BS: The Royal Wedding/baby

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:30 AM

Best bit for me was the choral piece during the ceremony....Very Lauridsen/Taverner-ish. Nice touch with the MG too!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:33 AM

I took 360 photos from our TV screen.

That's just plain weird - the sort of thing that used to typify the folk that Diana used to call 'the cat-stranglers'.
I watched it and thought it was enchanting. Utterly irrelevant to the world as it is today, but all the better for that. The language of the Book of Common Prayer wedding service is such a part of the warp and weft of our culture that even a crusty atheist like me finds magic in the words, while the drill and pageantry was faultless. This is one republican who thoroughly enjoyed the whole preposterous shebang.

Even more wierd that I had the camera on RAW format setting which is a pain to convert to jpg.

You're right about the language, great words from the time when my parents forced me to go to church!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:35 AM

It was an Aston Martin Ralphie, yes I agree a very nice touch.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:37 AM

Joe... "I see the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour was delayed so it would not conflict with the wedding."

Hahahahaaa

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 07:54 AM

The photos in the paper are just as blurred as those I took from the TV!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:10 AM

"Even a fule know..." MtheGM, you remind me of '1066 and all that', is that where you got that expression from? Made me smile.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MikeL2
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:53 AM

hi bonzo

My wife wanted some pictures to send to her sister in Spain. So I put the wedding on timeslip on one of my DVD recorders.

I edited the file and during editing process took still pics of what Jan wanted. The results are certainly much better than I saw in today's papers.

Got me a few brownie points at home too !!

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 09:39 AM

According to a recent CBS News/ New York Times poll, Queen Elizabeth II has a 61 percent favourable rating among Americans, with a mere 7 per cent holding an unfavourable view of the British monarch (a further 25 per cent are undecided). That compares with an average job approval rating this week of 45.5 percent for the US president according to RealClear Politics, with some recent polls placing him as low as 41 percent.

Prince William was just behind the Queen with 57 per cent approval, with Kate Middleton polling at 45 percent (with 43 per cent undecided, bearing in mind that the survey was conducted almost two weeks ago, before much of the publicity surrounding the royal wedding.) Only Prince Charles was less popular than the polling average for Barack Obama, with an approval rating of 38 percent.

All you have to do is to rename the office of president to that of prime minister, and accept the queen as your constitutional head of state.
The politicians can get on with the politics and no-one has to like them.
It works for 80% of brits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 09:47 AM

You've never evidently still to make the acquaintance of Nigel Molesworth, the Curse of St Custards, Eliza. I think you'll like him.

As chronicled in Down with Skool ect

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 09:47 AM

"Even a fule know..." MtheGM, you remind me of '1066 and all that', is that where you got that expression from? Made me smile. ===

No, Eliza; the quote is from Geoffrey Willans & Ronald Searle's "Nigel Molesworth, the Curse of St Custards" stories, originally in Punch magazine 1940s, collected in 1950s in books: Down With Skool, How To Be Topp, Wizz For Atoms, Back In The Jugg Agane.

Happy to have made you :)

♥~Michael~♥

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 09:50 AM

Wow, McGrath; how about that for a X-post dead heat! Just look at the times.

SNAP!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 09:53 AM

Found this quite interesting - From an article in the online Guardian

Newly-wed couple drive from Buckingham Palace to Clarence House in car given to Prince Charles by Queen in 1969

Prince William, in a surprise break from the schedule, borrowed his father's 41-year-old open-topped Aston Martin to pootle down the Mall to Clarence House with his new bride.

The car was a 21st birthday present to Prince Charles from his mother in 1969 and, like many middle-aged men's sports cars, it spends most of its life these days in the garage, used only occasionally for jaunts around the country lanes of Gloucestershire and doing only a couple of hundred miles a year.

It has, however, impeccably green credentials in contrast to most 1960 sports cars, having been converted to run on bioethanol fuel – and not just any old bioenthanol but converted from surplus British wine. So it runs on plonk – all part of Charles's green initiatives: his other cars, Jaguars, an Audi and a Range Rover have all been converted to run on used cooking fat.

Now, if only we all had the money to convert our cars... :-)

MP

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:05 AM

As expected we saw a good few knockers on this thread, some having a swing at the Royal family, some because it was a truly British celebration of not only a marriage, but of our heritage as well. It was a day many felt proud to be British. We don't have much of a feel good factor at the moment, so allow those who enjoy the pomp and splendour of such events to enjoy it.

