The Royal Wedding 2018

[BluePenguin]

Today is the day! After months of anticipation, the day that Megan and Harry tie the knot has finally arrived. I have never been very interested in the royal family although they really do seem to be a cool, trendy and royal couple.

I am watching in excitement and anticipation for the main event. It doesn't feel it has been long since the last wedding really. Today history will be written. We will look back on this day in years to come and feel such pride.

Who is watching at the moment? What are everyone's thoughts?

 

[BlueFox]

We will look back on this day in years to come and feel such pride.

No we won't. We'll look back and wonder how the monarchy survived into the 21st century.

 

[SS4]

Today history will be written. We will look back on this day in years to come and feel such pride.

Me may be told that but for many it simply won't be true.

What disgusts me is how high-handed, holier than thou, and superior the media are acting over this (no doubt other, more unpalatable/less profitable news is being swept under the rug) as though they know what's best for the common folk and should accept their fate. 20, 30, 50, 100 years down the line the media coverage is all that will remain and people in the future will think the country was universally pleased and proud - for better of for worse. This also applies abroad

I wish Harry and Meghan the best of luck but the media circus can smeg off.

 

[Domh245]

It seems that there is more interest from America than here to be honest! There was a feature on the today programme on Thursday morning interviewing people in Nottingham and they concluded that there wasn't too much interest from the public, and can you blame them - Harry is 5th in line to the throne and most importantly it's on a saturday so the bulk of the population aren't getting a day of work especially for it!

Personally I'm far too busy watching Blancpain GT, Formula E, and revising to watch the wedding!

 

[Dave1987]

Today history will be written. We will look back on this day in years to come and feel such pride.

Pride in what exactly? Pride that the taxpayer has footed the reported £32m for the wedding? Pride in the fact the taxpayer has footed the bill for the enormous security costs? What exactly is there to have pride in exactly? The BBC reported that despite the media shoving this wedding down everyone’s throats for the last few weeks a high percentage of the country couldn’t care less if there was a royal wedding on or not.

 

[nlogax]

I've got friends over from the east coast US who are camping out in Windsor today. Reckon it's madness, but whatever floats their boat

 

[700007]

Pride in what exactly? Pride that the taxpayer has footed the reported £32m for the wedding? Pride in the fact the taxpayer has footed the bill for the enormous security costs?

I thought the Beebs said the family footed the bill?

 

[Dave1987]

I thought the Beebs said the family footed the bill?

The family get money off the taxpayer by the sovereign grant plus all the security costs will be paid by the taxpayer.

 

[Darandio]

I thought the Beebs said the family footed the bill?

The family are paying for the 'private' elements of the wedding, we pay everything else. But given we fund them anyway, we are paying for the lot.

 

[700007]

The family get money off the taxpayer by the sovereign grant plus all the security costs will be paid by the taxpayer.

The family are paying for the 'private' elements of the wedding, we pay everything else. But given we fund them anyway, we are paying for the lot.

That's very true indeed. Given their wealth, I don't understand why they can't fund it fully themselves independent of the taxpayer - even day to day activities. The money saved could go to plenty of causes including electrification that has been 'delayed' or 'cancelled'....

 

[Dave1987]

That's very true indeed. Given their wealth, I don't understand why they can't fund it fully themselves independent of the taxpayer - even day to day activities. The money saved could go to plenty of causes including electrification that has been 'delayed' or 'cancelled'....

Indeed if the Royals are soooo popular I don’t understand why they need taxpayer funding. They should easily be able to pay their own costs and security. I read a while back that the royals refused to open Buck House to tourists more even though it could have covered the costs of repairs to buck house. No no that needed to be funded by the taxpayer.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

To be perfectly honest with you, and this may be an unpopular opinion, but I do not care, I am completely indifferent to the Royal Wedding. The only reason most people really cared last time was because of the day off, and now that we haven't been given one we just go about our lives as usual. I don't see how it'll end up as a monumental moment of British history. Though most people don't seem to care too much about the Royal Family, I'm likely in the minority in saying that I believe Britain should be a Republic. Maybe not now, but sooner or later in history, I think the monarchy will become a thing of the past even for the country called the United Kingdom.

