do British Military Fitness (BMF) and military-style endurance marches, I was never in the military. BMF is run on military PT lines by former serving soldiers, but it's fitness training for civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 07:28 AM

They should have cucumber sandwiches, which would also cater for any vegetarians. There could be some with the crusts cut off for the posh people and some with the crusts on for everyone else.

I suppose these days they would have to have some sandwiches without butter for the vegans and some made with oatmeal biscuits, maybe, for those who think gluten is the work of the devil. But these options might not have been available in a real 1940s street party.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 07:35 AM

I heard somewhere that in places very far north or south a time is set when Muslims can eat in the evening whether the sun has set or not. Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to fix it at the time the sun sets in Mecca, adjusted for time zones so that Muslims in America are not eating in the day and fasting at night.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 May 18 - 08:19 AM

Spam fritters??! Ugh and triple ugh!!! Get thee hence thou knave!
Nah, used to refuse to eat them at school dinners. Our neighbour was one of the dinner ladies and the nasty thing told my mum. But I still wouldn't touch them.

It's quite true that Muslims would have to fast until midnight during the summer months if they lived in Scandinavia or even Scotland. A special time is set for them after which they can have Iftar.
In Abidjan, the temperature is often 40 degrees, and the poor souls can't drink a drop all day long, even when working. Terribly difficult and some people collapse in the street. Very bad for their kidneys.

Those Habaneros (Scotch Bonnets) are fearfully hot and fiery. When he's cooking, the cats and I cough and our eyes stream, so we evacuate the kitchen. They're sold on Norwich market, but cost £1 for four. And it's rather far for us to travel, so we're having a go in the greenhouse with growing some. My niece has had some success with them and she suggested it.

My neighbour has now got her garden covered in red, white and blue. She's out there at the moment making the final adjustments. I said it looks lovely, but I certainly wouldn't bother doing ours. Anyway, she's got our bunting, so that puts paid to that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 May 18 - 08:30 AM

saltaire blonde - our local aldi has stopped selling cocker hoop very cheap so i'm just about to head off to keswick booths for some saltaire blonde. and whatever else they have on offer. jorvik? jarl? it would be environmentally wrong to come back with less than a dozen or 2. i need them properly chilled before the big games - partick thistle v livingston in the scottish play off finals. this weekend Nothing Else Matters

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 18 - 09:09 AM

If you are after some beer bargains, Pete, get thy self off to your nearest Home Bargains. They often have a good range of Sadler's beers and all at less than £1.50 a bottle. I have yet to have a bad one!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 May 18 - 09:30 AM

The booze is for drinking a toast (or three) to the royal couple, one gathers?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 18 - 09:56 AM

Indeed, Acme. An excuse is preferable although by no means necessary :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 18 - 10:50 AM

"Get thee hence thou knave!"

Anything thou sayest, thou sweet-talking wench thou! :-) :-)

"Thou knave" - nobody's ever called me a knave before, I love it! <3

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 12:02 PM

The only 'red, white and blue' I've seen round here is in the windows of charity shops. They've gone totally overboard - they must have been putting appropriate items aside for weeks in anticipation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 May 18 - 01:07 PM

Heh heh Backwoodsman, I can see you in your knight's attire (not your night attire) galloping up on a white horse to woo me, proffering a spam sandwich on a golden plate. I'm afraid I'd merely say, "Sling thy 'ook mate! Where be me buttered crumpet eh?" (I'm an extremely classy bird you see.)

Many of the shops here have made a 'Wedding Window'. Even the dry-cleaners have a full-size plastic model of a bride in a wedding dress with a flag at the side and some hideous plastic flowers in a jar. (Says it all really)
I've decided not to put the BBC News on (it's 6pm here) because it'll be wedding wedding wedding, so tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Allan Conn
Date: 17 May 18 - 06:58 PM

I don't know what the rest of the country is like but here you hear basically no one much discussing said wedding in normal conversations etc. Yet everytime you turn the news on there it is again. Completely media driven as far as I can see. Going to be a good day apparently so it'll be my morning walk then some gardening then both cup finals if I am lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: BobL
Date: 18 May 18 - 03:19 AM

I'm calling for a couple of clubs over the next few days, so the Fallibroome dance "The Happy Couple, or, The Royal Wedding" is definitely on the programme. From the date, I'd guess it originally celebrated the marriage of Frederick Prince of Wales, the chap whose portrait (with additions) graces the sleeve of Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1978 "Variations" album.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Iains
Date: 18 May 18 - 05:05 AM

I wonder what bad news is being buried among the wedding brouhaha?
For example the mystery of the disappearing Skripals!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 05:35 AM

Sergei Skripal has just left hospital.

Seems like the Markle family is even more dysfunctional than the Windsors. There's a hoot of a read about them in the Guardian today. I see that Big Ears is walking Megan down the aisle. Bet he he wears special built-up shoes...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 18 May 18 - 06:15 AM

I'm disappointed it isn't going to be her mother who walks with her, but maybe her mother didn't want to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 07:54 AM

I'm sure she'll manage whoever accompanies her down the aisle. She's a professional actress well-accustomed to cameras, media attention and playing a part 'in costume'.
I'm told that nowadays young brides don't wish to be 'given away' and often just walk themselves down the aisle, or else the couple arrive at the church together and amble to the altar side by side. (Or so my nieces tell me)
I wonder who will 'marshal' the procession of Tiny Tots? They'll surely create havoc and be unable to sit still and shut up for the length of the service.
Those silly people are still camping out in front of Windsor Castle. At least they had the rehearsal processions to watch. I'd rather watch paint dry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 07:55 AM

Oh dear, I sound like a grumpy old cow don't I? I just can't work up any enthusiasm for this Wedding :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: DMcG
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:00 AM

I am sufficiently uninterested in all things royal that I was not even sure which brother was which.

But in terms of public interest I can tell you a nearby costume shop sold £60 of veils yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:06 AM

Good letter in yesterday's Guardian, pithy and to the point: "Who is giving Prince Harry away?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:13 AM

Good piece in today's Daily Mash, giving advice to people who say they hate the royals yet who won't be able to resist watching the show tomorrow:

ARE you a Guardian reader who’s secretly captivated by Harry and Meghan’s wedding? Here’s how to enjoy every moment while pretending not to.

Say you prefer the Guardian’s famously minimal coverage of royal weddings, then sneakily read every word of the Daily Mail’s obsessive drivel, such as who the fuck Lady Extrusia Mitford-Gynt is.

If you’re dying to watch it on TV, claim you want to see “how these upper-class parasites are wasting taxpayers’ money”. Then get the kettle on and break out the Mr Kiplings.

Alternatively, say your kids should watch it because it’s a historical event. Once they’ve quickly lost interest in some toffs and a bunch of toy soldiers poncing around, ‘forget’ to turn the telly off for the rest of the day.

While watching the wedding it’s possible you’ll get so into the magnificent pageantry you’ll forget to criticise it. Set your mobile alarm to vibrate at 10-minute intervals to remind you to say things like, “Of course, 400 years ago their ancestors would have been oppressing our ancestors.”

If you get carried away and start waving a little Union Jack, make up a convoluted argument about left-wing patriotism, claiming you are celebrating “the land of Orwell, Aneurin Bevan and Rock Against Racism”.

Should anyone notice you gazing adoringly at hunky Harry or foxy Meghan, piously say, “I’m just so sad these young people have to spend their lives in the media goldfish bowl.”

If you get overwhelmed by the occasion and shed a tear, say you are weeping for the Kenyan victims of British imperialism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:17 AM

I think I'm becoming a convert to republicanism (that's with a small 'r' - I have far too much self-respect to ever be the other kind).

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:19 AM

Just a roll just a roll!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 18 - 08:38 AM

There are more than one variety of Republicanism, Backwoodsman. The USA doesn't have a patent on the word.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 May 18 - 09:30 AM

I expect I'll wake up after it's all over.. or be sat on the bog while it's finishing...

I don't have to make any effort to avoid it all...



Roll back time...

Me and my then girlfriend decided to avoid Di and Chaz's weddding
by hitching down to remotest Cornwall to go camping in a field...

On the day of the wedding we sat outside our tent brewing a pot of water and teabags

When a lady in a caravan across the field shouted over

"would you like to come over and watch the wedding on our portable telly...???"

My girlfriend, a fiercely radical student feminist shouted back "oooh.. yes..thanks..."

We broke up a day or two later on that camping trip....

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 May 18 - 10:03 AM

"There are more than one variety of Republicanism, Backwoodsman. The USA doesn't have a patent on the word."