Sadly Royal marriages have a poor track record. I remember the wedding of Princess Margaret as if it was yesterday. Sadly that marriage along with those of Anne and Mark Phillips, Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah all took a nose dive.

Yesterday also confirmed without doubt to me that Harry is no more a Royal than I am, he is the spitting image of James Hewitt, in looks, posture and in manner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:20 AM

""They were superceeded by the American Mustangs as the main escorts. Especially when the B52's were introduced into Europe.""

I'm a little puzzled by this since the role of the P51 Mustang was downgraded to Ground Support in 1951, and the the B52 made its maiden flight in 1952 and entered active service in 1955. It was also Jet powered and would have needed to slow down for a Mustang escort.

Perhaps you were thinking of the B29?

Sorry for the drift.


Back on topic, today's papers featured a very good shot of the crowd, and you'd have to agree that there was a good mix of ethnic groups in that.

""We'll keep the red flag flying here. Long Live the Republic! :)""

Not in your lifetime my friend. Latest polls show 75% for keeping the Monarch and 20% against it.

I don't know what the other 5% want and probably they don't know themselves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:35 AM

"Yesterday also confirmed without doubt to me that Harry is no more a Royal than I am, he is the spitting image of James Hewitt, in looks, posture and in manner."


Nope. He's got the Spencer red hair (see Diana's brother and sisters) and Charles' small eyes, his face shape too, which are nothing like those of James Hewitt in all the photos I've looked at.

The person he most resembles, to me at least, is Diana's sister, Jane..and Sarah too...

Diana didn't look like either of them, but those two sisters looked very similar. So I think that's where Harry gets his looks from, along with his colouring...

Jane and Sarah

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:56 AM

Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger.


https://network23.org/amp/files/2010/12/prince_harry_james_hewitt_20050413.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:01 AM

But Harry walks like a pro polo player!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:03 AM

I got up early, watched it, enjoyed it, was glad to see this story come full circle from Diana's marriage to the marriage of her son. One can imagine that Diana would have been very happy with the outcome of how she raised her son, how Charles carried through after she was gone, and how level-headed he and his new bride both appear to be. More power to them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:08 AM

Not that I have more than the mildest iota on interest nor any brief to defend the Saxon ascendancy but it was promulgated pretty damn quickly after the engagement announcement that the families would be footing the bill for the junketing themselves. So thay could do what they damn well liked. Doesn't bother me. Puts a stop to any whingeing that "we're paying for it" anyway which is just as well as they seem well able to afford an Aston Martin DB5, lots of trees and designer frocks by the skipload.

Very naff choice of music (from what I heard) except for that Welsh rugby song at the beginning

"any fule know"is from the Molesworth books.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:14 AM

I rest my case Bonzo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:55 AM

Saved by the Gibb - Photoshop will batch convert any number of photos from RAW to jpg in any file size to care to choose, so a lot of time saved!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:58 AM

Some anti Royal on the radio this morning said, "give me one good reason why I should have watched the Royal Wedding yesterday, what part of that charade could possibly of held my attention for more than one minute. " I was very tempted to phone in and tell him. "Kate's sister Pippa as maid of honour poured into that dress and the rear view as she walked up the isle."

http://maxfarquar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/pippa-middleton-great-arse.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 12:16 PM

Isn't that absolutely typical. Pippa Middleton's got a great arse so everything's alright with the world and we can hang onto our monarchy after all. Just as well I kept a spare royal wedding sick bag.

Great ass or no, less than 50% of the British population watched the charade, so we're in the majority after all.

Richie, some of us are concerned with matters of greater import than the shape of Kate Middleton's sister's arse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM

Okay Fred,but you would you not admit that you took just one little peep at her Khyber Pass ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM

"Richie, some of us are concerned with matters of greater import than the shape of Kate Middleton's sister's arse."

and such sanctimoneous bores you are too!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 12:39 PM

Or even sanctimonious!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MikeL2
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 02:04 PM

<"Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Arthur_itus - PM
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 11:18 AM

All from Lincolnshire Gnu ">

Hi Arthur

I believe The Lancaster was mainly manufactured at Avro in Woodford Cheshire just down the road from here.

I think it was first flown (non-operationally from Ringway Airport Cheshire ( Now Manchester International Airport ).

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 02:13 PM

Hi Mike
What I mean't by that was they flew from Lincolnshire to fly over London and then before they returned to base, they flew overa village in LIncolnshire that was having a party.

I didn't mean where they were built.

You have a tough match tomorrow Mike. Are you going to the match?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 02:42 PM

"Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger."


