Proud to be British

[PistoldPete2]

3 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

People selling tat on street corners and car parks in Windsor. Are you expecting this to trickle down?

And, of course, I wouldn't expect any analysis from the Express on the motives of people travelling to the UK. What proportion of those actually come to the UK for the royal wedding?

There's loads of Catholics in liverpool who will be against anything to do with Royals. The rest will whinge about everything ..the Beatles didn't stay in liverpool like doddy did, or whatever. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

20 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Who cares, not everything's about money. 

Quite.

[1of4]

23 hours ago, TimRam said:

Countess Karen Spencer was the 2nd prettiest woman at the wedding after Meghan.

 

Lady Kitty Spencer must have been the 1st prettiest woman after Meghan

[maxjam]

4 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I'm not sure that the news agency makes it any more convincing.

What I will note is that the estimate Reuters comes up with is half that the Express comes up with.

It doesn't seem that anybody is overly convinced.

Let's say for the purposes of discussion that it the £500M is right. What part of your local economy has been boosted by this shindig in Berkshire? Perhaps you live in Windsor, I don't know. Windsor strikes me as exactly the kind of place that doesn't need a boost to its economy.

I'm pretty sure Liverpool won't have seen much benefit. In fact, if the claims of popularity or this event are to be believed, all sorts of places will have suffered because people stayed at home in their droves to watch it on TV.

The first mentioned $1bn (approx £750m) the other mentioned £500m, so imo roughly in the same ballpark for guesstimates.

Regardless of whether Liverpool (or Derbyshire where I live) directly benefits from the wedding, a good chunk of the £500m flowing into the economy will be consumed by taxes.  Also as mentioned in the second article the wedding provided £100m worth of free advertising for the country.  So £35m or however much it cost well spent imo.

Whether or not you are a Royalist (and I'm not tbh) it was still an historic event that presented England in a positive light to the rest of the world.  With all the crap going on now-a-days why not simply celebrate being British and enjoy the spectacle for the day? It was arguably more entertaining than the FA Cup Final ?

[Pearl Ram]

I thought it was great, a welcome departure from doom and gloom the news channels scour the world for. It did get me wondering what it would take to get Victoria Beckham to look like she’s enjoying life, she’s the epitome of that saying money doesn’t make you happy.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Whether or not you are a Royalist (and I'm not tbh) it was still an historic event that presented England in a positive light to the rest of the world.  With all the crap going on now-a-days why not simply celebrate being British and enjoy the spectacle for the day? It was arguably more entertaining than the FA Cup Final ?

Surely you must concede that that is entirely a matter of opinion. You must be aware that there are people all over the world, as well as in Britain itself, that would see a royal wedding as a slap in the face to democratic or egalitarian principles. Many of those may consider all the fuss and media attention to be somewhat embarrassing. For me, monarchies, constitutional or otherwise cast their host country in a negative, rather than a positive light.

[ilkleyram]

17 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Surely you must concede that that is entirely a matter of opinion. You must be aware that there are people all over the world, as well as in Britain itself, that would see a royal wedding as a slap in the face to democratic or egalitarian principles. Many of those may consider all the fuss and media attention to be somewhat embarrassing. For me, monarchies, constitutional or otherwise cast their host country in a negative, rather than a positive light.

So, Highgate, (and this is genuinely trying to understand what you are arguing), you agree that the wedding was an historic event, but you feel that the wedding and its subsequent coverage presented England (and perhaps the UK as a whole) in a negative and/or embarrassing light because the Royal family and the participants aren't democratically elected

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Surely you must concede that that is entirely a matter of opinion. You must be aware that there are people all over the world, as well as in Britain itself, that would see a royal wedding as a slap in the face to democratic or egalitarian principles. Many of those may consider all the fuss and media attention to be somewhat embarrassing. For me, monarchies, constitutional or otherwise cast their host country in a negative, rather than a positive light.

Each to their own I suppose although I'm not sure why the average Joe in the street would view all the attention as embarrassing? 

The history of Britain goes back hundreds and hundreds of years, people from lots of other countries, such as America, love it as they have next to no history of their own.  It is my personal belief that yesterday was an important and historical day and one that we should, as a nation, be proud of. 