Precisely my point, McG - the last thing I'd want to be is a Republican in the US sense. However, as a life-long supporter of the U.K. system of democracy, a Kingdom with a benign, benevolent monarchy as Head of State, I'm finding myself increasingly in favour of becoming a republic, with an elected president. The latest royal-wedding-circus is but one more factor in my slow, but sure, conversion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:07 PM

I feel exactly the same Backwoodsman. I've been a strong supporter of the Royal family and taken a great interest and pleasure in their ceremonies and events all my life. But now I can see that I've changed, and would frankly like to see the back of 'em!

I don't say the Queen hasn't performed her role nobly and well over the decades (and I remember my mother telling me King George had died, and watching the Coronation on a neighbour's tiny TV) I just feel they're an anachronism, they're pompous, and their attitude of superiority doesn't sit well with me any more.

I'd never in a million years curtsy to any of them, why would I?
I think I've said on here before that I curtsy to my aged mother-in-law because it's traditional, and also because I respect her enormously for bearing nine children in abject poverty and suffering.

I asked my husband if there has been any mention of the Royal Wedding at the school where he works, and he says not a sausage. Nothing on the walls and no allusion to it among the Staff.

Ah well, times change I suppose, and I'm not the same person I was years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Allan Conn
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:23 PM

We did watch the Royal Wedding on The Windsors the spoof show. Harry is standing with his bride to be and says to Charles (played by Harry Enfield) something like "Oh it is so great how everyone is so happy about me marrying Megan - none of the hoo-haa like over Mrs Simpson - oh how things have changed"

Charles ponders and says " Yes...yes...hmmm...hmmm well but you are just sixth in line.....I mean....it is not like you're ever going to be king......your two arses will never get anywhere the throne"

It made us chuckle anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:26 PM

My feelings precisely, Sen. I'm many things, some good, some maybe not so good, but a sycophantic licker of rich people's sphincters I most certainly am not! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:28 PM

Your royal occasions and events are probably great for the economy. Better than Disneyland.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:40 PM

Vashta, they're great for distracting simple, feeble-minded people from the crap that's going on, like the selling-off of our NHS in a seedy trade-deal with the US, or the nightmare of Brexit currently being mis-managed by a bunch of clueless incompetents.

Wasn't it Juvenal who made the jibe about 'Bread and the Circus'? Still working, 2,000 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:48 PM

Vashta just reminded me of what I think we should do and BWM added a further line of thought. Instead of selling off the NHS, we should sell off the royal family. To Disney! We would make a fortune and I am sure Disney would ensure the profits keep rolling in :-)

Sorted!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:54 PM

Oh Allan, that 'Windsors' is hilarious isn't it? I particularly like their portrayal of the two York sisters Eugenie and Beatrice. And Harry Enfield is brilliant as Charles. Also, Camilla is always sprawled out on the sofa smoking lots of fags. Just how I imagine them I'm afraid.

I don't think I'm jealous of their wealth. I just don't like the idea that for some reason they're 'superior' beings and regard the rest of us as despicable plebs. (and I'm sure they actually do see us as exactly that)
I imagine the money they generate in tourism etc could still be gained by opening all the historic buildings (as they have done with Buck Palace and The Tower) After all, the tourists don't get to see the Queen et al. Versailles is very popular with visitors, and France has been a republic for yonks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 May 18 - 12:56 PM

The royal family could then be incorporated into the Disney owned Marvel or Star Wars franchises...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 01:08 PM

Unless you count the Tower of London and the Royal Museums at Greenwich (at nos 9 and 10), there are no royal attractions in the UK top 20 tourist attractions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 18 - 02:09 PM

Here's hoping that the newlyweds will be able to make ends meet!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 02:24 PM

I think I saw that Meghan's dress has cost £100,000. If that's true, it's absolutely scandalous. As I often say, I've witnessed appalling poverty, and such a sum could fund a malaria clinic or a feeding centre for malnourished children. She and Harry purport to be 'humanitarian' but that seems to be to be sheer hypocrisy.

My sister-in-law Hazara got married a few years ago. She lost her first husband to some sort of fever (possibly typhoid or cholera) and her new husband, called Mbai, makes lengths of cloth into outfits for weddings and feasts. We sent what we could to make their day as enjoyable as possible. They served tons and tons of boiled rice, killed a few chickens and that was their wedding meal. They now live in a shack, their two little boys run round bare-footed and wearing only ragged shorts. It's pitiful. Harry is involved with that Sentebale charity in Lesotho, and I'm amazed he doesn't see how much that £100,000 could have done for those orphaned children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 May 18 - 02:33 PM

Now it's been reported Charles is to walk her down the aisle,
does that hint at an opening for Harry's real dad to officiate in some way...???

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 18 May 18 - 04:29 PM

Via an email announcement this afternoon:

"1. Major TV networks, YouTube and HBO will all livestream the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday. The livestream will be available on the Royal Family's YouTube channel starting at noon UK time. (That's 7 am on the US East Coast, and 4 am Pacific Time.) The proceedings will also air live on all the major TV networks, as well as HBO, and on all of their websites. Markle's father, Thomas Markle Sr., will not attend the wedding due to health concerns, so the bride will walk down the aisle accompanied by Prince Charles. HBO's livestream will be accompanied by commentary from parade experts Cord Hosenbeck and Tish Cattigan. (It's actually Will Ferrell and Molly Shannon in character.) – CNET"

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 May 18 - 05:27 PM

Best to record from the BBC live HD webstream - here is the url:

ffmpeg -y -i "http://a.files.bbci.co.uk/media/live/manifesto/audio_video/simulcast/hls/uk/abr_hdtv/ak/bbc_one_hd.m3u8" -c copy -t 05:10:00 "C:\Harry&Meganwedding.ts"

This will, to the annoyance of mudcat miseries, save a DRF free file!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are prone to slothfulness on a Saturday morning, then use Task Scheduler - easy peasy !!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 05:52 PM

What time does the FA Cup Final kick off?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 06:07 PM

5.15pm Steve. Husband has already got his ManU strip out of his drawer to wear in front of the TV!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 18 - 06:16 PM

Right. I'm in the garden all day in that case. I'll clear out the flower beds ready for planting and dig in a bit of muck, then out comes the iPad and headphones for the Cup Final. I want Chelsea to win, partly because Antonio Conte comes from Lecce in Puglia, one of the most beautiful cities I've ever been to, and partly because I come from one of those families that hates Man U to pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 18 - 06:26 PM

He's said the same thing - lawn-mowing, clearing weeds and cutting back some of our rather large shrubs. I don't want him working too hard as he's fasting for Ramadan, but he's happy to do it.

He's got a Chelsea top as well Steve. And an Arsenal one. And nearly all the others too. A Premier League tart!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 May 18 - 07:08 PM

Chelsea 6 Manchester United 1 would be good!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: olddude
Date: 18 May 18 - 07:08 PM

Chelsea all the way

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: JMB
Date: 18 May 18 - 10:05 PM

Ugh, I despise anything that's royal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: JennieG
Date: 19 May 18 - 01:46 AM

All the fuss abut who is walking the bride down the aisle.....why? Can't she find the way by herself?

Meanwhile, in these fairly equal times (all right, perhaps not as equal as they could be but hopefully better than they were in the Good Old Days) we can't help wondering who is walking the groom down the aisle?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 18 - 02:05 AM

Wonder if they had stay and Ben parties last night?

We are definitely off to Haworth for the 1940s do. Bus to Keighley and then steam train to Haworth. I'm quite exited. Big kid really:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:05 AM

right then... 8.00am...

I'm off to bed now, and could kip until 2 ish or later...
So should miss the lot...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:08 AM

Stay and ben?

Stag and hen of course. Dam n you kindle!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:15 AM

Think of the trouble a misspelled 'Shag night' might cause days before a wedding....

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 18 - 05:46 AM

Charlie boy had one of those the night before he shackled Lady Di, it's alleged...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 18 - 05:48 AM

"I'm quite exited."

Yeah, that syrup of figs is really good, innit...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 18 - 06:08 AM

Husband toiling away in the garden mowing the lawn. I've been out the front weeding but have come indoors for a quick cuppa and a slice of coffee cake.
Usually on a Saturday there are lots of people passing with their dogs and children, but the place is like a ghost town. I suppose they're all indoors glued to their TV sets. I refuse to turn ours on.

Dave, keep away from that nasty Spam won't you?

I'd better go out and do some more weeding, or husband may think I'm skiving! (What, ME??)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 18 - 10:28 AM

I'm awake now... did I miss anything...???

