So...who ELSE thinks the Royal Wedding thing makes an even better case for abolishing monarchy?

[Ken Burch]

In the UK, obviously, but, everywhere else as well.

Isn't this really a sign that we're WAAAAAAYYYYY the hell past the time when the world still needs kings 'n queens 'n stuff?

[notesdev]

1. If you need royalty to worship

just get a cat

[Ken Burch]

2. Very True

[dixiegrrrrl]

59. LOLS !!!!!!!!!

[Tx4obama]

3. I enjoyed watching the wedding, it was very beautiful. And lots of funny hats there too. n/t

[Kablooie]

4. It does just the opposite. It's designed to make tiny, new monarchs.

But her dress was sure a corker, weren't it?

[JackRiddler]

46. Indeed, by introducing Constantine Glueckburg as the "king" of Greece they show their true colors.

Among other items. No one should pretend this is an exclusively British matter, when it involves an endorsement of the man who helped destroy Greek democracy in the 1960s and who schemes to do so again.

These are the bloodline supremacists of the world celebrating themselves, with cheers from the "commoners" whom they think of as dirt.

[theHandpuppet]

68. Yeah, and it only cost 400 thou

But of course these pampered purebreds earn their money the hard way... sucking an extravagant living off the public teat.

[blueamy66]

93. I posted something about the price in another thread.

Disgusting waste of fucking money. If I was a citizen of the UK and saw how much that ugly dress cost, I'd be fucking furious.

Even if it really cost ONLY $40k...still a disgusting waste of fucking money.

It makes me sick.

I found a beautiful dress for my wedding for $250.

Again, it makes me sick.

[pnwmom]

5. I think that, for the English, the monarchy is a deeply felt symbol

of national unity -- and it happens to have some tourism value as well.

I also read today that the cost of maintaining the royal "list" works out to about 62 pence per year per citizen. Apparently they think it's worth it.

[JI7]

7. yes, they don't see the "royals" as their rulers. but more as a part of history/culture

a part of them.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Yes - good value 62p p.a. each.

What has the US got for the equivalent of $1 / person ?

Its also worth remembering that the Queen is Head of State to 3 billion people , The Commonwealth , which dwarfs the total population of the US.

[fishwax]

102. I think she is only head of state to the Commonwealth Realms, which have about 134 million people

She's not the head of state of India, for example, even symbolically.

[dipsydoodle]

110. My mistake

You're perfectly correct. The figure I mentioned is the total population of the The Commonwealth.

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

47. An endorsement of the pretender who would end democracy in Greece is no longer a British matter.

The parasite royalty of many nations gathered to have their "sovereignty" confirmed before the world.

[Ken Burch]

119. Down with those royal pretenders.

That's the pretenders, not The Pretenders...





I'm still a loyal subject of Chrissie Hynde.

[FarPoint]

6. I enjoy the monarchy ....

It connects present day with history. I find protocol important as well...I need to know where the social boundary line lies. I am comfortable with this.

[Kalun D]

8. Like America Is Doing Any Better?

With it's corporatocratic oligarchy? With it's tweedle-dee tweedle-dum duopoly political parties?

[Ken Burch]

18. Didn't say the States were doing better.

And in some ways, I think we may have more royalty groupies than the UK does.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. People who enjoyed watching the wedding

for ONE DAY hardly qualify as "royalty groupies," "Anglophiles" or any other derogatory name-calling that has been used. Good goddess, it was ONE DAY. :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

42. anglophile

is hardly derogatory.

anglophile : a person who greatly admires or favors England and things English

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Thanks.

I'm quite familiar with the definition. The problem was the way in which it was used by a few gotta-rain-on-everyone's-parade DUers to deride those who enjoyed the wedding.

[calimary]

123. +1

Anglophile here. I've long been one. I love the history and pageantry and I find the tracing of blood lines utterly fascinating, AND such things as how facial and other physical traits pass from one generation to another. I love that linkage and I'm fascinated by it. I think it's probably because I don't have ANY of my own that I can be sure of.

