# Royal Wedding 2011



## stockGURU (20 April 2011)

Christopher Hitchens penned a predictably cynical take on the upcoming nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton for Slate.



> *Beware the In-Laws*
> Does Kate Middleton really want to marry into a family like this?
> By Christopher Hitchens
> Posted Monday, April 18, 2011, at 11:35 AM ET
> ...




http://www.slate.com/id/2291497/

Earlier this week American comedian Jerry Seinfeld called it "a circus act" and the mainstream media has certainly been milking it for all its worth over the last few months.

So what do you think about the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton? Are you looking forward to it or sick of hearing about it?


----------



## Glen48 (20 April 2011)

It will be good for the tourist industry and associated companies.

I send my money in and didn't get a ticket to the wedding so will watch it on TV unless the other cartoon's are on.
Gillard marying Bob Bown next?


----------



## Ruby (20 April 2011)

stockGURU said:


> Christopher Hitchens penned a predictably cynical take on the upcoming nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton for Slate.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/id/2291497/




Great article by Christopher Hitchens!!!

The Wedding??   Yawn....... nevertheless I shall watch it...... gotta see The Dress!!   

The monarchy is such a ridiculous anachronism.   The only thing it is good for is the spectacle it provides.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2011)

I will also watch some of it.  Like Ruby I'm curious about The Dress which will undoubtedly cost more than the GDP of a few nations.

I also have to confess to some liking for tradition in a world where change has displaced much that was imo of value.  That's not to undervalue progress, but rather to lament the passing of some of the old fashioned courtesies and community values which often characterised earlier times.

And yes, I know such a comment has nothing apparently to do with the royal wedding and that quite possibly I'm being illogical.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 April 2011)

Julia said:


> And yes, I know such a comment has nothing apparently to do with the royal wedding and that quite possibly I'm being illogical.




Being illogical would do you the world of good, Julia.     It does wonders for me.


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2011)

:sleeping:

Good luck to them though.


----------



## Greg (20 April 2011)

I think that the royal wedding will be a very positive thing for the UK, for tourism and an overall "lift" for all the Brits. I wish this young couple well. I hope the terrorists can be kept at bay and that none of the "loony fringe" steal the day from them.
As for yearning for some of the old-fashioned and traditional aspects of such an event; I say, 'why not?'.  Just because some thing is old and steeped in tradition, it doesn't mean that it has to be changed, just for the heck of it. Let the pomp and ceremony begin I reckon. 
Many of us say that we follow whatever the yanks do. Well there's one other truism and that is the fact that the yanks don't have a royal family; and oh, how they would love one.
Like many others, I also believe that this event has already been milked to within an inch of its life by an otherwise news-starved media, but at least this story is a positive one and hopefully has a happy ending for everyone. It would just be nice if we could have coverage that isn't mocking the event or taking constant cheap shots (in the name of humour); can we manage that do you think? I hope so; it would show that we are so much more mature than we sometimes appear.
Good luck to them both!


----------



## Ruby (20 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> Good luck to them though.




Yes indeed, and I hope the media allows them to have some private life.


----------



## Tink (21 April 2011)

I have always liked Diana and he reminds me very much of her in looks.

I think she did alot for the Royal family.

I wish them both all the best.

Yep I will probably watch it : )


----------



## Knobby22 (21 April 2011)

I am definitiely watching the Royal wedding on ABC2.

The Chaser are doing their version. They are going to have their own fake royal watchers to interview (lets face it the real ones are pretty faux) and looking at the line of succession. Should be great!!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 April 2011)

Dame Edna is doing a broadcast.  Might be funny.  Hopefully Madge is in attendance.


----------



## traderboi29 (23 April 2011)

i think it's going to be a great event.......


----------



## youngone (23 April 2011)

Yawnnn.....


----------



## bellenuit (24 April 2011)

I read a letter in The West Australian from some bloke the other day who said he could not understand what all the fuss was about and that he was going to completely ignore the event.  That just seemed funny to me. If he regarded it as a non event to be ignored, then why write to the paper about it? 

Rather than just ignore it, he wants to make sure everyone else knows he is ignoring it. I think that is more reflective of a snobbish attitude than general disinterest.


----------



## Tightwad (24 April 2011)

I'll be ignoring it.  Maybe the guy was having a crack at people who are way too absorbed in it.


----------



## Slipperz (24 April 2011)

It is a reflection of the Commonwealth and who is considered important.

Americans look like getting a token ambassador. No invite for the Obamas!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8469683/Royal-wedding-guest-list-who-will-be-attending-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middletons-big-day.html


----------



## nunthewiser (24 April 2011)

I will be attending as a special guest of Kate.

we go way back


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 April 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> I will be attending as a special guest of Kate.