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 18 - 11:40 AM

Yes. It was a lovely, joyous occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 18 - 11:42 AM

Nah, kick-off's not 'til 5.15.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 18 - 11:50 AM

Husband's got his Chelsea top on now. Wish he'd make up his mind. He says he prefers a football strip with long sleeves. I've just been online to the ManU shop and secretly bought him a long-sleeved Home shirt (they've got a sale on) I like to surprise him now and then as he does such a lot around the house and garden.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 19 May 18 - 12:02 PM

The television was on but I was going in and out happily missing most of it and catching snippets now and then. I was amused at one point to here a (slightly confused) reporter saying that Meghan would be arriving with six bridesmaids and four bridegrooms! I thought: 'I wonder if Harry knows about this.'

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 May 18 - 12:13 PM

" I've been out the front weeding but have come indoors for a quick cuppa and a slice of coffee cake."

What I wouldn't give for a slice of coffee cake - my Mum always had 2 or three homemade coffee cakes in her freezer when we visited, sadly dead these last 16 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 18 - 02:50 PM

An enjoyable double-feature, with lovely weather. I thought the morning's was Match of the Day. Why grouch instead of taking in the very well staged public entertainment - we'll never see anything like it again. Turning up our nose doesn’t do anything to bring nearly the bourgeois republic, for whatever that's worth anyway.

I tend towards the attitude of Percy French's character in the Mountain's of Mourne -

I've seen England's king from the top of a bus
And I've never known him, but he means to know us.

And tho' by the Saxon we once were oppressed,
Still I cheered, God forgive me, I cheered with the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:11 PM

Bonzo, we always have some of my home-made cake (various kinds) in the big tin, and as often as not scones or sausage rolls in the smaller tin. Trouble is, they're not conducive to keeping slim!

I do understand McGrath, and your sentiments do you honour. But I just can't for some reason summon up any enthusiasm; and I'm sure the happy couple will have got married beautifully with or without my interest or spectating. I really do wish them well of course.

Husband is glad he changed his football top to a Chelsea one! (1-0 I believe)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:16 PM

By the way, 45 mins left and he can break his fast (Iftar). He's got his Spicy Horror ready in the microwave and a bottle of lemonade cooling in the fridge. I did him some spuds earlier to add to the sauce. I don't know how he does Ramadan - I know I couldn't, because I'm rather a Greedy Pig...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:30 PM

And here are some coffee cake recipes for you, bonzo. Get baking!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:33 PM

There are 22 (Twenty Two !!) separate articles relating to this on the first page of the BBC News.

Is this level of coverage really necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:47 PM

Ha! 100!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:52 PM

While The Guardian, while looking down its editorial nose at the wedding devoted ove seven pages to it in today’s paper.

Couldn't find a word for Levellers Day, commemorating one of Oliver Cromwell's English massacres, but the nobody in the national media noticed that apart from the Morning Star.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 18 - 04:55 PM

Football...???

Me and the mrs have been catching up on 4 days worth of Sumo Wrestling Tournament highlights...

I'm having a P and T break...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 May 18 - 05:17 PM

Thank you McGrath, greatly appreciated!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: keberoxu
Date: 19 May 18 - 07:15 PM

It's been a while since I saw a candid photo of Her Majesty.
It's the first time I noticed
how badly her neck and upper back are bowed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 18 - 07:25 PM

I succeeded in missing the whole bloody shenanigans. I had to stay in the garden (thank God for a sunshiny day), as Mrs Steve is one of those non-royalists who "like a nice bit of pageantry anyway." The cup final had a rather good second half. Chelsea definitely deserved to win.

Now how much did that dress cost...?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 18 - 10:09 PM

Watch you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 18 - 02:36 AM

We had a splendid day in 1940s Haworth. The steam train was everything I remember. Hot, dirty and absolutely wonderful. We had a picnic in the park and a couple of gins from am outdoor stall. Fought our way through crowds, lots of which were in period costume. Saw lots of WW2 vehicles. Listened to a swing band and watched American servicemen jitterbugging with land army girls. The last train back was 5-ish so we got back early and caught the local chippy still open so had fish and chips for tea.

We did see bits of the wedding. I thought they made a very handsome couple and I hope they are happy despite the circumstances they are in! I also caught a bit of the cup final but having had wine with the picnic, gin in the park, beer in the pub and a day wandering round very hilly Haworth in the sun, I have to admit that once I put my feet up on the sofa, I nodded off. Only for an hour or so but when I awoke Mrs G was catching up on wedding highlights and told me that Everton had won :-D (I do know the real score for those wondering)

One observation that I have made before. Lots of original vintage clothes were being sold, including Army uniforms. I reckon the average size in WW2 was at least 2 or 3 sizes smaller than we are now. Our diets have changed dramatically since - not for the better!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:44 AM

There are 22 (Twenty Two !!) separate articles relating to this on the first page of the BBC News.
Is this level of coverage really necessary?

The media clearly think so and they know their audience.
Once again your views are not widely held.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 04:07 AM

What a lovely event Dave, glad you enjoyed yourselves. We had a 1940's weekend not so long ago at Sheringham, and there was jitterbugging there too. Lots of 1940's vehicles, and of course the steam train runs from Weybourne to Sheringham. Many many folk in costume.

Agree that people were smaller then. I remember the decades just after the War, and I don't ever remember seeing a hugely fat person. Diets were sparse but far healthier, lots of veg, no sweets (rationing) no 'fast food', more physical activity and so on.

I foolishly thought once the Wedding was over, that would be it. But no.
All evening there were interviews with spectators, clips from the thing, opinions on The Dress. Over and over, on all the main channels. Husband was in the study watching The Match Highlights again. He said that Chelsea DID play well and deserved to win.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 18 - 04:12 AM

Who cares how much the dress cost? It is of no consequence whatsoever when considering the massive financial gain for the British economy yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:28 AM

I really do wish the folk who have nothing better to do than try to win points over their perceived opponents would just stop it. This thread has polarised views over the wedding itself but has stayed civil and no one is trying to win an argument. Then you get a couple of people who cannot help but have personal digs and sneers at other posters and before you know it the whole thread could turn toxic. Then they will complain it is all the fault of our 'little gang'. Whoever they are!

You know who you are. Pack in in.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:31 AM

The wedding supposedly cost about 33 million quid. So give us a breakdown of the benefits to the economy, Bonzo. Leave out all that tourist tat, souvenir mugs and plastic flags and then tell us. The average UK wedding costs 18 grand. The printed invites alone for this one cost 20 grand. Security cost 30 million. Guess who pays for that (here's a clue: there are 65 million of us and none of us have HRH in front of our names).

The whole thing was an obscene waste of mostly public money, and the money that wasn't public money ultimately came from us anyway. Anyway, well done Chelsea. Oh, I suppose I should avoid being thought of as a complete curmudgeon by declaring that I probably wouldn't climb over Meghan to get at you, Bonzo...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:33 AM

Jaysus, did I really just say "probably?" Pass the espresso, dear...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:40 AM

I still haven't seen a picture or film of the cake, which sounded wonderful with elderflower and lemon - but maybe I missed it by turning the telly off after the actual wedding, as I couldn't stand any more 'gushing'.
I don't resent the cost of the royal family. They are no more dysfunctional than many a non-royal family, and I would far rather spend the few pence a week of my taxes that goes on them than have some jumped-up self-important politician as head of state.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:42 AM

Well done Chelsea indeed - which have sort of supported since my uncle took me to see them in the late 1950s!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:49 AM

Well two points there Jos, firstly and flippantly are you really bothered about what sort of cake it was, it doesn't matter and you ain't going to get any of it.

More importantly, if we had an elected head of state we could get rid of him/her if we didn't like what they do and we would not be paying out for scores, if not hundreds of their relatives doing sweet FA.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:05 AM

I don't support Chelsea. I just hate them slightly less than Man U. There are millions of people like me!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:08 AM

I avoided TV like the plague all day - both the wedding and the hooligans playing a gentlemen's game at Wemberlee - but I watched the 'highlights' of the wedding last night. There didn't seem to be many Wayne and Waynetta Slobbs in attendance at the chapel, or even Joe and Jane Ordinarys, but hey-ho, there ya go!

The 'groom looked very dashing in his carefully-tailored 'uniform', the bride's dress (apart from a train bordering on the ridiculous) looked very simple and very nice, the weather was glorious, and the surroundings sensational. I wish the young newlyweds every happiness.