That kind of stuff is EXTREMELY interesting to someone like me, who was adopted. Because I could never do that at any extended family gatherings and really feel part of it. I used to find myself staring at various faces when we'd go to dinner at my in-laws' house, back in the day when everybody was around all the time. And you could see chins repeating through several generations. And eye color. And height tendencies and baldness tendencies and stuff - I'm a sucker for those things. My dad told me toward the end that he really was my dad. So I guess that's where I get the full head of thick hair that I've always had - assuming I can take what he said as fact (he often embellished things).

So when I see pictures of the royal family and those old paintings and early photographs and you see the receding chins and the shapes of the noses and the hairlines on the men - it's just those details I can appreciate a lot. Because I don't have them available, for myself. Probably why I gaze at my own children. My daughter has that family chin, for example, and the heart-shaped face and blue eyed-light haired coloring my husband has (well, til he turned gray). EVERYONE has said for years that my son looks like me. I've heard that since he was in preschool. They're the only bloodlines I know of, that I can be absolutely certain are part of me. Sometimes I envy people like the royals who know where and who they came from and how far back they can trace their lineage. And if they can't do it, there are centuries' worth of historians and biographers who've done the research for them already. THAT, to me, is real privilege.

Oh yeah - and I've looked. I've even had a search undertaken. So far, nothing.

[pnwmom]

90. It's inaccurate for many of us. I'm not an anglophile,

I'm a weddingophile. And a hatophile and a lots-of-smiling-faces-ophile.

Just for a change. I wouldn't want all this on a daily basis, but once every 30 years or so doesn't seem like too much.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. If they do that, who'd be the head of state here?

I'd rather have our system with the Governor General representing the Queen than what the US has...

[Bill McBlueState]

38. that's a feature of the system; I agree

It makes for better government if the head of state and the head of government are different people.

[wickerwoman]

10. We've still got celebrities and legacy families in the US.

They aren't called "royalty" but they seem to serve the same psychological need.

We should be over inherited privilege but we aren't, even in America.

And at least in the UK, nobility is still tied to feudal concepts of duty and noblesse oblige while in the US we get the Bush twins running around naked in hotels in Brazil and the sons of captains of industry "fighting the war of ideology on the home front" while the poor kids get cut to shreds.

I don't think we need to abolish privilege (if that's even possible)- I think we need to reaffirm that it comes with a cost and with responsibilities to society. The great 19th century industrialists poured their money into public buildings and charities. Today they jet off to Thailand to snort cocaine off of underaged hookers and build guarded compounds to protect themselves from the ecological and societal consequences of their pillaging.

[chollybocker]

11. pasty white wealth and privilege

my first and last post on the subject.

my rec set this thread back to zero kb. lulz

[Ken Burch]

12. Who knew DU had this many monarchists?

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I'm not really a monarchist. I'm just okay with the way things are...

What I really don't understand, and I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but what does it matter to Americans? It's not like the US is part of the Commonwealth or the Queen is its head of state...

[Ken Burch]

17. I'm just being internationalist, and feel a sense of solidarity with the anti-monarchist Left

in the UK.

It doesn't directly affect the U.S., true, but I admire those in Britain who are trying to rid the place of an archaic, expensive, and, well, increasingly silly institution.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. What are those guys wanting to replace it with? Something like the US system would be silly...

While it doesn't affect the US at all, abolishing the monarchy would have a direct effect on the country I live in. I don't want some stupid obscenely expensive Presidential circus like what happens there in the US. I just think there's nothing wrong with the system we've got, so why change it?

[Ken Burch]

22. it could be what Ireland does...have a powerless, cermonial elected head of state

Wouldn't have to have a huge salary or a palace. Just a sash to wear at ribbon cuttings.

I'm against any vestiges of aristocracy anywhere...even in MY country.

I respect your feelings, Violet, but we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. That sounds exactly like our Governor-General..

