LOL where's the British spirit guys?!!! This will be a historical event, just like Diana's wedding. I love the pomp and circumstance. I love the mystery of what Kate's wedding gown will look like. I'm sure it and she will be stunning. I hope it's not anything like that poofy thing Diana wore (though Di herself looked stunning). And what kind of hat will the Queen wear, lol! I love live televised events like this and I MUST watch it live.
I can't wait to see what Kate's dress looks like, where they will go on honeymoon etc. It's like a modern day fairytale... "escapism" as Michael would call it
The firefighters still contribute to actually saving lives, though--and if the royals want to have citizens help out with wedding costs, it should be an entirely optional affair, not mandatory. Regardless of whether the firefighters picketed for higher pay (they need to live off something, you know) they still serve an imperatively important purpose in their society--when your house is on fire, you're not going to want Prince William or Kate Middleton there, you're going to want a group of firemen. In short, I don't think people have an issue with the cost per se, but with the principle of mandatory contributions to a wedding they have no personal involvement with. If the royals want 63 pence from each citizen for their wedding, they should give back 63 pence for each citizen's wedding as well--and they shouldn't complain, since it's not like it would break their bank.
As for tourism making the country money--no one outside the tourism industry sees that money. The Royals in Britain are like Disneyworld to the U.S.--they're both highly attractive to foreigners, but neither really positively affects the majority of the population in any significant way.
). It is a continuation of British tradition. The Queen and the royals are representatives of Britain (as imperfect as these people are). I think it's fun. I have always wanted to visit the castle and all that. I was heartbroken when she died.Oopsie! I didn't mean to start a civil war among the British, lol! Well, I can understand all the arguments but the way I see it from this side of the pond as they say, is the monarchy has been in place for a thousand years (or something like that
I watched the special Barbara Walters did recently about the upcoming royal wedding and some guy she interviewed said that Charles to this day has someone squeeze his toothpaste for him. Now that's just odd.:wacko: Sounds like they don't do anything for themselves.
Anyway, I just remember all the hoopla surrounding Lady Diana's wedding to Prince Charles and it's nice that something positive like that will happen again before the world. The last major royal event was a very sad one...Diana's funeral.
The firefighters still contribute to actually saving lives, though--and if the royals want to have citizens help out with wedding costs, it should be an entirely optional affair, not mandatory. Regardless of whether the firefighters picketed for higher pay (they need to live off something, you know) they still serve an imperatively important purpose in their society--when your house is on fire, you're not going to want Prince William or Kate Middleton there, you're going to want a group of firemen. In short, I don't think people have an issue with the cost per se, but with the principle of mandatory contributions to a wedding they have no personal involvement with. If the royals want 63 pence from each citizen for their wedding, they should give back 63 pence for each citizen's wedding as well--and they shouldn't complain, since it's not like it would break their bank.
As for tourism making the country money--no one outside the tourism industry sees that money. The Royals in Britain are like Disneyworld to the U.S.--they're both highly attractive to foreigners, but neither really positively affects the majority of the population in any significant way.
Mikage Souji;3354433 said:That's even worse, and in any case, the system is British. It's not applicable to the whole of Europe, since the UK isn't even part of the E.U. Also, I would like for you and Linda to stop trying to shove my views in with Americans--I'm not even American. My family is from Spain, and I wasn't even born in the United States, nor did I spend my childhood there, so why on Earth would I think along their lines when I'm not even part of their culture?
As for firemen wanting higher pay--it's fair. Regardless of how you look at it, they're still more vital to society than the royals, who only rake in revenue for tourism (largely done by Americans, by the way, since there's such a fantasy as to what the royals are like in there...)
Being against unnecessary expenses doesn't make you "American." If anything, it's Americans who love to do just that.
What makes you so sure I'm not for this royal thing because I'm a commie?
One final thing: I wasn't implying that you were American but your political reasoning does resemble that of many Americans, which is understandable because that is the type of system they grew up with. The British system is most definitely applicable to the whole of Europe (apart from some exceptions such as France) regarding the role of the head of state, as it uses the typically European system of parliamentary democracy (unlike the American presidential democracy) in which the head of state, be it a monarch or a president, fulfills a largely ceremonial role. There's hardly any difference between the role of the British Queen and that of other European heads of state. In most cases, the real political power is with the Prime Minister and the government which he/she leads. The monarch or president rarely intervenes in the political process and assumes a neutral (non-partisan) position.
So no offense intended, I just assumed you were American because you stated before that you lived and studied there
Back to Will & Kate... or should I say William and Catherine?
I'm just a bit bent out of shape with seeing William and Kate's pictures everywhere I go, and hearing about them altogether. I can't wait until they get married and go away!
Really? I think the British system is one of the worst. If you feel the American system doesn't represent the people properly, you certainly wouldn't like the British system as it uses the plurality voting system (similar to US) where the winner takes all... suppose if 51% of the people in a district vote Conservative and 49% vote Labour, then the Conservatives take the seat of that district and the other 49% are not taken into account at all. It can happen that the Conservatives win the elections despite lacking an absolute majority of votes. It is disproportional and it leaves very little room for new parties to emerge. And once a government is formed (nearly always a single-party government, except now) the opposition in practice has no input at all in policy formation as it forms a minority in the Lower House (House of Commons) and thus cannot block any proposals. In most countries, this dominance is somewhat counterweighed through bicameralism (the opposition can excert more influence in the Upper House) but in Britain, the Upper House (House of Lords) has no practical influence whatsoever (and is also not democratically elected). The most extreme measure it can take is delaying a proposal for max. 1 year. So in terms of democratic representation, I personally would not consider Britain to be the ideal model. I prefer the continental European systems which are based on proportional voting, coalition governments and consensus-driven policy formation. No offense to any of the Brits here
LindaVG said:
LindaVG said:Poor guy has Charles' genes, lol. One is balding and the other's a ginger. William looks much older than he is now imo. He looked cute when he was younger though.. I used to have a crush on him when he was in his early 20s
Well, I think his dad is sexy. He's gotten finer with age, I think. Now there's a royal I wouldn't mind hearing more of. Forget William--it's all about Charles for me. 