And don't worry, Steve, I won't be competing with you for the duchess's favours - I genuinely prefer Mrs. Backwoodsperson!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:28 AM

Nice cartookn in the Sunday Times this morning depicting a couple staring at a TV reading "The Royal Wedding saying "I Hope Megan and Harry will now respect our privacy"
I visited the UK twice during two of these incredible displays of ostentation - the last Royal Wedding and then the Sprogathon
Jay-sus - it never used to be like that -
Family commitments prevented me from getting out of the house - by 10 AM I was eating the wallpaper
I've always been appalled by those racist-based "Big Fat Gypsy" Whatsits things, but the self-indulgent costume and the funny hats put them in the shade
I suppose the BP needs something to steer them away from the world bloodbaths, the economy and the Brexit fiasco - wonder what they'll do when they run out of Royals to couple!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:30 AM

Oh gawd, they're showing 'highlights' and 'details of the reception' etc. Get me out of here please!

It's a gorgeous day, and husband has discovered that Norwich City FC have a sale on too. We're off to Riverside (near the stadium and their shop, which is open until 5pm on Sundays) to see if they have a cheap end-of-season strip (we often buy lots in various sizes for all his family; he's going there next summer. They went down to only £10 each last year.)
I had to laugh - I asked him if he wanted to personalise a top, and he said, "Yes. I weeel ask zem to poot "Norfolk and Good" on zee back of zee sheurt." Hee hee, I don't reckon they'll allow that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:19 AM

The think the main reason for such lavish spending on the Royal Wedding is to wind up the lefties!!!


Have a nice day Senoufou

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:25 AM

Just watching a few highlights myself. They included one of my favourite songs, Stand by me. Not as good as the Ben E King version but passable and a complete surprise in the circumstances.

I suppose I cannot put off mowing the dandelion patch much longer though :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:29 AM

There are still 16 articles of the first page of the BBC news website today devoted to this. Nearly half the entire page!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:43 AM

Isn't it funny how lefties never give the homeless, who for the most part bring it upon themselves, a second thought in the normal scheme of things, and yet when a wonderful event like a Royal Wedding happens, there is sudden pseudo-concern for beggars, and yet so little concern for the disabled!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:57 AM

No one has mentioned Grenfell Tower, the Grand National, Cricket, the Volcano in Hawaii and countless other subjects either.


Duh!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 18 - 08:24 AM

Because most of them are a pain in the neck!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 08:28 AM

"Norwich City FC have a sale on too."
A story doing the rounds in Liverpool one time
Manager of Manchester United, Alex Ferguson was walking down Trafford Road carrying a second-hand television set when he met a friend
"Where are you going with that tele Alex?", the friend asked
"I got it for the team" came the reply
"That was a good swap"
Sorry Sen - couldn't resist

"Isn't it funny how lefties never give the homeless, "
Isn't it funny when trolls like yourself are never there (apart from snide "serves them right" comments) when the homeless and the poor are raised by the lefties" Bozo
Please don't spolil this celebration of national culture with your sniping
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 09:00 AM

Pat just told me yesterday's result - I sincerely apologise for my insensitivity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 18 - 09:04 AM

During the 'H***lights' programme, I did have an over-riding sense of 'Bread and Circus'. And, of course, feeble-minded, easily-distracted suckers were the very type of person Juvenal had in mind. Remind you of anyone here?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 20 May 18 - 11:52 AM

"are you really bothered about what sort of cake it was, it doesn't matter and you ain't going to get any of it"

No, of course it doesn't "bother" me, but as I quite like food and I do like elderflower, I might have enjoyed seeing it more than a lot of the pointless waffle that was filling the hours yesterday.
If they published the recipe I could make one, and then I WOULD get some of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 12:49 PM

Thank you Bonzo for wishing us a nice day. It was indeed nice. The Norwich City FC shop was going like a fair (Norwich City were having some sort of charity event involving retired Inter Milan players)

They had quite a few items in the sale, and we were surprised to see several folk from our village in the shop too.

Driving out of the car park at Riverside, we saw a car with a foreign number plate and the letters MD. My clever husband thought it was Mordovia, and he was quite right! I had no idea where Mordovia is, but he reckoned it's next door to Romania. I looked it up when we got home; it's a tiny little place and the chances of seeing a car from Mordovia must be very small. If I were a car spotter, I could score several points for that one!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 18 - 01:01 PM

"The media clearly think so and they know their audience.
Once again your views are not widely held."

someone needs to read a basic school kids primer on media studies
before continuing to talk glibly out of his nether region orifice,
about a subject he obviously lacks any serious depth of knowledge of...


We should aspire to being actively discerning informed users of mass media,
not an easily lead mass of conformist passive recipients...

Of course tories have never liked media studies...

Not 40 years ago.. and certainly not now...


bugger the football.. we got an extra bonus 50 minutes live special of May Tournament Sumo Wrestling today...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 18 - 01:17 PM

Well, I managed to put off the mowing by fixing a puncture on my bike then made the basic schoolboy mistake of putting the inner-tube back without checking the tyre. Guess what. Yep. I have another puncture. Ah well.

Mowing done now. The dandelions are no longer noticeable. Had a couple of nice blondes chilling in the fridge so they were my consolation prize :-)

May watch a few more highlights later or may get stuck into a nice bottle of Malbec with the roast beef.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 01:40 PM

Well done Dave! Have you tried Weedol for lawns? I got a small spray bottle and husband did the odd dandelion with it. It's quite effective. I used to dig them out with a thin trowel, but their roots are so deep, weedkiller is the best solution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 02:55 PM

Aarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg !!!!

Still almost half the first page of the BBC news website is given over the the nuptials of yesterday !!!!

I know there are far more important things happening all over the world.

Sheeeeeshhhh ..................!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 02:57 PM

"I know there are far more important things happening all over the world."
Isn't it Eurovision this weekend!!!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:06 PM

We should aspire to being actively discerning informed users of mass media,
not an easily lead mass of conformist passive recipients..

I agree. I just point out that most people do not think like you do, even though your thinking dominates this forum.

The media is full of the RW because that is what most folk want.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:17 PM

There you go Punkfolkrocker, a CLASSIC example just to prove your point !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:19 PM

You give me far too much credit.. thanks...

pfr - The Dominator...

[would that be my wrestling or porn star name...???]

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:24 PM

Just a thought Raggy
There's always "How to get a head in BRITISH POLITICS on the Beeb
Enjoy your evening and stop feeding the wild life
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:32 PM

I'm reminded Jim of a saying at the time ....... "vote Liberal or I'll shoot your dog"

There was another, less salubrious, about "I'll be ******** if I'll vote Liberal"

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:38 PM

Rag and PFR, it is a fact that the print, broadcast and online media, including the Guardian, is full of the RW.
It is their job to give their audience what it wants.
It is their judgement that yours is a minority view, as I said.

Steve, your Mrs. watched the whole coverage. What did she say about it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:43 PM

Sen, don't mention Weedol! You'll only upset Steve :-)

Raggy, see my post of 20 May 18 - 05:28 AM. What sort of person does that I wonder? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:43 PM

The piece the orchestra was playing as Harry and William walked through the church - Charles selected much of the music with an English focus - I know the piece just can't come up with the name. (It was used as a theme in the film Enchanted April, it's one of those lush romantic pieces that is perfect for the occasion).

SoundHound can't get it because the announcer kept up a steady banter over the top. Pausing to enjoy the music wouldn't be a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:44 PM

What "most folk want":

Bring back tbe birch!

Bring back hanging!

Put 'em in the Army - never did me no 'arm!

Send the foreigners back 'ome (especially the black ones)!

(Any more for any more?)

Naturally, I have as much evidence for any of these as you have evidence that "most folk want the RW..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 03:56 PM

Acme, it may have been composed by Sir Richard Rodney Bennett.

Dave, I knew the moment I'd posted about Weedol that Steve would start up! Gulp! (But to be fair, he hasn't yet)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 18 - 04:14 PM

And he's been very kind on his cheese thread not to scoff at my buying Edam cheese today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 18 - 04:27 PM

"Rag and PFR, it is a fact that the print, broadcast and online media, including the Guardian, is full of the RW.
It is their job to give their audience what it wants.
It is their judgement that yours is a minority view, as I said."

Which just goes to prove how many feeble-minded, easily-distracted suckers there are, whose intellect rises no further than 'bread and circus'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 18 - 05:01 PM

I don't think it's really a matter of "what most people want", I doubt if they care. It's more a case of, "most of our readers who generally take the paper are going to take it anyway, out of habit. But here's a story that is going to get a lot of extra people buying a copy, so let's take the opportunity for all it's worth."