They're powerless and ceremonial, the only difference being that they're appointed by the Queen on advice from our elected Prime Minister. So sometimes we get crap ones, and sometimes we get good ones. But at least there's no chance of getting some wanker like Paul Hogan or the latest star of the latest footy sex-scandal or some minor celebrity who |appeared in Big Brother or Neighbours. Mind you, I personally think our Kylie would make a great President. She's fierce and people would take her seriously.

If you hate aristocracy or snobby class structure, you'd absolutely love it here. We're an egalitarian and close to classless society...

btw, I respect yr feelings too, Ken. It's kind of fun to find stuff we disagree on :hi:

[Ken Burch]

101. Fair enough.

My historical choice might've been Ned Kelly...just to see Victoria's head explode.

[a la izquierda]

54. You keep hitting on this false meme

yep, I'm a monarchist because I'm interested in history.
FAIL.

[Ken Burch]

104. I'm interested in history, including royal history, myself.

n/t.

[a la izquierda]

124. Well then what the hell, man?

Why on earth do you keep pushing this idea that there are a bunch of monarchists on DU?

[Ken Burch]

125. It was mainly the "how dare you!" tone I've been getting in this thread.

If you're not, you're not and I meant you no offense.

[a la izquierda]

126. Oh, okay. Sweet.

Sorry for being snark-tastic.

[Fool Count]

15. I don't know, to my mind the Royal Wedding is the only

reason to keep it, actually. Think about it, those royal weddings (divorces, affairs, funerals, etc.)
is the single rational raison d'etre for the modern constitutional monarchy. They generate a lot of
on-air and in-press coverage which results in large amount of commercial advertising beneficial to
mass media and advertisers (and one may even argue the public at large). That's all the royals really are -
the coverage-generating celebrities. They were Paris Hilton before there was Paris Hilton. Without those
weddings and funerals they are not serving any useful purpose and would definitely need to be rid of.
So staging a good and profitable wedding is the only means of self-preservation for the monarchy.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

16. I quite like them...

Sure we don't need them but every country needs someone a symbol and for the UK and a large part of the commonwealth they're just that.

And besides, they look good on my money.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Have you got the Queen on the back of yr coins? I like watching her age on ours n/t

[TheCanadianLiberal]

25. Shes is...

On the front of all of our coins and on the 20$ bill.

I agree about her aging on them. I've never lived with anyone else on our coins so it'll be odd when she's no longer on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. She's on our $5 note...

I'm like you and never known coins to have anyone else on them....

[polly7]

35. I'd really miss seeing her on our money if they ever change it. The same

with a lot of our stamps, I have a small collection and it really is interesting watching her age on them. The modern-day monarchy has hurt no-one and many of the members have, and do, perform valuable roles in raising awareness of the environment, the arts, history, and for many social and charitable causes.

[Ken Burch]

103. It'd make a better story if she ONLY aged on the money

That would be a Wilde situation, if I do say so myself.

[cali]

21. I think if the brits want their monarchy, it's their business.

don't like it? don't live there. Oh, you don't live there, you're just in solidarity with the poor oppressed brits who have been agitating for centuries to throw off the yoke of the monarchy. Except that by a large majority the brits want their monarchy.

Your post is arrogant as hell.

[Ken Burch]

23. No it isn't. I'm not imposing anything on anyone and everybody's free to disagree

Excuse me for being against an inherently reactionary institution that has no positive role in the world.

Why are you touchy about this, exactly? I'm ok with people in other countries criticizing this country. Why is there any difference between them doing that and me saying this? Lighten up.

[cali]

24. clearly, the majority of people who live in GB, disagree with you

Who the fuck are you to tell them it has no positive role?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. It's not just their monarchy. It's ours too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm#Current_Commonwealth_realms

I'm not a monarchist and I'm not a republican, and have thought that the monarchy could do with being less stuffy and staid at times. Having said that, I voted against Australia becoming a republic back when we had a referendum on it, and I'm pretty sure many other Australians voted the same way. I know I've not been backwards in coming forwards with my sometimes brutal criticism of things related to American politics, though the monarchy isn't a political thing, so it's probably not the best comparison. So I guess it's pretty much going both ways when Americans step in and opine on the monarchy. The way I see it is they can say it all they like but it's not like what they say has an effect on anything. It's people like me who vote to retain the monarchy that make the difference.....

