ROYAL WEDDING

[CanalWalker]

Love the fact that people who usually whinge that the UK doesnt have enough bank holidays now complain that there was an extra one this year. "oh no we got a day of work in the sunshine its not fair moan moan moan" If people are that worried about the government losing money I am sure the taxman will accept a donation.

[cotswoldsman]

Perhaps I should have sought out a less radical, lefty rag but this was the first link I came across:

 

Royal Wedding costs economy £5 billion

 

Sorry Carl I think an article based on supposition written 6 months ago does not do it for me. The holiday on Friday was not a bank holiday but a public holiday. As for the FSM these are the same people that put a doom spin on most things, I seem to remember them predicting the virtual end of the world on the introduction of the minimum wage, the introduction of minimum working week, extension of maternity leave etc. As I have said before I am not a Royalist but I have no problem with people who are.

[Albert Smith]

Personaly I prefer a good funeral to a wedding, probably because as the years pass its a very regular occurance amongst friends and relatives. Also there is the added bonus of not having to buy a present and the fact everyone (well, almost everyone) wears black, so no worries about what to wear. For those that drink there is always a good booze up, and the betting is on for who is next in line for a funeral (they voted me as 'odds on' last time). Mrs Smith doesn't have the same enthusiasm for funerals as myself, she prefers weddings

 

Albert.

[Josher]

Well here is a wedding with a difference - no presents, just a donation to the RNLI. Well done ...

 

Bride arrives by fishing boat

 

 

Published on Sunday 1 May 2011 08:00 Hastings Observer

 

A BRIDE opted for a more unusual way of tying the knot with her husband-to-be at the weekend. Instead of arriving at church, Janet Shoesmith came by fishing boat off St Leonards beach to wed her partner Martin. She got ashore safely, much to the surprise of holidaymakers sunning themselves on the beach, for the couple’s wedding at Azur, Marina Pavilion on Saturday. The loved-up pair, of Bexhill Road, St Leonards, decided to hold the offbeat ceremony because Mr Shoesmith is a part-time fisherman in Hastings and enjoys angling as a hobby.

 

And rather than ask for wedding gifts, the couple invited guests to make donations to Hastings and Pett Level RNLI. They were only too happy to oblige and so far more than £500 has been raised.

 

Mrs Shoesmith, a physio assistant at the Conquest Hospital, said: “It was a fabulous and amazing day for us. “Roland Kelly, an Old Town fisherman, took me by boat as he is very good friends with Martin. When I arrived my eldest son Stuart gave me away.” She chose not to have bridesmaids, instead having an entourage of friends, who had helped her with her hair and dress. They entered to the tune of Here Come the Girls before Mrs Shoesmith herself entered to Pachelbel’s Canon in D major. Sara Hedges, Robert Hedges, and Elle Shoesmith were witnesses, with Dave Skinner as Martin’s best man.

 

The ceremony was immediately followed by a spectacular 15-minute air display by a stunt pilot who managed to draw a love heart in the sky. Mrs Shoesmith first met her husband, who works for family-run business S&T Windows, 10 years ago when he was fitting new windows at her mother’s flat. The newlyweds spent a couple of days at a spa hotel in Hythe, Kent, following their wedding and plan to go to Turkey later in the year.

[cotswoldsman]

Personaly I prefer a good funeral to a wedding, probably because as the years pass its a very regular occurance amongst friends and relatives. Also there is the added bonus of not having to buy a present and the fact everyone (well, almost everyone) wears black, so no worries about what to wear. For those that drink there is always a good booze up, and the betting is on for who is next in line for a funeral (they voted me as 'odds on' last time). Mrs Smith doesn't have the same enthusiasm for funerals as myself, she prefers weddings

 

Albert.

 

Maybe a new TV programme "Come Die With Me"

[Albert Smith]

Maybe a new TV programme "Come Die With Me"

 

You are a genius, it'll have far more going for it than those pompous twits that can't cook

 

Albert.

[churchward]

I was grateful for the day off and also for the quiet roads on Friday! I needed to travel to North Devon (from Northamptonshire) to see my father for the weekend and the journey was nice and quiet with no traffic problems going over the Avon Bridge at Bristol or anywhere else for that matter, nice.

 

So didn't see the event I am not an anti Royalist just had better things to do.

[canaldrifter]

There was no escaping it in the end, ITV2 just had a news bit in the middle of their late night film and it was about the wedding, so I couldn't avoid it . My daughter watched it live and said the best bits were, the ring didn't fit and some guard fell off his horse, they didn't show those bits on the news.....

Gary

 

Aah, the beauty of not owning a telly!

 

And the smug thrill of ignoring W type iPlayer items....