And it's natural for people to like to be part of something that a lot of other people are into, we're built to gravitate together, for good and ill. A royal wedding, a public execution, a sporting event, a big music event in Hyde Park, a revolution...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:20 PM

The Apocalypse... even I might get out of bed to join in that big public spectacular event...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 06:56 PM

Can anybody remember ever being asked what they want (apart from election time, when even though it's promised, they never get it anyway)
Baccy has it spot on in his judgement of our star contributor - I keep checking the calendar to see if 'Village Idiot's Day has comer around again)
Gordon Bleedin' Bennett) - what ahve we done !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 18 - 07:42 PM

It seems faitlly widely accepted that media manipulation is a fact

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: goatfell
Date: 21 May 18 - 02:59 AM

The wedding cost the tax payer £30 million

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 May 18 - 03:05 AM

Money very well spent, you could say payment for all the non publicised hours Harry puts in for his charity activities, which I believe is substantial.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 May 18 - 03:39 AM

Money well spent? A million a year over his life ............

Gizza a job, I can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 04:27 AM

The cost to the taxpayer was just for the security, preventing a mass murder or an assasination.

I think that is reasonable.

Jim,
Can anybody remember ever being asked what they want

I assure you the media does its audience research.
If that was not what people wanted, some outlet would provided something else and cleaned up.
That did not happen.

BWM,
Which just goes to prove how many feeble-minded, easily-distracted suckers there are, whose intellect rises no further than 'bread and circus'.

Or to prove how out of touch you are with the ordinary people of this country.

Once again a discussion is dominated by the same group of people all holding the same utterly unrepresentative view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 18 - 05:39 AM

MEDIA MANIPULATION

MORE MEDIA MANIPULATION

Nothing new under the sun
MORE STILL
Manipulation of the media and news is nothing new. Royalty in Europe appeared to understand the benefits of spreading their messages via the press as early as 1486. In England, King Henry VII capitalized on the relatively new printing press to distribute an announcement about his somewhat dubious claim to the throne (Stephens, 2007, p. 77). In France, Charles VIII made use of the press to communicate what he perceived as the positives of his invasion of Italy (Stephens, 2007, p. 77). Indeed, for centuries, many world leaders have recognized the merits of setting the agenda for the media and public to follow.

Asking the public my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 05:46 AM

Asking the public my arse

Yes. Audience research.
They are not interested in manipulating people to love the royals, just to give them what they want to sell more papers and advertising.

They are very good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 May 18 - 05:48 AM

At least the Royal Wedding kept Brexit off the front page for a good few days. We should be grateful for small mercies.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 18 - 05:55 AM

It's alleged that 18 million people watched it on telly. I wonder what happened to the other non-mainstream 48 million... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 21 May 18 - 06:47 AM

£30 million between over 60 million people is about 50 pence each. Yes, I know they are not all taxpayers, but for even a largish family it would only be a few pounds (what one might easily spend out for a couple of pints in a pub plus a packet of crisps).
The police and soldiers may have earned a bit of overtime on top of their usual wages, but they might get the same for policing large sports events and there isn't an outcry over that.
It made a change to not have the news filled with school shootings, bombings, serious accidents/aircrashes etc. for a day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 May 18 - 10:41 AM

Jos, I had similar thoughts. It pushed the U.S. political establishment off of the front pages for a couple of days.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:05 AM

"but they might get the same for policing large sports events and there isn't an outcry over that."

Jos, I think most venues have to pay for the Police in attendance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:14 AM

Most venues are commercial and profit making. This was just a wedding.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:15 AM

Can I just notify/warn mr 'give the masses want they want' media expert,
that before he continues asserting a stance of authority on this subject...

..this is what I studied, researched and wrote about at post grad level...
and beyond for more than 15 years...

I might be a bit rusty,
but, if I could be bothered, it wouldn't be too difficult to blow him out the water
with his simple minded nonsense...

Likewise most average comprehensive school kids who learned basic media studies
or sociology in the last two decades
could wipe their arses with his half baked 'theories'...


.. just saying...

[Btw.. I've written down on the back of an envelope what I expect your response to be
- don't let me down - I need a good laugh on an uncomfortably warm monday afternoon...]

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:17 AM

Raggytash - Do they? That's good to hear. It may be that the royal family paid extra for their police protection as well, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:26 AM

"Can I just notify/warn mr 'give the masses want they want' media expert,"
Why ***** bother Raggy
He doesn't listen no anything he doesn't want to hear and then he claims nobody has said anything "I won"
YOU MAY AS WELL DO WHAT THIS FELLER DOES
You'll get more of an intelligent response
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:31 AM

Steve,
It's alleged that 18 million people watched it on telly.

That made it the most watched event of the year, and nearly double the previous one.
The FA Cup Final, which was shown later on Saturday, was watched by an average of 6.7m viewers and a peak of 8.7m in the afternoon.

PFR,
..this is what I studied, researched and wrote about at post grad level

Did it involve a lot of colouring in?

My claim was that the media produce what the public want to see in order to sell more papers and advertising.
Check your study notes and tell me which bit of that you still do not get.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:34 AM

I can't help but doubt that Jos!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:39 AM

..almost in the right direction of what I wrote down on the envelope...

Good to see you developing a slightly cheeky sense of humour...
that's some progress..

"study notes"...???

what, the ones I wrote out for students new to learning the subject...????

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Donuel
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:43 AM

When I look at William's hair or lack of it
I think of Harry and the upcoming Royal Shedding

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:48 AM

The only glimpse of the wedding that piqued my interest was that E Type Jag..

Who owns that beauty then, or was it a hire car from a local garage...???

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:53 AM

So PFR, my claim was that the media produce what the public want to see in order to sell more papers and advertising.
With all your vast knowledge from all those years of study, do you challenge that or not?

Jos, does any head of state and family have to pay for their security?
No-one has to pay the police for personal protection in UK if they are deemed to be at risk.

Salman Rushdie had to be protected for years after the fatwah. Payment was not required.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 11:58 AM

Venues only pay police for crowd control.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 12:19 PM

"So PFR, my claim was that the media produce what the public want to see in order to sell more papers and advertising.
With all your vast knowledge from all those years of study, do you challenge that or not?"

yes.. and no... and depends...

that's the problem when you know too much about such a complex field of study...

If only there was a simple dogmatic soundbyte answer...????


oh... you found one... lucky you...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 May 18 - 12:23 PM

Hahaha pfr, write it out 100 times for extra homework!

No I don't believe the car is for Harry to keep. Probably an advertising stunt.

I was livid this morning. My paper (the Daily Fail) had the most enormous 20 page 'supplement' of blooming photos of you-know-what. It weighed a ton. I only buy the thing during the week for the 4 pages of puzzles, it keeps me quiet for about an hour. It all went straight under the cat litter tray.

And both my sister and one of my old friends rang to talk about the Wedding, both very excited and chuffed. I tried to be nice, but honestly, it's like an infectious disease, everyone's caught it.

---

His typo was repaired, but typing "piqued" 100 times wouldn't hurt! ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 May 18 - 01:31 PM

Not everyone Senoufou, not everyone ......... trust me one this one!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 18 - 01:31 PM

PFR, the media produce what the public want to see in order to sell more papers and/or advertising.

I worry that you find that "complex."
It is an obvious truth and you do not need to go to college for years to know it.

Of course, the BBC do not have to sell anything.
They just have to satisfy their audience.
More complexity for you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 01:52 PM

Oh... you still prattling on about that...

Though, you let me down... I'd hoped for a funnier true to type retort...

But you are starting to get warmer...

[of course I didn't really write it on the back of an envelope,
just in case you demand an uploaded scan as evidence...]

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 18 - 02:46 PM

ok.. I admit I'm bored cooking dinner ready for the mrs to come home from zumba..

"I worry that you find that "complex."
It is an obvious truth and you do not need to go to college for years to know it."



"To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."


That Blakey off "On The Buses" wasn't a half bad poet...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 18 - 03:12 PM

I know it may be fun why it lasts PFR but it really is just not worth it. The sooner everyone stops responding, the healthier this place will be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 18 - 03:24 PM

"The sooner everyone stops responding,"
Can't disagree with that
It worked for a time but you get to feel sorry for him
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 18 - 03:31 PM

I made that mistake once, Jim. Never again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 18 - 05:47 PM

This thread has got ridiculously and unpleasantly bad tempered. Grow up maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 18 - 06:26 PM

Ye gods, pfr, I also have to wait for the missus to get home from zumba, in my case before I can brew the coffee and toast the crumpets of a Tuesday morning... I have a feeling that post-zumba natter time extends the waiting...