[Ken Burch]

100. I'm fully aware that my opinion doesn't carry much weight in the Commonwealth.

No offense to you intended, Violet.

[Ken Burch]

99. I have as much right to express my opinion on that as people in other countries

have the right to express their rights on things in the U.S.

Everyone has the right to express their views on all other countries.

What's it to you?

It's hardly as if I'm persecuting anyone here.

[NashVegas]

118. You Have No Right to Demand Your Opinion Be Taken Seriously By Anonymous Message Board Users

[Ken Burch]

121. They don't have to take it seriously if the don't want to.

But they're not entitled to tell me to shut up.

[LynneSin]

39. No positive role? Is your head in a ditch buried in sand?

I only wish we had a Royal Family. Instead 'we' (meaning the USA as a whole) worship the 1% that own all our cash and are willing to go out there, bend over our ass and let them shove it to us as they, the 1%, take away all our rights as we keep finding ways to give them more money. And I'm not sure what they, the 1%, have done for us.

I think Will and even most of the time Harry (he's got a wild streak) have done alot of good charitable work not just in England but around the globe. They know that when a charity has their name attached to it they can raise even more funds. Both Will and Harry have served their country whether it's within (Wills works for the RAF Search & Rescue team.) or even in Afghanistan (Ok it was only 3 months but Harry really did want to serve).

Prince William has helped feed the hungry and has even slept on the street with the homeless to help better understand their plight (and raised millions for that too).

I think the sense of Royalty, without a doubt, has evolved thru the years but honestly, I hardly think we yanks have room to judge.

[JackRiddler]

48. The European royalty class is a large part of the "one percent" you decry. And a mafia to boot.

[polly7]

65. What are you talking about? Mafia??? nt.

[JackRiddler]

76. The globalized ruling classes, of which the European royalty are a part.

[polly7]

77. The British monarchy is not out there running prostitution rings, laundering

money, putting hits out on anyone. I assume you're joking.

[JackRiddler]

79. Laundering money? For sure.

At the very least, the Crown is the official cover for the biggest money-laundering operations in the world. (Follow link in post 57.)

Otherwise, like most billionaire old-money families, they probably don't even know themselves how many rackets they're involved in. It's probably a matter of principle not to know such common details.

[polly7]

83. So generally ........ it's just all about having too much money.

I agree that many with obscene wealth don't give back, but not in this case.

[LynneSin]

86. True but to be honest these threads is like the pot calling the kettle black

But the one thing I was trying to do was talk about someone specific who I think makes a wonderful role model for others - Prince William

[blueamy66]

94. Goody for them.

I have fed the homeless and done alot of charity work. And I don't live in a palace and drive an Aston Martin.

And I work a regular job (40+ hours a week) and make a house payment too. Oh nos...

[Ken Burch]

105. If the funds used to maintain the monarchy were used instead to deal with poverty and hunger

and unemployment...those things wouldn't exist in Britain.

To say nothing of the funds used to build and maintain those useless palaces.

And probably, Will and Harry and their Dad would be much happier.

Sorry Lynne...but some of us are for human equality and justice for all.

[NashVegas]

120. Charles Is a Great Advocate For Organics / Food Security

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince-Charles-warns-GM-crops-risk-causing-the-biggest-ever-environmental-disaster.html

[hlthe2b]

26. Interesting that it appears more Americans feel this way

than Brits, yet we Americans are ruled by a "Royal" Corporate Aristocracy with real power--who are not mere figureheads. Surveys that I have seen show that British Republicans (those who want the Parliamentary Monarchy replaced with a Parliamentary Republic) remain quite the minority. :shrug:

[cali]

28. what evidence do you have that "more Americans feel this way"?

DU?