Ah, but Jane is sandy...and that photo of James Hewitt..it's the *only* one where they look similar, because James has his eyes all screwed up laughing. If you look at him forward facing, they ain't even similar. Look at the eyes of Prince Charles...the colour of Jane's hair...and there you'll find Prince Harry...

He does have a strange gait though..but then he's a young and funky prince, so he kinda boogied down that aisle..

When he said to William "Wait till you see what's coming!" as he turned to look at Kate...well, I wonder what he thought when he saw Pippa in *that* dress! .......Probably..."Phawwwwwwwww!" ;0)

Lizzie

(who has anything *but* a Pippashapedsitupon...more resembling one of the Polo Ponies) LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:34 PM

MtheGM, Oh yes, of course, I remember now, 'How to be Topp'. I seem to remember   "Fotherington-Thomas is wet and a weed". Goodness me, how long ago since I read that book?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:03 PM

Looking at the clip of him driving the Aston Martin, it looks as if neither of them were wearing a safety belt.

If that's the case, then in light of the fact that his mother died because she didn't use a safety belt, it's a pretty weird thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: JennyD
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:17 PM

Have another look - I think they were wearing seat belts.

I'm British but I live on the east coast of the USA and I can tell you that it was the one thing everybody was talking about on Friday morning, and a lot of people (like me) got up at 5am to watch it on the TV. Also there were at least four channels on the TV, including BBC America of course, showing it either in its entirety or edited highlights, later in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM

Best line of the day - You know who you are so no apologies for pinching it -

God, the RAF are rubbish. They didn't hit one of those Germans on the balcony.

:-)

MP

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 07:21 PM

"Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger."


Ah, but Jane is sandy...>>>>



Darn it, I meant Jane IS Bright Ginger! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 07:38 PM

Harry is full of ginger.

Not much on TV that leaves me smiling these days, but the wedding did.

I wish them well!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: gnu
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:11 PM

I wish them well also.

As for them not waring seat belts, no way one could tell. But, if they weren't, I would say that is their choice. After all, they are Him and Her and they are heirs in the most powerful family on the earth. Say what you want about "the royals" but they still rule the earth. If you disagree, read a newspaper... I didn't see anybody shooting people in Britain today but people are being shot all over the world... oil... opium... who controls it?

I enjoyed the wedding. As for wether they were wearing seat belts, I don't think they or any of their loyal subjects give two fucks from Sunday. I really don't understand why you would care. Unless you were terribly concerned about their safety, which I doubt. Although you should be because they butter your bread by protecting your way of life. That is what they do... that is what your government does... that is what your corporations, like BP, do...they protect your standard of living.

Read a newspaper... Libya, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy.... it's called history.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: LadyJean
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:14 PM

I've been a bit upset about the thing, and wondering why. I don't care one way or the other about royals. Then it occurred to me. I always wanted a wedding.

I don't mind being single. I'm much happier than most of my married friends, but I would have liked to have had the dress and the bouquet and all the rest of it. Oh well. As I said, I am MUCH happier than most of my married friends.

By the way, I understand the royal couple will be doing their own housework, rather than empoying someone. I can name you a bunch of doctors' wives in Squirrel Hill who wouldn't DREAM of doing without help!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:34 PM

Gnu ~ re no-one shooting anyone: one of the few sour notes that the occasion struck with me was the presence of heavily armed police monitoring the crowds all along the route. Alas the day! that all these loonies all about [you all know who they are, whom I mean] have made such a thing necessary. It was not so when Bess·II did first reign & this old hat was new.

I am sure they were wearing seatbelts; and it was not their choice ~~ not just a matter of safety; they are legally required to wear them and it is absolutely essential that our future ruler must set an example of maintaining the law. I recently saw the Queen emerge from Ely station on a visit to the Cathedral, get into the waiting car with her lady-in-waiting, and immediately proceed to do up her seatbelt before being driven off.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 01 May 11 - 02:00 PM

One thing the U.K. hypocritically has in common with Syria and Libya is, of course, an UNELECTED head-of-state; and that William and Katherine seem a good couple does not alter the fact that monarchies are greedy unfair blasphemies - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#225

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 May 11 - 02:25 PM

By the way, I understand the royal couple will be doing their own housework, rather than empoying someone. I can name you a bunch of doctors' wives in Squirrel Hill who wouldn't DREAM of doing without help!

I stayed in a house in BA 3 years ago where there was a live in maid - it was fantastic, certainly the way I would go given the money.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 11 - 02:34 PM

There have always been security problems for monarchs and members of royal families...they are a magnet for assassins, both privately motivated lone individuals and agents of well-organized plots on the part of either revolutionary groups or hostile governments.