Now 50p per head may not seem like a lot of dough. But that 50p is taken from me without my consent. If I check my Morrisons receipt and find that they've diddled me out of 50p by not applying the twofer offer, I go doolally bloody tap and harass the poor sod at customer services in order to get justice. I've been known to do it for 15p. I will not be cheated. I'm an atheist. I do not wish to contribute to the support of pastors, not in the slightest (though I may wish to contribute to the upkeep of tbe fabric of our churches, a very different thing). Suppose 50p was taken from me without my consent to pay for vestments or church candles or for the wages of the vicar. I'd go bloody ballistic. If you want to pay money for a royal bloody shindig, that's down to you. But you'd better pay my "share" while you're at it, because I, to say the least, am bloody unwilling.

That wedding cost 33 million quid. We taxpayers paid for almost all of it, and what we didn't directly pay for was paid for with money that was stolen from our ancestors. It's very disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 22 May 18 - 01:21 AM

My taxes pay for a lot of things that I would not consent to if given the choice. My television licence fee pays for a lot of programmes that I never watch, many that are utter rubbish and some that I find offensive.

Steve S, if I am overcharged at a supermarket and if it happens to be Tesco, the company policy is that I should receive a double refund. But if it is one of their 'Express' (i.e. small) stores the manager will usually insist that the rule doesn't apply to them, saying either that it doesn't apply to reduced items (not true), or that it doesn't apply to Express stores (that isn't true either). Sending the receipts to Customer Services results in an abject apology, a voucher, and a promise that it will never happen again.
In fact, if you shop in their small stores (for some people there is no alternative) it can happen week after week. Most customers don't bother to check their receipts so they have no idea how often mistakes are made.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 18 - 01:58 AM

I went past Ken Morrisons old house (Kildwick Hall) yesterday, Steve. I will send you a picture so you will understand why all those 50ps matter:-)

Kevin, yes you are quite right. No more from me. I did flag up a warning ages ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 May 18 - 02:39 AM

"That wedding cost 33 million quid. We taxpayers paid for almost all of it, and what we didn't directly pay for was paid for with money that was stolen from our ancestors. It's very disgusting."

That just about sums up the loony left. I laugh at the left's crass lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:51 AM

Before I take a couple of days off, I have received a lot of abuse just for saying that the saturation coverage was because most people wanted it.

A significant minority have no interest, but still a minority.

Once again a minority view, belligerently articulated by the usual group, dominated the Mudcat discussion.

All I wanted to say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:57 AM

But Bonzo, every word of it is true!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:13 AM

So let's have a costing for security at all the troublemaking lefty protest marches during say the last 5 years.

And as far as the Royal Wedding is concerned, I am glad it cost so much and was such a wonderful day, and all the rest of it, and now back to my Cara Dillon music downloaded from spotify!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:15 AM

"All I wanted to say."
If only!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:15 AM

"All I wanted to say."
If only!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:27 AM

Tsk. I might have suspected that somebody like Bonzo would have the bad taste to go for those singers with affected, breathy little-girlie voices... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:40 AM

If people come looking for arguments then that is what they usually get.

People may have gathered I am at odds with a lot of the people I am most often in agreement with over this. I am no royalist by any means but did enjoy the bits of pomp and ceremony I saw. The couple were a picture book pair to go in this (Disney) picture book story. You may notice though that there has been no animosity at all between people with vastly different views on this and there there has been no name calling, no back biting, no twists of meaning or logic. Apart from on or two who insist on turning everything into a fight.

Now maybe we can just let it drop and use those royal wedding supplements to wrap up the fish and chips? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:55 AM

An interesting and thought provoking article in todays Guardian.



Article

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 05:41 AM

Oooooh fish and chips Dave!!! Where's mine?

Interesting article indeed Raggytash, and thought-provoking. Thank you for posting that. It's quite true that mixed-race couples are not so rare now, even here in Norfolk. We often see black/white couples in the supermarkets (funnily enough we all grin at each other, as if to say, "Hahaha!Same as us eh?"

I didn't want to start arguments when I posted this thread, I merely wanted validation that I'm not the only one not terribly interested in Royal Weddings, and puzzled because I used to be extremely excited by Royal events. Like Backwoodsman (and others) I find that I have changed over the years, and am quite surprised by that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 18 - 06:16 AM

"An interesting and thought provoking article "
That seems to sum up my feelings about the Royals pretty well Raggy
One you get past the pomp and display, what have you got - a figurehead with no power and influence consisting of a motley bunch that, outside their own particular fishbowl would be totally unknown and unknowable
Apart from the odd Nazi salute or archaic racist attitude about "Bongo-Bongo land", they are pretty insipid crowd who, as individuals, contribute zilch to society as a whole
As a figurehead, they represent a distraction (for those distracted by such incidentals) and a reminder of how society is structured in tiers
Tha last was catered for far more entertainingly in THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 18 - 06:34 AM

outside their own particular fishbowl would be totally unknown and unknowable

I think that may well be true of a lot of celebrities, Jim. In this world of celebrity culture I am pretty sure that would find their own niche and I am pretty sure they would fare better than a lot of the big brother or Essex celebs that TV has churned out on recent years.

It did strike me as quite significant that a lot of politicians and foreign dignitaries seem to had been replaced with pop and film icons. Maybe this is the way that royality is going and I will see my suggestion of selling them off to Disney come to fruition soon :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 18 - 06:35 AM

Oh, and 200!

:D

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 18 - 07:54 AM

I'd forgotten in all this
The nearest I ever came to a royal was when I was doing some electrical work for a veeeery posh hairdresser in Knightsbridge
My workmate came and told me to take a peek in the back room, a private salon, which I did
There was Princess Di under a hair dryer - I got a lovely smile
Always had a soft spot fer her because of that - and because of her humanity towards the shitty landmine industry

The other'Royal' story that touched me personally concerned one of our Traveller singers, Mikeen McCarthy
He was camped with his family in a private yard behind the Mile End Road in Eat London and had organised a collection around the Traveller sites to raise money for 'Save the Children'
One day he received a message saying the Patron, Princess Anne would like to thank him personally for the donation.
A date was arranged and she turned up in the Limo with two burley 'suits' who stood at the gates while she did the business with Mikeen and Nonie (and a photographer)
Somehow, the mayor of Hackney had got wind of the meeting and had decided to use it as a photo-op., so he turned up in fill regailia, only to be turned away by the bouncers at the gate
His Ludship made his way around the fenced site and beckoned one of the Traveller kids and asked her to "tell the lady" he would like to speak to her
The youngster strode across the yard, swung open the door of the van and roared "Hey Missus"
"Hey Missus" was the title of the story when it appeared in the Hackney Gazzette a week later - still got the cutting
We've still got a photo of Mikeen, Noneie and "Hey Missus" taken by the photographer during the interview
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 08:19 AM

My father was West London Area Manager for the GPO, and because he had qualifications in the new electronic telecommunications system, and was on the London Flood Committee etc (in the early sixties) he was asked to go to Kensington Palace to set up a new telephone exchange there and arrange for telephone security for Princess Margaret and her household.

She sailed in to talk to him and was revoltingly arrogant and dismissive. She spoke to him like dirt, and thought she knew everything there was to know about telecommunications.

She'd picked the wrong chap though. My father was quite conformist and had fought in the War in the RAF, but he never kowtowed to anyone (and why should he?) He didn't bow (neither would I have done) and merely replied that if she already knew all about it, he'd be happy to leave, as he was a busy man!

She was concerned that when speaking to 'Mummy' (the Queen Mother) people couldn't tap her line. He got her under control and explained about the system he was proposing and how tapping the line would be impossible. My father was very very strong and firm (as I knew to my cost) One didn't cross him! She eventually seemed quite pleased and they parted amicably (still no bowing)
But he said afterwards he wouldn't give the Royals the time of day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 18 - 09:35 AM

Nice story Sen
An old saying we had in Liverpool summed up their contempt of deferring to such people
"Shit", said the Queen, and a thousand arseholes strained to obey
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 11:35 AM

Hahahaha Jim!! I won't tell you what my Irish mother had to say about it when he got home and related it all to us. Unprintable!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 May 18 - 12:30 PM

our wedding cost less than 2 hundred quid...

I think the license, registrar and registry office accounted for 150 of it...

The rest was a pub lunch and drinks - and cost of processing one roll of colour negatives & prints...