If other people from other countries didn't like it so what? I don't particularly care for the Russian or Chinese military parades for example, but they take great pride in them.

I know its becoming less than ideal to celebrate our 'Britishness' these days but yesterday was a day to stand tall, push your chest out and be proud to be British. No one died, no one fell out with Russia and no one was arguing over Brexit, it was a feelgood day to celebrate our country and to show the world we're still proud of who we are.

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

So, Highgate, (and this is genuinely trying to understand what you are arguing), you agree that the wedding was an historic event, but you feel that the wedding and its subsequent coverage presented England (and perhaps the UK as a whole) in a negative and/or embarrassing light because the Royal family and the participants aren't democratically elected

It's the very existence of a monarchy itself that casts the host country in a negative light. The weddings themselves, and all the associated media attention, are just an inevitable corollary of having a monarchy. They serve to emphasize how nonsensical the whole institution is. 

That's just my opinion obviously but i feel the notion that the rest of the world is looking on impressed, without apparently any dissenting voices, is inaccurate.

The reasons why a monarchy may be considered embarrassing hardly need to be explained.

 

[Highgate]

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Each to their own I suppose although I'm not sure why the average Joe in the street would view all the attention as embarrassing? 

The history of Britain goes back hundreds and hundreds of years, people from lots of other countries, such as America, love it as they have next to no history of their own.  It is my personal belief that yesterday was an important and historical day and one that we should, as a nation, be proud of. 

If other people from other countries didn't like it so what? I don't particularly care for the Russian or Chinese military parades for example, but they take great pride in them.

I know its becoming less than ideal to celebrate our 'Britishness' these days but yesterday was a day to stand tall, push your chest out and be proud to be British. No one died, no one fell out with Russia and no one was arguing over Brexit, it was a feelgood day to celebrate our country and to show the world we're still proud of who we are.

You have so many things in Britain that you can be justifiably proud without having to parade around the expensively adorned products of centuries of ruthlessness, greed and inbreeding.  I'm not saying the current lot are anything like their ancestors, but their ancestors were, if you go back far enough, horrendous.  Why celebrate a tradition like that?  Why not celebrate, instead, the people who struggled to wrestle power away from the monarch's grasp and give it to the people of Britain via a parliament.  It's a pity the job was never quite finished in Britain or elsewhere. 

I agree with you, it would be nice for British people to have a day to celebrate their Britishness.  Even nicer it wasn't centred around royalty or the military. There is no reason why you can't simply create such a day.  It could hardly be called racist if all races are welcome.

[ilkleyram]

10 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It's the very existence of a monarchy itself that casts the host country in a negative light. The weddings themselves, and all the associated media attention, are just an inevitable corollary of having a monarchy. They serve to emphasize how nonsensical the whole institution is. 

That's just my opinion obviously but i feel the notion that the rest of the world is looking on impressed, without apparently any dissenting voices, is inaccurate.

The reasons why a monarchy may be considered embarrassing hardly need to be explained.

 

Thanks for the explanation Highgate.

Just to take your first and last sentences (and accepting that you do agree that the wedding was actually an historical event) you look at Sweden, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Spain, New Zealand amongst many countries, including the UK, and feel they are cast into negative light by their monarchies, even though, in practice, those monarchies have relatively little actual constitutional power in comparison with the elected parliaments in each of those same countries. All monarchies have births, marriages and deaths, divorces and separations 'celebrated' in their countries.

And, I can think of many reasons why individual members of the royal family have on occasion been 'embarrassing' (from a very personal perspective - what might embarrass me may not raise a flicker with you) but I can think of many more occasions when elected representatives of all political parties, have caused embarrassment (in my opinion). What's worse - an elected politician causing an embarrassment or a non elected monarch (or member of monarch's family)?  In my view, the former. I expect more of my elected representatives.

If you were debating the influence of monarchies in Qatar or Brunei, Morocco or Saudi Arabia amongst others, as monarchies that genuinely rule their countries undemocratically then you would, in my opinion, be on stronger ground. 

[maxjam]

24 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You have so many things in Britain that you can be justifiably proud without having to parade around the expensively adorned products of centuries of ruthlessness, greed and inbreeding.