Nothing against the Royal Family as people, I just don't believe in power by birthright, and I don't think one should be Head of State and Head of the Church of England just because they happened to be born in the right family. Of course I would object to an American-style Presidential system in it's place, I'd rather we just changed as little as possible and just went to elect a President to fill the role of the Queen. Very little would change aside from the fact our Head of State would be an elected individual. Such is the lack of any real change that I'm not really so passionate about doing it immediately. I can easily live my life without it happening.

Though I must say, I do enjoy seeing the Queen at public events where she just looks completely disinterested and like she just wants to go back to Buckingham Palace to watch Bargain Hunt! I can't help but feel for the woman who I think should be allowed to retire at this point if she wishes to do so. As an individual she's pretty decent given how she doesn't really have to pay tax but chooses to do so anyway.

 

[pdeaves]

These photos are just about the limit of my interest: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdeaves/41472907554/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdeaves/41293539865/ (two GWR 'souvenirs'). I understand that Windsor & Eton Central station was temporarily renamed today, too.

 

[GB]

I wish them luck and happiness but its just another wedding as far as I am concerned. I might be a bit more interested in a royal event when either the Queen passes or a new monarch is crowned (or both) but thats about as far as my interest goes with royalty.

 

[radamfi]

There is no need for marriage to be registered formally. By all means have a party and religious ceremony etc. but there is no need for the state to be involved in registering the partnership. As a society we pay lawyers enough money as it is without having to pay them for the consequences of marriage.

 

[47802]

Pride in what exactly? Pride that the taxpayer has footed the reported £32m for the wedding? Pride in the fact the taxpayer has footed the bill for the enormous security costs? What exactly is there to have pride in exactly? The BBC reported that despite the media shoving this wedding down everyone’s throats for the last few weeks a high percentage of the country couldn’t care less if there was a royal wedding on or not.

And the Business and Tourism that the Monarchy of this country generates is estimated to be far in excess of the costs of the Royal Family.

Yes you can argue that concept of the Monarchy is outdated and we should be a Republic in Principal, but then I think who will the head of the country will be a President like America and end up with a muppet like Trump, or some kind of non political figure head who nobody has heard of, and on that basis I think we should probably leave things as they are.

I think both William and Harry will modernise the Monarchy, and possibly even Charles may do as I think they all realise it wont survive otherwise.

I think the wedding itself was very nice and a bit different, the American Preacher was great although he perhaps went on a little bit too long, and the Gospel Choir

 

[Mag_seven]

but then I think who will the head of the country will be a President like America and end up with a muppet like Trump

But if we end up with a muppet as head of state, we, unlike the Americans, can't vote them out!

 

[47802]

But if we end up with a muppet as head of state, we, unlike the Americans, can't vote them out!

But then our Head of State isn't part of the Government and protocol demands that they remain largely neutral. So we can have President that is part of the Government and Leader, or we can have neutral Non Political President, are either of those choices actually better? and neither would bring in the revenue to this country that the current Monarchy does, but I sure the left wingers wouldn't care about that, lets get rid of the Monarchy and the City of London to suit there crappy Socialist dogma, never mind the economy is going to pot.

 

[greyman42]

I watched it and found it very entertaining. I think the Royals are worth every penny as they bring a lot to the economy through tourism.

 

[Darandio]

And the Business and Tourism that the Monarchy of this country generates is estimated to be far in excess of the costs of the Royal Family.

Indeed, all generated for the 'country' of London.

 

[BlueFox]

And the Business and Tourism that the Monarchy of this country generates is estimated to be far in excess of the costs of the Royal Family.

Tourism won't be affected that much if we get rid of the monarchy. The history will still exist. The palaces, castles etc will still exist, and will still be tourist attractions.

 

[47802]

Tourism won't be affected that much if we get rid of the monarchy. The history will still exist. The palaces, castles etc will still exist, and will still be tourist attractions.

Absolute Rubbish yes there would still be some Tourism but the appeal is its still a live Monarchy.