Maybe the wife's frock was bought new on top of all that, but I can't remember,
and it would probably have been in a sale, which she'd have most likely bought anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 May 18 - 01:07 PM

..and on the subject of extravagant weddings...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b16fql

"The Wedding Guru
Documentary series following Onkar Singh Purewal, the self-styled 'greatest weddings planner the world has ever seen',
as he battles to create the perfect big day for his brides"

A new BBC Wales series.. 9 days left to watch episode one...

Light entertainment reality show - which probably says a whole lot more positive about multi cultural Britain
than a solitary 'ethnic' royal...

good tea time telly watching...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 01:24 PM

Our wedding was the cheapest one could possibly imagine. The most expensive item was a suit for my husband, but it didn't cost all that much (Roys of Wroxham!) I wore a skirt and top (from Latham's discount shop) I'd had for years in my wardrobe. And at the last minute before leaving the house (I drove us into Norwich!) I picked a few late flowers from our garden (early November) and put an elastic band round.

It's the funny little details one remembers isn't it? We parked, then had to cross a footbridge over the main road to get to the Registry Office, and the wind was bitter. My husband started getting paler and paler (he seems to do that when he's cold - most interesting!) and by the time we arrived, I was thinking "He's not African at all, he's gone white as a sheet!" We still giggle about it even now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: keberoxu
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:12 PM

Senoufou's question occurred to other people too,
the question of who owns that Jaguar.
Did you know that it is an electric car
and that the engine is relatively silent?
I missed that the first time around.

And, no, when I searched online,
nobody dared to suggest that the newlyweds owned the car;
and nobody ventured an opinion about who was the owner.
All the responses were tiptoe-cautious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:19 PM

You're right keberoxu, I couldn't find any information about the ownership of the car either. I reckon it was lent to the couple as a jolly good publicity demonstration. I'll have another scout round Google after my tea!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:29 PM

Well, it apparently belonged to Toby Smith, a keyboard player with Jamiroquay, who sadly died of cancer last year. His widow sold the car, but no-one has said Prince Harry bought it. All this mystery makes one think he DID buy it, otherwise why not say it was lent by so-and-so?
And if he DID, and it's his, then what an enormous waste of yet more money!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:42 PM

I was a small boy in the early 1960s.....

The E Type Jag rules supreme...

even more than The Saint's Volvo...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:14 PM

I'm a Gene Hunt Audi Quattro man meself...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:22 PM

We've decided that if we won the Lottery we'd buy a Range Rover Evoque (with running boards) for my husband and a Mini Countryman for me, both in taupe. Trouble is, we don't do the Lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 May 18 - 04:28 PM

Steve - wanna reconsider that...???

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/53/f0/83/53f08317abe5e5850f35ef298c90a3cd.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 18 - 05:24 PM

Er, yeah, OK...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 18 - 03:06 AM

I did the lottery for the first time in years yesterday, Sen. Dunno why really. Just a whim I suppose. Anyway, had 4 lines on the Euromillions (£10 altogether). Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to an email saying there was lottery news for me! I logged on and I had indeed won.


£6.70 :-)

It will not change my life.

Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV for me with a little soft top runabout for fun. Not sure what.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:03 AM

That looks like a very nice car Dave. Why not just buy one now? It's only £35,000. Get two! :)

We often dream about what we'd do 'if we won the Lottery' (if we even DID the lottery) We've completely designed the house we'd have built, decorated it, furnished it, filled the triple garage with fancy cars, built a huge annex for all our African family to come and stay, even decided whom we'd employ as Staff (cleaner, gardener, handyman etc)
But then we start back-tracking. We love our little bungalow, we love this village, we love our small but pretty garden, and especially our lovely neighbours all around us. I don't think we could bear to change it all and leave.
We might do a bit of travelling though. My husband longs to fly First Class, where you get a bed to sleep in while the plane whizzes off to Australia! (Emirates airline, he says)
I wonder if Harry and Meghan will be just as happy together and as content as us. I sincerely hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jos
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:20 AM

Dave the G,
If I spent £10 and got back £6.70 I would call that a loss, not a win.

One thing you would NOT see me doing if I won the lottery, or anything else, is squirting champagne all over the place. Such a waste.

When Eddy Izzard completed a succession of marathon runs in South Africa, including a double marathon on the final day, he staggered up the steps to the statue of Mandela and was handed a bottle of fizz. He opened it carefully, drank from it, and then handed it back. That showed 'em.

(Mind you, I suspect that sometimes they give you a champagne look-alike bottle with fizzy water in it to squirt for the cameras.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:28 AM

My wife won £5,000 on the football pools 10 years ago - went towards a holiday in Argentina, and in 1991 she won a 2 week holiday in Florida!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:34 AM

About 12 years ago I won £2000 in Thomas Cook vouchers in a competition I didn't even remember entering. To this day I still don't know what it had been and what I'd had to do to win. We used it for a trip to Oz to visit Mrs Steve's old aunt and uncle and her cousins. It's still the only time I've ever gone beyond Europe!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:38 AM

If I spent £10 and got back £6.70 I would call that a loss, not a win.

I didn't spend £10 to win £6.70. I spent £2.50 to win that. I also spent £7.50 and won nothing so that is a bit of a downer... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:50 AM

The £30m figure is pure speculation, and includes the private costs which were paid by the Royal Family from their personal funds. The taxpayer paid only for security - the costs have not been published but for William and Kate's wedding were £6.35m BBC News   This is roughly the same as what it costs the Met to police football matches in London (they were able to recover only 5% of the costs) over which no one bats an eye.

The Sovereign Grant is paid for out of the profits of the Crown Estate, which in 2016/17 yielded £328.8m to the Treasury. In the same year the Sovereign Grant was £42.8m. It is due to nearly double, but that is due to the exceptional costs of carrying out essential repair work to Buckingham Palace (which belongs to the state, not to the Queen, and the work would need doing whether it is to house the head of state or turned into a hostel for the homeless). There are additional security costs in addition to the Sovereign Grant of around £100m but the total costs are still less than the overall return from the Crown Estate.

My point is that this costs the ordinary taxpayer nothing, and there is more than enough surplus from the Crown Estate income to cover the occasional exceptional cost of something like a royal wedding. That's without the tourist income the royal family attracts, estimated at around £550m. There may be very good reasons for preferring something different over a monarchy, but the cost should not be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 May 18 - 05:01 AM

Well said Howard Jones!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 18 - 05:35 AM

The Crown Estates should rightly belong to the people of this country. All such properties were stolen by the ancestors of the royals from the rest of us. You talk about the cost of security being speculation. No it isn't. It's generally settled that the cost was around £30 million. Comparisons between this royal shindig and the last one must take into account the recently heightened threat from terrorism, demonstrated by the fact that thousands of people getting anywhere near the guts of Windsor Castle were obliged to go through security far stricter than what goes on at airports. As for policing football matches, well you might as well complain about any police activity such as patrolling Soho or Liverpool One at night, overseeing festivals and concerts or policing the motorways and demonstrations. Not one of us benefits from EVERY activity of the police. If you have a bee in your bonnet only about policing football you're not being especially objective. As a matter of fact, policing entertainments such as festivals and concerts and keeping order on the streets at night and on our roads costs far more than policing football matches. There's definitely a debate to be had as to whether the Premier League should contribute more than it does, but, on the other hand, it's unfair to single it out. On 365 nights of the year the police have to work late to oversee the tens of thousands of pubs and clubs and the surrounding streets. How about an extra 50p on every pint to pay for it...?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 09:03 AM

Steve, where is it "generally settled" that the cost of security was £30m? The information I got were from the BBC News page I linked to in my post. That says the police were not releasing the figures for security reasons. Have some authoritative figures now been published? Otherwise most of what I've seen seems to be guesswork by journalists.

I was not "singling out" football, only giving it as an example of other policing costs which happened to be at a similar level to the security for the previous royal wedding. You are quite right that the police have to cover all sorts of events from which individual taxpayers may not benefit, and I agree with your comments entirely. My point was that it seems to be only events like royal weddings where people seem to make an issue of the cost.

I take your point about the Crown Estate. However it seems truer to say that the Norman aristocracy seized the land from the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy. The ordinary people before the Conquest seem mostly to have held land under conditions of service, just as they did later under the Norman feudal system. You'd probably have to go back many more centuries to find that 'ordinary people' had owned the land themselves. Be that as it may, we live in the world as we find it, and the fact is that the Crown Estate income effectively more than covers the cost of maintaining the head of state, even the extended one we have in Britain. That seems good value to me. There may be many reasons to argue against a monarchy but I don't think the cost is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 May 18 - 09:13 AM

There may be many reasons to argue against a monarchy but I don't think the cost is one of them."
please provide stats and figures to back up your opinion

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 18 - 09:24 AM

Perhaps the Windsors could pay an annual substantial lease fee to remain heads of our monarchy...
Or put it out to tender to the highest bidding family...