Thats like blaming me for any historical white privilege I may or may not benefit from.  Oh wait, theres a thread around here somewhere debating that and apparently I am guilty. Of everything. ☹️

 

29 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I'm not saying the current lot are anything like their ancestors, but their ancestors were, if you go back far enough, horrendous.  Why celebrate a tradition like that?  Why not celebrate, instead, the people who struggled to wrestle power away from the monarch's grasp and give it to the people of Britain via a parliament.  It's a pity the job was never quite finished in Britain or elsewhere.

Alternatively why not celebrate our Royal history that is revered in many, many countries?  They don't cause us much trouble, well apart from the odd Prince Phillip gaff ? and they do a lot of good for the country 'working' pretty much right up until they drop. They may live in luxury but having zero privacy from birth to death is a hell of a price and not one I'd wish to pay.

 

34 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I agree with you, it would be nice for British people to have a day to celebrate their Britishness.  Even nicer it wasn't centred around royalty or the military. There is no reason why you can't simply create such a day.  It could hardly be called racist if all races are welcome.

It would be great to have a proper British day, St George's Day would do, make it a bank holiday and celebrate Britain.

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Thats like blaming me for any historical white privilege I may or may not benefit from.  Oh wait, theres a thread around here somewhere debating that and apparently I am guilty. Of everything. ☹️

 

Alternatively why not celebrate our Royal history that is revered in many, many countries?  They don't cause us much trouble, well apart from the odd Prince Phillip gaff ? and they do a lot of good for the country 'working' pretty much right up until they drop. They may live in luxury but having zero privacy from birth to death is a hell of a price and not one I'd wish to pay.

 

It would be great to have a proper British day, St George's Day would do, make it a bank holiday and celebrate Britain.

This is quite revealing. St George's Day is not a 'British' day at all.

And it almost goes without saying that I disagree with everything in the second paragraph.

[Highgate]

2 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Thanks for the explanation Highgate.

Just to take your first and last sentences (and accepting that you do agree that the wedding was actually an historical event) you look at Sweden, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Spain, New Zealand amongst many countries, including the UK, and feel they are cast into negative light by their monarchies, even though, in practice, those monarchies have relatively little actual constitutional power in comparison with the elected parliaments in each of those same countries. All monarchies have births, marriages and deaths, divorces and separations 'celebrated' in their countries.

And, I can think of many reasons why individual members of the royal family have on occasion been 'embarrassing' (from a very personal perspective - what might embarrass me may not raise a flicker with you) but I can think of many more occasions when elected representatives of all political parties, have caused embarrassment (in my opinion). What's worse - an elected politician causing an embarrassment or a non elected monarch (or member of monarch's family)?  In my view, the former. I expect more of my elected representatives.

If you were debating the influence of monarchies in Qatar or Brunei, Morocco or Saudi Arabia amongst others, as monarchies that genuinely rule their countries undemocratically then you would, in my opinion, be on stronger ground. 

What does it matter what constitutes an historical event?  My breakfast was an historical event.

If you mean an historic event, then that's a matter of opinion. It certainly was for the media and I suppose many onlookers. 

Yes all those countries you've mentioned that maintain monarchies with limited power, such as is the case in the UK, are embarrassing themselves to some extent. Any system of government which includes a monarchy is flawed in my opinion and should be corrected. However it's not such a serious concern in these countries, scarcely worth of mention except when attention is drawn to it, such as during a royal wedding.

Whether or not individual royal or individual MP does something embarrassing is beside the point altogether. They are both well capable of letting themselves down I'm sure, in the UK and anywhere. What matters is whether their position is merited and justifiable in the first place.  Incidentally it's interesting that you expect less from your head of state, in terms of behaviour, than you might expect from your local MP.  An misbehaving politician is easily punished at the next election....just what course of action can the population take against an embarrassing royal? 

As for the absolute monarchies..the problems in these countries goes way beyond 'embarrassing' or being 'cast in a negative light'.  Their continuing existence is nothing short of a prolonged crime against humanity. 