 

[BlueFox]

Absolute Rubbish yes there would still be some Tourism but the appeal is its still a live Monarchy.

Really?

Most people will come to see the places, and to immerse themselves in the history. They'll still be able to do that.


And even if they do earn more than they cost, we should still get rid of them for the good of society. In an era where politicians talk about social mobility it's ridiculous that people can be born into such a privileged position. Having the monarchy helps to perpetuate the "us and them" mentality between the upper classes and the rest of us.

 

[Bromley boy]

And even if they do earn more than they cost, we should still get rid of them for the good of society. In an era where politicians talk about social mobility it's ridiculous that people can be born into such a privileged position. Having the monarchy helps to perpetuate the "us and them" mentality between the upper classes and the rest of us.

I don’t agree with this at all.

Social immobility is a problem, of course, but that has far more to do with the cost of higher education, high house prices, a poor state education system that fails to equip pupils from poor backgrounds to achieve their potential etc.

There are many, many factors driving inequality. The existence of the royal family is a long way down the list!

 

[trash80]

Indeed the whole aristocratic hierarchy and system is this country's greatest ill.

We need an elected non-political head of state.

By the way keeping a monarch just because of tourism is one of the most stupid reasons i've ever heard. This is a country not a fair ground (even if it does sometimes resemble one).

 

[Bromley boy]

We need an elected non-political head of state.

Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? How does an elected head of state remain non-political?!

 

[Dave1987]

Once the current Queen is gone then the Monarchy will die. Unless they show themselves to be mere mortals and not use their inherited position for their own gain then the British public will grow tired of paying for their extravagant lifestyle.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

And the Business and Tourism that the Monarchy of this country generates is estimated to be far in excess of the costs of the Royal Family

and neither would bring in the revenue to this country that the current Monarchy does, but I sure the left wingers wouldn't care about that, lets get rid of the Monarchy and the City of London to suit there crappy Socialist dogma, never mind the economy is going to pot.

Absolute Rubbish yes there would still be some Tourism but the appeal is its still a live Monarchy.

I've heard this argument several times, but is there any actual evidence to support the claim that the Monarchy brings in tourism and plays such a significant factor in tourism that our economy would suffer severely if we were to abolish it? Because from what I'm seeing on Visit Britain, none of the tourist attractions on the most recent annual survey seem to show any attractions that are currently occupied by any member of the Royal Family. There are Royal Attractions, but I don't think any of them are occupied and are fully open to the public.

From that I would conclude that Buckingham Palace could potentially see more tourists if the monarchy was scrapped and the palace was open to the public all year round. Either way, there's nothing to suggest tourism would go down if we scrapped the monarchy. I mean people come here for our museums, shopping and sights, not to potentially catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew or the Queen. I've been to Buckingham Palace several times, the most recent three times being in August, the time of the school holidays and sunny weather, and there has been people there, but nothing so overwhelming in my personal experience.

 

[Bromley boy]

Once the current Queen is gone then the Monarchy will die. Unless they show themselves to be mere mortals and not use their inherited position for their own gain then the British public will grow tired of paying for their extravagant lifestyle.

Will it?

The monarchy is as popular now as ever, if not more so - even Australia voted to retain the queen as head of state.

The future is assured through the young royals. William and Harry both seem like very decent blokes. Born into privilege, yes, but both take their positions seriously. Harry in particular flew an Apache helicopter on the front line in Afghanistan. I have an immense amount of respect for anyone who does that, regardless of their background.

 

[Howardh]

In the Netherlands, it appears that on King's Day and any major royal ceremony they come out en masse, party, paint the town orange and don't seem to have these arguments as to whether it's worth it, uniting the Kingdom, cost etc etc.

I could be wrong there could be a huge anti-royalist sentiment there that I'm unaware of. However, if I'm right, is it because their royalty is smaller, more attached to the people, more pragmatic? I've seen the King of the Netherlands at a football game (and only just missed him at the hockey last year). The only time I see our monarch is when I'm paying for something.

Discuss??