:rofl:

[hlthe2b]

29. yes, I meant on DU

and, no, I don't think most of the populace, outside of DU, gives a shit either way.

[inna]

31. fun thread.

[MacNfries]

32. If my cat was human, he'd say monarchies are fabulous!

I've never really understood the present day value of a monarchy, but I can understand why those in the bloodline would resist its demise ... lol! I mean, if you had the job ... job spec's of just showing up and eating the best foods, traveling around on an endless vacation, sleeping in the best of motels, being catered to hand and foot, not responsible for ANYTHING but continuing the bloodline by having an heir ... all at the expense of everyone else ... wouldn't you resist as well? I have a house cat like that ... he honestly thinks its all for HIM. Pisses me off sometimes, but I can't help but admire his assumptiveness.

Prince Charles is an excellent example as to why monarchies should go the way of horse drawn carriages ... or even the Chevy Vega or Ford Pinto.

[inna]

34. lol, so true, so true (and funny, too)!

:thumbsup:


ETA: i definitely have a cat like that, too! do not necessarily agree with you on Prince Charles, though, lol!

[polly7]

36. The majority of those for whom the monarchy affects in any real way seem to disagree.

"The polls tell the wider story. In August 1997, at the height of the post-Diana hysteria, only 48% of Britons thought the country would be worse off without the monarchy. Today, that figure is 63%. Two out of three of us believe the monarchy is "relevant" to life in Britain today, although I have to confess I have never really understood what that means. Six out of 10 of us think the monarchy improves our image around the world. And despite the presence of David Beckham and Elton John, more than half of us believe the wedding celebrated "British values", compared with only 32% who thought it was about glamour and celebrity. Probably no other institution, with the possible exception of the BBC, could match approval ratings like those. Certainly no political party comes close."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/30/royal-wedding-monarchy-british-people

[JackRiddler]

49. The crown symbolizes an empire that screwed the whole world, not just Britain.

The royalty class -- the cousins and relations gathered for the ceremony -- represent an important mafia within the global money elite who are screwing everyone.

A certain Constantine Gluecksburg, the schemer who helped destroy Greek democracy in the 1960s and would like to do so again today, was announced at the ceremony as the "king" of Greece.

[pipi_k]

52. And the American government...

is totally innocent?

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people our government has murdered over the 230+ years of its existence.

[JackRiddler]

55. Allow me to agree with your completely irrelevant point!

The American government even has a federal holiday for the man who spoke a truth in 1967 that is still true today, that the US "government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

So what's your point? How does it modify anything I said?

You could also tell us about how Hitler was worse than the UK monarchs too, except... oh, look, King Edward wanted an alliance with Hitler. Maybe he felt a certain affinity in the idea of superiority by bloodline? Or maybe it was the neat costumes. Hmmmmmmm....

[pipi_k]

69. My point is

that people who live in glass houses...etc., etc.


We have a government that's done...and is still doing...some awful things.


We hardly have the right to sit here on our high horses and declare that some other country's form of government should be abolished.


I can see why lots of people around the world dislike Americans. We think we know what's good for everyone else but ourselves.


They see us as being hypocrites.

[JackRiddler]

74. US and UK are joined at the hip in a dozen imperialist adventures around the world.

And if you should catch me endorsing American exceptionalism, do let me have it with both barrels. Thanks.

[pipi_k]

84. I don't think it's a matter of what we're involved in now...

I believe the issue was that the present form of government (the Monarchy) in England should be abolished because of how it's screwed over the rest of the world.

If you're in agreement that our government should be abolished because it's been no better (even from the earliest days), then OK.

Maybe we're on the same page, only in different paragraphs?

[JackRiddler]

87. Maybe!

same page, different paragraphs, I mean.

[polly7]

53. Well, modern-day royalty hasn't screwed anyone for the last decades,

that I'm aware of.

Every nation has committed its share of atrocities, royalty or not. Glass houses, and all.

[JackRiddler]

61. Simply untrue.

[polly7]

63. What's untrue? nt.

[pipi_k]

71. sigh...

you know what's really annoying?