Not as stuffed pig at the reception is it.


----------



## Julia (24 April 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Americans look like getting a token ambassador. No invite for the Obamas!



That seems incredibly rude.  Why would they exclude the President of the US and his wife when they are inviting so many heads of obscure states and other people no one has ever heard of.

Seems like a very unnecessary and inappropriate snub.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> I will be attending as a special guest of Kate.
> 
> we go way back




Wish her the best from me.

gg


----------



## Slipperz (24 April 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Not as stuffed pig at the reception is it.




bwahahahahaha 

classic!


----------



## Boggo (25 April 2011)

The poor old poms still haven't worked out that adopting a gracious submissive peasant role keeps this "blueblood" freak show going although I wouldn't mind going to this party that Williams' half brother is hosting...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-man-takes-charge-wedmin--bacon-butties.html

This extract from Punch sums it up...

*The Punch - April 24, 2011 - 5:59am*

_Britain’s Royal Family is now officially a very old, very profitable freak show.

The proof lies in the sheer scale of outrageous memorabilia being flogged by even the most respectable of merchants and the simply silly stories making news in the lead-up to the royal nuptials.

They’re certainly a cute couple, and through a long tawdry process of elimination William and Kate actually seem fairly functional for royal folk. But is anyone taking this circus seriously – other than an opportunity to seriously cash in?_


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2011)

Tim Mathieson is not too happy about being dragged to a wedding. He doesn't believe in marriage and is afraid it might give Julia ideas. Weddings sometimes make older women go clucky.


----------



## LifeChoices (29 April 2011)

*Royal Wedding*

Anyone watching it? I guess if you've got a tv it's all that's on.

I'm actually quite enjoying it. The english have a real knack with all the pomp and ceremony stuff.

Jullia Gillard looked like a right twatt with her silly hat that covered half her face. I wonder if she took lessons to make that walk look like she had a carrot up her ass?

I can't believe I said that - I hope she's not part of the Illuminati.


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2011)

*Re: Royal Wedding*

I doubt it.

The Illuminati have standards you know. :


----------



## springhill (29 April 2011)

*Re: Royal Wedding*

Shame the hat didn't cover her whole face.


----------



## Glen48 (29 April 2011)

*Re: Royal Wedding*

I see Beck Ham got an invite because he plays foot ball why not some good mechanic who tweaks  F1 cars??? why because you have to be in a position were you can become famous. I sent my money in for a seat still waiting..
Hope B B Q  this does send the World economy in to a tail spin..


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 April 2011)

Royal Wedding? 

Yawn...

Each to their own I suppose, but it's certainly not my thing. Might see if there's some 70's repeats on 7two, or maybe if SBS has the news on in some language I can't understand a word of... :::


----------



## tech/a (29 April 2011)

Julia said:


> That seems incredibly rude.  Why would they exclude the President of the US and his wife when they are inviting so many heads of obscure states and other people no one has ever heard of.
> 
> Seems like a very unnecessary and inappropriate snub.




Aren't you seeing a pattern here?
No Blare
No Brown
No Obama

Would seem the monarchy may not have the same taste for war as others.
Probably helped security no end!


----------



## LifeChoices (29 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Royal Wedding?
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Each to their own I suppose, but it's certainly not my thing. Might see if there's some 70's repeats on 7two, or maybe if SBS has the news on in some language I can't understand a word of... :::




Surely SBS will have some Hitler thing on or some boobies.


----------



## explod (29 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Royal Wedding?
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Each to their own I suppose, but it's certainly not my thing. Might see if there's some 70's repeats on 7two, or maybe if SBS has the news on in some language I can't understand a word of... :::




The footy's on seven.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2011)

tech/a said:


> Aren't you seeing a pattern here?
> No Blare
> No Brown
> No Obama
> ...



Tech, that's a reasonable assumption to make if it were not for the representatives of so many Middle East countries being invited, e.g. Saudi Arabia et al.

Briefly listening to comments on this on Radio National today, it seems thatthe reason Mr Blair and Mr Brown have been omitted from the 'living British PM's" list is because they are not members of some "Order of the......., ", I now forget the last word.  Apparently Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major are members of this esteemed (obscure?) order and therefore received the royal invite.

All so silly.  Why wouldn't they perfectly reasonably invite all living past prime ministers!

Anyway, the music was glorious and the bride looked elegant and composed, yet very happy, as a bride should.