 

Mind you, the beer festival at a local pub was good. Only one person came with bunting, and he wore a pith helmet with a union jack stuck on top. I can forgive him though, as he arrived in his immaculate 1920s Austin Seven with the top down (to make room for the flag om his head).

 

I have a feeling that North Yorkshire is actually still a foreign Viking land and maybe the 'defeat' at Stamford Bridge was just a diversion for the victory at Hastings against knackered Brit troops.

 

(Ow! Got something in my eye!)

 

Tone

 

What I am tying to say is it's easy to love those close to you, family, friends and kids, especially grandkids. The hard bit is trying to extend love outside to others, even your enemy, really it's definition of what love is, I think love for family and friends also includes a separate emotion called affection, love doesn't have to include affection. I feel a love for the human race but they are nearly all unknown to me, some I undoubtedly will dislike, maybe intensely but that doesn't mean I have no love for them.

 

I think love is largely misunderstood and thought of as a nice cosy comfortable feeling but in reality is often painful and uncomfortable, doubting if you have done the best thing for someone and suffering some angst over it. Believe me I don't feel certain about anything in this world, maybe I come across as a bit arrogant but really that is far from the truth.

 

Have a greeny.

 

Unfortunately in the English language the word 'love' has too many meanings.

 

Wicki puts it well:

 

love

 

Tone

Edited May 1, 2011 by canaldrifter

[muddywaters]

Same here, I had no interest in the wedding what so ever and was able to find things to do or watch on T.V without having to make to much effort.

That does not mean I am miserable or wished them any ill.

Tell you what though, this forum should give itself a pat on the back, because at least you are allowed to have an opinion for or against.

On another forum I go on I've been given all kinds of grief just because I won't go along with the rest and say it's the most wonderful thing that ever happened

[sueb]

If that's an accurate figure, it's about 100 times the amount they cost us per year.

 

It's a typical behaviour of idealists to want to remove something that is effective and functional because it is 'off message.'

Is that with or without the profit we make from the Crown Lands?

Sue

[cotswoldsman]

Is that with or without the profit we make from the Crown Lands?

Sue

 

Sorry Sue for someone like me who does not understand these things could you please explain what The Crown lands are? How does a piece of land become something called Crown Lands? Thanks in advance

[Tiny]

You are a genius, it'll have far more going for it than those pompous twits that can't cook

 

Albert.

 

I watched a very interesting program documentary on a morticians convention in the US. In it I learned how to wash your hands to get the smell off. Much more useful than a cooking program.

 

Is that with or without the profit we make from the Crown Lands?

Sue

 

They are 'owned' by the crown but the excheque gets the money they make (Lots) and for that pays the royals money on the civil list. (Not such lots)

[Victor Vectis]

Sorry Sue for someone like me who does not understand these things could you please explain what The Crown lands are? How does a piece of land become something called Crown Lands? Thanks in advance

 

They stole it from us in the enclosures.

 

Bring back the diggers!

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

[Minos]

costing the economy £6bn

That is based upon an utterly moronic conflation of the effects of so many holidays close together, speculating that "some companies would effectively be shut down for the 11-day period." The only people who swallow guff like that are the gullible and the lazy who just want a quick reference to support an insupportable argument.

 

The royal family costs us £7.9million.

 

My reasons for wanting a fairer system are pragmatic, not idealistic.

 

I don't want the 'privilege' that royals have, I don't think anyone should have it.

You say it isn't envy, just that you don't want anyone to have privilege. That's an incredibly fine distinction, but I'll accept the point that you don't covet privilege.

 

However, the definition of envy is 'resentment aroused by another's possessions' so if you think others should not have privilege then you are experiencing what the dictionaries call "envy" whether you like the word or not.

 

Giving your reason the label 'pragmatic' when your explanation demonstrates clearly that it is based entirely on envy doesn't fool anyone except for yourself.

[carlt]

 

Giving your reason the label 'pragmatic' when your explanation demonstrates clearly that it is based entirely on envy doesn't fool anyone except for yourself.

If you really think that a desire for fairness is envy then I'm afraid it isn't me who is the fool.

 

I'm finished here as you don't seem capable of debating without insulting.

[Orca]

Aah, the beauty of not owning a telly!

 

 

Ah haa, we have something in common then!?! I got through 'that day' because I didn't know what day it was (though assume it was in the past 7 days or so!?!)and have spent the last week putting the finishing touches to my 1989 Ford Cargo tractor unit restoration. She's got a Cummins LTA-10 290 engine in her. The radio in my lock-up unit has broken, so I've missed The Archers for the past few days, but did manage to catch the omnibus edition this morning.

 

I am guilty of having a PC though - hence here - and a myriad of 1960's/70's tv dvd's. Might catch up with a bit of Blake's Seven tonight as I'm feeling a bit subversive. .

[Minos]

I'm finished here as you don't seem capable of debating without insulting.