Note, for example, that a number of western countries are presently quite clearly attempting to assassinate Muammar Gadhafi by using high tech weapons to kill him (not that I'm saying he's a "royal"...but he is in a somewhat similar hierarchichal position within Lybia...).

It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, being a monarch or something similar to a monarch...or just being closely related to one...and it always has been so. In fact, it's probably less dangerous now than it was a couple of hundred years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 May 11 - 04:44 PM

WAV ~ what is so automatically and intrinsically great about elected heads of state? Hitler was elected Chancellor {OK, I know, Godwin's Law - but the observation happens to be appropriate here}; Mao; Pol Pot...

It is at least arguable that it the non-elected condition of the monarchy that gives the institution its peculiar symbolic and unifying force. I know I am begging the question as to whether such exists, and many on this forum decline to acknowledge it; but it is surely what motivates the 75% revealed by poll after poll who want to keep the monarchy in its present state and avatar.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 11 - 04:57 PM

It's always a gamble with both elected heads of state and with monarchs. They may turn out to be good, bad or indifferent for the nation....but you really have no way of knowing until they've had a chance to try out the reins of power for awhile. And they have no way of knowing either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 May 11 - 05:51 PM

The BBC said there were only 75 arrests.

Seat belts- I have a car of about that age (German 1973, his A-M is 1969) and it has only lap belts, which would not show except to an overhead camera. Dunno what the 1969 UK requirements were, or if an upgrade is required there for vintage automobiles.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 11 - 05:55 PM

The point of a "head of state" is some kind of symbol of unity.

But there's no particular reason this should be a human being. I suppose it could be some inanimate object - a statue, a mountain. Or perhaps, to make it more fun and provide some element of variety over time, an animal. A horse, an elephant, a giant tortoise...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 01 May 11 - 06:35 PM

This car was fitted with lap belts as standard, so I think it likely they used them. I restored a 1958 Jag XK150 and fitted competition belts. There is no law that says I had to do this.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 01 May 11 - 06:44 PM

Watched it over dinner as we are ahead of the UK by 7 hours.

Impressed by the general atmoshphere and the pomp, always good for helping with the UK's tourist industry.

William looked like he needed a good stiff drink...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 01 May 11 - 07:58 PM

Oh! and the Mrs nearly snorted rice through her nose when she saw Prince Andrew's daughter 'ats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM

It seems before the day is out there will be another child born into the Royal Family. Royal marriages don't seem to last very long as history has shown, at least the days of incest seem to be behind us.

Sarah Ferguson, Diana Spencer and Princess Anne to name a few. This isn't something new.

It is well reported that Harry is Diana's love child with James Hewitt. Prince Andrew could be the lovechild of The Queen and Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert, Earl of Carnarvon (Lord Porchester). She became romantically involved with him after she discovered that her husband, Prince Philip was carrying on a secret affair with her cousin Princess Alexandra.

Prince Andrew bears an uncanny resemblance to Lord Pochester, and that similarity goes beyond the facial. Unlike the other males in the royal family who are slender like Prince Philip, Prince Andrew is chunky like Lord Porchester and the two sons born to his marriage.

When Prince Andrew was born, he was kept under wraps as no other royal baby has been before or since. The world received no glimpse of hum, not even when he was christened, for there were no official photographers present to record what is normally a happy semi-official occasion shared by the royal family and the public alike.

Coming on top of society's knowledge that Prince Philip and The Queen's marriage had been nothing more than a viable but unromantic partnership, and that he had been absent during much of the period when she might have been impregnated, if only supported the case as to whether Prince Philip was actually Prince Andrew's father.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:37 AM

I have never read "Hello" magazine. Reading the diatribe above, I don't need to.

I wonder if Prince Charles and his equerry muse on how Bill Kennedy looks awfully like the milkman, or if he bears an uncanny resemblance to that bloke who used to hang around school gates?

I am not exactly a Monarchist, and whilst I have been pleased to have had the opportunity to meet a few of them through different roles, I accept that it is better to have a head of state that has it and lumps it rather than someone who seeks the status... That we can retain a tradition, however tenuous, is a nice icing on the cake. Like anybody else, I have no idea of the cost versus what they bring in, but one will balance the other to a degree.

The hurtful aspects of living in a goldfish bowl must be bad enough, but to have intelligent people wish you ill and say things in the public domain with no foundation and no regard for feelings, I just think the poor buggers deserve better.