 

[Phoenix]

2 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

I thought it was great, a welcome departure from doom and gloom the news channels scour the world for. It did get me wondering what it would take to get Victoria Beckham to look like she’s enjoying life, she’s the epitome of that saying money doesn’t make you happy.

I was told that she doesn't smile for fear of getting 'crow's-feet' lines by her eyes. Vanity. thou art woman, to mis-quote the Bard..

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

This is quite revealing. St George's Day is not a 'British' day at all.

You probably already know, but for those that don't a (very) short history of St George here;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/st-georges-day-2016-who-was-saint-george-why-is-he-englands-patron-saint-st-george-dragon-slay-kill-a6997016.html

If you want someone to 'embody the characteristics the kingdom wanted to project to the outside world' whilst also representing multiculturalism you could do a lot worse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/st-georges-day-2016-six-reasons-why-englands-patron-saint-is-a-perfect-symbol-of-multiculturalism-a6996771.html

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting it had to be St George's Day, but 'a' day would be a nice thing to celebrate.

[Highgate]

13 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Thats like blaming me for any historical white privilege I may or may not benefit from.  Oh wait, theres a thread around here somewhere debating that and apparently I am guilty. Of everything. ☹️

 

Alternatively why not celebrate our Royal history that is revered in many, many countries?  They don't cause us much trouble, well apart from the odd Prince Phillip gaff ? and they do a lot of good for the country 'working' pretty much right up until they drop. They may live in luxury but having zero privacy from birth to death is a hell of a price and not one I'd wish to pay.

 

It would be great to have a proper British day, St George's Day would do, make it a bank holiday and celebrate Britain.

I think the perfectly relevant to consider the history of an institution when considering that institution's merit. I didn't claim that any individual royal should feel guilty for the sins of their predecessors, so I think your 'white privilege' comparison is invalid.

The only explanation I have for the second paragraph is that you and have completely different understanding of the word 'revered'. 

As has already been pointed out to you, St. George's Day isn't an appropriate choice for a British National Day.  You'll need to create a whole new one.  If you want to stick to the saint theme you could try St. Aidan of Lindisfarne.  He was Irish, but then St. Patrick was British...call it a swap deal. 

[maxjam]

10 minutes ago, Highgate said:

The only explanation I have for the second paragraph is that you and have completely different understanding of the word 'revered'.

Double checked 'revered' to make sure I understood the word correctly; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/revered

yup, I do.

10 minutes ago, Highgate said:

As has already been pointed out to you, St. George's Day isn't an appropriate choice for a British National Day.  You'll need to create a whole new one.  If you want to stick to the saint theme you could try St. Aidan of Lindisfarne.  He was Irish, but then St. Patrick was British...call it a swap deal. 

I replied to AndyinLiverpool re. St George above.  I didn't say he was my only choice, but he is a decent choice. A day to celebrate Britain and the British way of life would be a good move imo. 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

I remember when the Queen visited Derby in 1977. I had never seen the Queen in the flesh before (or since), so I decided to go down to the Market Place to have a look.

I was standing next to a fella, probably in his fifties, who was a lot taller than me (I'm just over 6 ft.) and built like a brick outhouse.

He was crying like a baby and the tears were pouring down his cheeks in torrents.

I still don't understand to this day what that was about. Can anybody enlighten me?

The nearest thing that I could compare it to is the screaming, fainting and mass adulation of young girls at Beatles concerts.

I suspect it probably had something to do with the war.

[Highgate]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Double checked 'revered' to make sure I understood the word correctly; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/revered

yup, I do.

I replied to AndyinLiverpool re. St George above.  I didn't say he was my only choice, but he is a decent choice. A day to celebrate Britain and the British way of life would be a good move imo. 

Well then I simply dispute the fact that they are revered around the globe.

St. George is in fact a bad choice, as patron of a putative British National Day. How do think the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish of a British persuasion would feel about a man that, in Britain, is associated exclusively with England.  Not a great way to kick off a day dedicated to British unity.

Not to mention that he had absolutely nothing to do with Britain, ever.  Alright, I did mention it.  Apart from that, I think the idea of a British National Day isn't a bad one at all.  As long as you give the royals the boot as part of the inaugural celebrations.