You describe a post disagreeing with you as "utter tosh" and then claim it is me who is being 'insulting?'

 

You don't seem capable of receiving what you give out.

 

*edited to mend broken link*

Edited May 2, 2011 by Minos

[carlt]

You describe a post disagreeing with you as "utter tosh" and then claim it is me who is being 'insulting?'

 

You don't seem capable of receiving what you give out.

 

*edited to mend broken link*

I describe what you say as 'utter tosh'. I was commenting on the issue, not the person.

 

You describe me as a fool, idealist and other comments, insulting the person, not the opinion.

 

There is a distinct difference.

 

I have nothing against Royalists, just Royalty as a concept, and am happy to debate strongly, the issues.

 

You seem to have a problem with anti-monarchists, or me in particular, and appear happy to attack the person, rather than the point.

 

Many anti-monarchists use similar tactics, as yours, describing royalists as obsequious, sycophantic idiots who lack the self-esteem to stand on their own two feet, requiring a father/mother figure to look up to and make decisions for them.

 

I don't subscribe to such methods, preferring to use my debating skills, rather than patronising insults, to state my case.

 

I have great respect for many people, on here, despite holding diametrically opposing views on many issues.

 

We manage to have forceful, often heated, arguments without attacking each others' character, just their words.

 

For example (sorry Dave) I regard a lot of what MayallD writes, on here, as complete and utter tosh and frequently tell him so (likewise he tells me the same, about my ramblings) but I have the utmost respect for the man, and his debating prowess and have (as far as I can recall) never attacked him personally.

 

If you can't see the distinction then I will not bother entering discussions, with you.

Edited May 2, 2011 by carlt

[Minos]

You describe me as a fool, idealist and other comments, insulting the person, not the opinion.

Let's have a look at my actual comments, then:

 

Giving your reason the label 'pragmatic' when your explanation demonstrates clearly that it is based entirely on envy doesn't fool anyone except for yourself.

Check with an expert in grammar if you wish, but the word 'fool' in that sentence is clearly a verb, not a noun; not name-calling, but a contradiction of your point. I did not describe you as a fool - you chose to misinterpret my words in order to take offence.

 

It's a typical behaviour of idealists to want to remove something that is effective and functional because it is 'off message.'

Clearly a critique of idealism, and explicitly saying that your argument (not you) fit this description. Not name-calling, but a counter-argument.

 

If you can't see the distinction then I will not bother entering discussions, with you.

An interesting point, because you are clearly choosing to take disagreement personally, and are prepared to misinterpret my comments to suit.

 

It is actually you who is unable to address the point of the disagreement, choosing instead to cry 'foul' and accuse me of name calling when, as I have produced evidence to demonstrate, I have done no such thing. I have offered you counterargument and refutation of your claims - and you respond with personal accusations based on misrepresentations of my comments.

[Guest wanted]

But, My Dad's bigger than your Dad!

Edited May 2, 2011 by wanted

[romarni123]

But, My Dad's bigger than your Dad!

[tillergirl]

Well you lot can say what you like.............I'm not a Royalist but I did think that William and Kate thought things out very well. In my opinion there was no rubbing my face in their money about the event whatsoever and personally I liked that. They obviously put a lot of thought into trying not to offend the "ordinary folk" with an over the top show of how much money they had to fritter on their wedding day celebrations. That is not something you see everyday of the week the our upper classes. So the upshot is I don't really care what anyone else thinks.... .......I did'nt have an extra day off work because I no longer Fridays but I did spend a very nice day with two of my family members who no longer live at home.

Edited May 2, 2011 by tillergirl

[romarni123]

I hear the wedding was based on the Harry Potter books

 

Prince Harry and the half bald prince

[carlt]

 

It is actually you who is unable to address the point of the disagreement, choosing instead to cry 'foul' and accuse me of name calling when, as I have produced evidence to demonstrate, I have done no such thing. I have offered you counterargument and refutation of your claims - and you respond with personal accusations based on misrepresentations of my comments.

Yeah whatever!

 

I really can't be bothered with addressing your points.

 

I have not misrepresented your comments but will not be feeding your smugness anymore, by bothering to counter them.

 

Carry on!

[Dominic M]

I was in France when the wedding took place. I bet my partner, Helen, that it would occupy no more then 5 minutes of their news. I lost: it was on all day, in French. Who could deny the spectacle? It was presented and executed brilliantly. The French broadcast drooled over the occasion coupled with a wonderment as to why in the 21st century a nation could bs so enamoured of an ancient outmoded institution like a monarchy. We were asked the next day if we were English, and then congratulated for such a fantastic occasion!

 

I'm not a strong Royalist, but it would take some pretty miserable person to deny the nation the enjoyment of an amazing spectacle, a holiday and a party with their neighbours.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Dominic M