That might appeal to tories...

It'd be really cool if a wealthy Sikh family took on the role for a few years...
The music and pageantry would be far more lively and colourful...!!!

...and, if royalty was run as a franchise like McDonalds
we could have a local royal family in every town,
and motorway service station...
Each with it's own bouncy castle and royal garden party venue on the grass behind the car parks...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 18 - 10:13 AM

Just google "how much did the royal wedding cost?" Howard, and you'll find multiple sources on both sides of the pond in general agreement that the shindig cost around £33 million, of which around £30 million was for security which the taxpayer pays for. Don't ask me where they all get their info from, but I haven't read any official denials about the alleged costs. Agreed that they are still only alleged costs, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:14 AM

Some of the figures for security seem to be based on a claim that security for the Cambridge's wedding was also around £30m, however according to the BBC report an FoI request showed it was only around £6.35m. I really have no idea, and as the police are neither confirming nor denying it I suspect no one else does. The journalists are probably all copying each other's homework.

The other question is whether this is net or gross cost. The police, army, security services will all be paid their normal salary whatever they are doing, so it is only the additional costs - overtime, travel and specific additional security measures - which should be counted.

Either way, it's likely to have been a lot of money, but these are the times we live in. Even so the income from the Crown Estate makes up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:24 AM

There may be many reasons to argue against a monarchy but I don't think the cost is one of them."
please provide stats and figures to back up your opinion

Sandman, please read my first post. The costs are paid from the income from the Crown Estate which goes to the Treasury, so they don't add to the burden on the general taxpayer.

Do we need our head of state to do as much as the royal family does? Possibly not, but people seem to enjoy having royals open their hospital or visit their workplace, and it seems to generate tourist income as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:28 AM

As long as I'm never expected to stand dutifully in line to bow or shake a royal's hand...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:32 AM

I'd rather shake the Queen's hand than Trump's or Macron's.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 May 18 - 12:11 PM

I stood in line at Edinburgh Uni when Prince Philip, who was our Chancellor, walked past. It wasn't on the street, it was on the campus. But he didn't even look at us students, and he had a most arrogant, curled-lip expression. He looked like a very cross Headmaster who was going to give us all the cane. I got unpleasant vibes from him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 May 18 - 12:54 PM

When Prince Philip visited my wife's school in Buenos Aires during the 1950s, she found him an entirely agreeable person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 18 - 01:08 PM

"When Prince Philip visited my wife's school in Buenos Aires during the 1950s,"
I think you've farted yourself into disgrace at this particularity dinner party, don't you Bozo ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 May 18 - 01:33 PM

I expect you're right Bonzo, and it all depends on the actual day etc. He may be quite pleasant at times, and a bit of a Nasty Thing at others. One shouldn't judge (as I did) just by watching him walk past.

I'll never forget, though, that awful interview he 'gave' with Fiona Bruce on TV. The poor lady was nearly bitten in half by his crossness and prickliness. She bravely carried on, polite and respectful, while he objected, scoffed, hinted he'd never wanted this interview anyway and so on.
I'd have stood up, turned my back and left the room. Unforgivable rudeness.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 18 - 02:13 PM

..."and it seems to generate tourist income as well."

This comes squarely into the category of received wisdom. If you really believe tbat the royals bring in tourists that wouldn't otherwise come here, prove it. You could start by looking at the various league tables of the top tourist attractions. You won't find many royal links among them unless you're extremely adept at stretching points.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 May 18 - 02:37 PM

Paris swarms with tourists, and there's no royal family there. I reckon the tourists would come anyway. It's the history that fascinates them, not the actual personages of the royals, they never catch even a glimpse of them after all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:12 PM

You prove that the royal family doesn't attract tourists - I don't think you can.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:34 PM

Difficult to prove a negative. Besides, the onus of proof is on the person who made the statement that they do.

Pesonally I think that they are not marketed well enough to attract anything but criticism. Now Bonzo, you, as a rampant capitalist, must be able to see the benefits of selling Windsor World off to the Disney corporation...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 18 - 05:57 PM

I'm a few years younger than Prince Philip, but I still find I can be quite grumpy on occasion, and look grumpy on even more occasions, even when I'm maybe feeling quite affable. It happens to all of us as we get weathered by time.

I suppose he could get his face bottoxed into a permanent grin. But I don't imagine that would make his critics any less hostile.

I suppose the next big royal event will be his funeral. I can't see that shutting the critics down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 18 - 07:33 PM

How many tourists actually get a glimpse of the Royals
Apart from Princess Di under the dryer, the only glimpse I ever got of on was on 'Empire Day' at school when we were all hauled out and lined up along the the railins of Speke Secondary Modern in the pissing rain because the Queen Mother was passing on her way to open something
The car sped past doing 40 - we didn't see her and I'm damned if she saw us
It's utter bullshit that people come to Britain because of Rayaly - if they got withing half a mile from one they'd be mown down by an armed copper.
They may come to see the Stately Homes (when they'ere allowed in them) or the artifacts of past royalty, but they would see those anyway
Now if only they opened up the Guildhall and executed a Royal (as they did Chas One).....
I think I'd take a trip back to London to see that one!!
Or maybe if they reopened the Imperial War Museum as Moorfields Asylum as an asylum and allowed the visitors to come up and view Boris Johnson or William Reece Mogg on Sunday afternoons..... a real fillip for the tourist industry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 18 - 07:34 PM

"You prove that the royal family doesn't attract tourists - I don't think you can."

I invite you to look at those league tables of the most popular tourist attractions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 18 - 03:00 AM

20 Most Popular Tourist Attractions

These figures are for 2016

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 May 18 - 03:43 AM

McGrath, no-one wants a royal to wear a permanent grin. But when one is feeling 'grumpy' (which as you say happens to most people) one should still strive to be polite and pleasant. Prince Philip is not a child and presumably can behave himself while doing his job. It's called self-control and good manners.

I have stood in front of a class of pupils many times feeling ill, sad, bereaved, in pain etc but it was my duty to continue with the lesson and be pleasant to my colleagues. I managed it somehow, even if it was a struggle.

Meghan and Harry purport to be humanitarian. I just hope this fashion among the rich and famous of 'virtue signalling' is matched by generous 'virtue giving'; one lives in hope...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 May 18 - 04:44 AM

Better to live in Hope than die in Clay Cross as they say in Derbyshire...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 May 18 - 04:50 AM

I have stood or sat in front of auditors back in my company accountant days and provided fairy tale answers to some of their irritating questions - great fun!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 May 18 - 04:52 AM

A brand consultancy has calculated the economic benefits.

Brand Finance plc

Now you may say that they are doing this to promote themselves, but that would backfire if they were not using accepted methods for determining brand value and other intangibles.

My paper today reported that Meghan Markle is expected to give a £150m boost to the British fashion industry due to women buying copies of her clothes.

Anecdotally, there are usually people gathered outside Buckingham Palace. I once saw the President of France emerge in a car from the Elysee Palace and no one, locals or visitors, paid very much attention.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 18 - 05:24 AM

Wow. A boost to the "fashion industry." Just what we need! No doubt almost all of those "fashinable clothes" will be made in China...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 May 18 - 06:54 AM

The Inside Story...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 May 18 - 07:40 AM

You may sneer but the fashion industry contributes over £20bn pa to the economy and directly or indirectly employs more than 1.3m people.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 May 18 - 08:41 AM

The left will sneer and argue till the cows come home!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 May 18 - 08:58 AM

Go and play that D-18, Bonz.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 18 - 10:29 AM

"I have stood or sat in front of auditors back in my company accountant days and provided fairy tale answers to some of their irritating questions"
Real Walter Mitty stuff - even company accountants need a modicum of brains
Dream on Bozo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 May 18 - 04:41 PM

There are some excellent photos of the wedding in the Telegraph magazine today!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 May 18 - 06:03 PM

I have to say I've replayed on Youtube a couple of times the moment when one of the Mulroney twins, Brian, who was holding up that long veil, heard the fanfare and was absolutely blown away by the sound. He told his parents later that at the rehearsal there were no trumpeters, so he hadn't expected that! Loved his gap-toothed grin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 May 18 - 06:43 PM

It must have been quite an experience for them!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 May 18 - 06:51 PM

perhaps he thought the bride had farted...???