As a complete aside, I sincerely hope her classic design dress will spawn copies by brides everywhere and thus dispense with the hideous sight of obese young women in strapless dresses everywhere.  So hideous.

Best wishes to William and Kate that they may have the opportunity to be together without too much interference and assaults on their privacy.


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2011)

Julia,

It's the Order of the Garter.

Gordo and bLiar would have spoilt the wedding. IMO


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Briefly listening to comments on this on Radio National today, it seems thatthe reason Mr Blair and Mr Brown have been omitted from the 'living British PM's" list is because they are not members of some "Order of the......., ", I now forget the last word.  Apparently Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major are members of this esteemed (obscure?) order and therefore received the royal invite.



 Also, Sir John Major was appointed guardian to William and Harry following the    death of their mother.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Julia,
> 
> It's the Order of the Garter.



OK, thank you.



> Gordo and bLiar would have spoilt the wedding. IMO



I have no interest in or time for either of them, but why would they have spoilt the wedding any more than the representatives of some of the warring Middle East countries where they are shooting anyone who questions the regime?

And why would the above Middle East countries' representatives be included, yet a key ally such as the USA be excluded?


----------



## Bill M (29 April 2011)

I'm posting here now because I walked out of the lounge room in total boredom, even re runs of Lost In Space would be more exciting....


----------



## explod (29 April 2011)

Latest bulletin from experts at my place

*Right Royal stuff up *

Brides hair was falling apart at the back as she approached the alter, but that's only a tid-bit

Veil was lifted on arrival at the alter, sposed to be when announced as married.  And that's shocking apparently.

Reporters just said averything went perfect.

So I dont' know.

Watching the silver price and looking good tonight.


----------



## jbocker (29 April 2011)

Someone please tell me Sarah Fergursons girls were taking the piss, wearing their hats.

oooohh, umm, No, I wasnt watching it! I was just walking past and the TV was on...


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I have no interest in or time for either of them, but why would they have spoilt the wedding any more than the representatives of some of the warring Middle East countries where they are shooting anyone who questions the regime?



Because the screwed up the UK


> And why would the above Middle East countries' representatives be included, yet a key ally such as the USA be excluded?




I believe the security implications were too great.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> I believe the security implications were too great.



OK, thanks,  makes sense.  I should have thought of that.


----------



## Tink (29 April 2011)

Aww just beautiful, Kate's dress was gorgeous 

Also liked the bridesmaids, her sisters dress

Just  love traditional weddings.

All the best to both of them  : )


----------



## Gringotts Bank (30 April 2011)

I thought it was quite entertaining.  Edna was funny.  No other country could do it as well as England.  Aussies are starting to remember what a great country it is.  Republican numbers are dwindling.  Good thing too.  I don't want Australia to be known as little china.


----------



## sails (30 April 2011)

I thought Kate handled it all very well and was certainly a lovely event to watch.  Can image the guys would have been a bit bored. 

It was certainly a well organised event even if there was the occasional slip up.  But then most weddings don't have every blink or swallow being magnified on large TVs around the world.

Will and Kate seem very much in love and yet far more in touch with reality than I have seen at other royal weddings.  I too wish them all the best for their future together.


----------



## IFocus (30 April 2011)

Got to give it to the Poms nobody can put on a show as good when it comes to a royal wedding though it was a great show Westminster Abby was brilliant.

I thought the Queen of Australia looked well to.


----------



## nunthewiser (30 April 2011)

Its good to be the King


----------



## joea (30 April 2011)

Well I think the whole world needed to see something good and positive.
They did.
Having seen the results of the royal wedding, why would we want to be a republic?
They actually have a legacy of belief! 
We are currently being held to ransom by "spin doctors".

GR.


----------



## wayneL (30 April 2011)

joea said:


> Well I think the whole world needed to see something good and positive.
> They did.
> Having seen the results of the royal wedding, why would we want to be a republic?
> They actually have a legacy of belief!
> ...




Well if we must be a constitutional monarchy (and as things stand, it is the most expedient way to prevent a dysfunctional republic model), I'm happy to have these two in that role... If only Charles will pass on the baton.


----------



## sails (30 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...I thought the Queen of Australia looked well to.




You mean the one with the flying saucer?  Was rather hoping she might have disappeared into space...

I think a dress or matching/co-ordinated outfit might have been a bit more appropriate for the occasion, however, she did pretty well considering some of her previous choices.


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2011)

Julia said:


> As a complete aside, I sincerely hope her classic design dress will spawn copies by brides everywhere and thus dispense with the hideous sight of obese young women in strapless dresses everywhere.  So hideous.




The Chinese are taking care of that.



> Royal wedding*: Chinese tailors rush to copy Kate Middleton's dress*
> In the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou, teams of tailors have already whirred into action to copy the Duchess of Cambridge's elegant wedding dress.
> 
> For one manufacturer it will take 15 to 20 days to make Kate's wedding dress but will cost considerably less
> ...




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ilors-rush-to-copy-Kate-Middletons-dress.html


----------



## Glen48 (1 May 2011)

You can see the difference between Hewitt's son's hair and Charlie's son receding hair line.


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2011)

Dame Edna before the wedding;

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/celebrity/8242778/royal-wedding-dame-edna#fact


----------



## noco (1 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Well if we must be a constitutional monarchy (and as things stand, it is the most expedient way to prevent a dysfunctional republic model), I'm happy to have these two in that role... If only Charles will pass on the baton.





I don't know whether they have changed the Royal rules, but it has always been my notion that as Charles and Carmila are both divorcees, they cannot become King and Queen. That is why his uncle, Edward 8th abdicated the throne to marry a divorcee in 1936 or 1937.

Yes, IMHO, Charles should pass the baton to Wills without a shadow of doubt. Wills would assure the continuation of the Monarchy in Australia.


----------



## Ruby (2 May 2011)

noco said:


> I don't know whether they have changed the Royal rules, but it has always been my notion that as Charles and Carmila are both divorcees, they cannot become King and Queen. That is why his uncle, Edward 8th abdicated the throne to marry a divorcee in 1936 or 1937.




Well...........   don't know if there is a 'rule' about the king being divorced.   After all, there is plenty of royal precedent!   Henry VIII was divorced twice.  Also, the wife of Charles, whoever she was, would never be queen - only queen consort.  Diana would not have been 'queen' even though she would have had the title, and I think (not sure) that as things are now, Camilla will not have that courtesy title when Charlie is king (because she is divorced)

I think there were a few other problems in the case of Edward VIII.  Wallis Simpson was not only divorced (marrying a divorcee not acceptable at the time), she was also an American (abhorent to the British people).   Edward could have married her and remained king if he had agreed to have a morganatic marriage, that is, she would not have been recongnised as, or had the title of 'queen'.  He would not accept that.

Having said all that, I think the 'rules' do seem to change as social mores change.   The whole thing is a crock anyway, in my view.  (I did watch the wedding though.  Not ashamed to admit it.  No-one does pomp and pageantry as well as the British, and who doesn't enjoy a beautiful fairytale spectacle?)


----------



## noco (2 May 2011)

Ruby said:


> Well...........   don't know if there is a 'rule' about the king being divorced.   After all, there is plenty of royal precedent!   Henry VIII was divorced twice.  Also, the wife of Charles, whoever she was, would never be queen - only queen consort.  Diana would not have been 'queen' even though she would have had the title, and I think (not sure) that as things are now, Camilla will not have that courtesy title when Charlie is king (because she is divorced)
> 
> I think there were a few other problems in the case of Edward VIII.  Wallis Simpson was not only divorced (marrying a divorcee not acceptable at the time), she was also an American (abhorent to the British people).   Edward could have married her and remained king if he had agreed to have a morganatic marriage, that is, she would not have been recongnised as, or had the title of 'queen'.  He would not accept that.
> 
> Having said all that, I think the 'rules' do seem to change as social mores change.   The whole thing is a crock anyway, in my view.  (I did watch the wedding though.  Not ashamed to admit it.  No-one does pomp and pageantry as well as the British, and who doesn't enjoy a beautiful fairytale spectacle?)




Thanks for that Ruby.

The other item of interest was in regards to Wills not wearing a wedding ring and I found out that it was his personal choice and nothing else.


----------



## jbocker (3 May 2011)

noco said:


> Thanks for that Ruby.
> 
> The other item of interest was in regards to Wills not wearing a wedding ring and I found out that it was his personal choice and nothing else.




Well with the paparazzi as they are he would not want to be caught scratching his ring!


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2012)

Pippa Middleton. So she might have a nice ****, but look at the head.


----------



## Tisme (21 May 2018)




----------



## SirRumpole (21 May 2018)

Damn, did I miss it ?

Oh that's right, a Swans game was on at the same time.


----------



## basilio (23 May 2018)

How could you miss the (next) wedding of the century ?  Actually it was good fun. Meagan is just a great person. Can only improve the Royal Family.

HOWEVER  ... if you want some cracking comments on the various participants in the festivities check out fashion critical on Facebook. Some totally drop dead observations. The ones that caught my eye circled  the deads and depressives amongst the guests !


----------