Non-answers with no explanation or logical reply.

As if "Simply untrue" explains it all.

No.


give facts and examples, please...

[JackRiddler]

73. I started doing so, in various posts around this thread.

See #57, for example.

I don't know where to start with your blanket statement exonerating royal families, so many of whom were represented at the ceremony (including some who still directly rule). It's a bit as though you said multinational corporations or billionaires haven't hurt anyone lately. It requires a naive view of the world, to think that the European royalty, a pretty big fraction of the global billionaire class, with major interests in some of the most predatory banks and with their fingers still in so many imperial pies, are just harmless celebrity clowns on the TV. They are not nearly so naive about themselves.

[pipi_k]

78. Acknowledging one's own

government's role in screwing over or killing other people isn't exactly "exonerating" the British Monarchy for what they've done.

It's simply saying that it's unseemly to point fingers at someone else's government when ours hasn't exactly been a model of virtue.

[JackRiddler]

81. Think about your statement...

"It's simply saying that it's unseemly to point fingers at someone else's government when ours hasn't exactly been a model of virtue."

Are you willing to apply that rule to all other governments? Is it unseemly to do that with China, or Iran, or (take your pick)?

Also, have you noticed that UK-US are joined at the hip in committing the worst of their joint atrocities?

[polly7]

80. So, your grievance is really then with people with loads of money?

It requires a jaded view of the world to ignore all the good people do, whether they have money or not.

[JackRiddler]

82. No.

[pipi_k]

50. Interesting, isn't it?

That a whole lot of people for whom the Monarchy is a total non-issue feel it should be abolished.

And I get the impression sometimes that those people feel it's their duty to push for it because the ones who live under the Monarchy are really too...stupid...(or something) to know any better.

We're Americans, you know...We know what's best for the whole world.

:eyes:


I happen to enjoy the Monarchy. But even if I didn't, it's not for me to say what's best for the British people. I mean, it's not like they're ruthless dictators or anything.

[LynneSin]

37. Coming from a country where we worship the 1% that own all our money

At least with the Royals many of them are actively out there serving their country and doing good volunteer work. Here they are just screwing us over big time as they reap in more money.

[Inspired]

40. Exactly!

[Rowdyboy]

44. Because our system of worshiping overpaid talentless nobodies is so much better?

Who the hell are any of us to criticize them? We worship dumb shit athletes and idiot heiresses so how are we any better than the Brits. At least their "royals" occasionally show a bit of class which is something you NEVER get from Lindsey Lohan or Kobe Bryant.

[JackRiddler]

56. Is that improved by worshipping the UK's overpaid (taxpayer financed) talentless billionaire

crime family, or their gathering of European and global crime families?

[polly7]

64. British taxpayers pay about 62p each per year, according to an article

I read. Whether the figure is exact or not I don't know, but considering the majority of them seem to want to keep their monarchy, that amount seems pretty reasonable when you consider the tourism dollars, jobs, money generated for all the good causes they support. What crimes have the modern-day monarchs in Britain committed?

I also read we in Canada contribute a buck-fifty per person, per year towards the Royal family. No skin of my arse ... I like em and believe they do much more good than harm.

[Rowdyboy]

88. Britians free to rid themselves of the Windsors any time they want....

They just have too much sense to kill their cash cow.

[Bunny]

45. Nope, not me. I think if the English want to keep their monarchy,

who are nothing but a family of ceremonial figureheads, why should I, or you, care? :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

57. Billionaires pushing in concert with the rest of the European royalty to promote...

the continuation of bloodline privilege and run various imperial interests around the world (check out Societe Generale, part-owned by the Belgian crown), is not just ceremonial.

The British crown administrates a global archipelago of money-laundering havens:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/477120.html

Besides about $15 billion in public wealth they get to lord over in perpetuity, Brenda's family owns billions in personal wealth with the same unsavory interests as the rest of the billionaires.

The European royalty, a large part of whom were gathered at this publicly-financed celebration of royalty, remains a part of the global predator class.

A certain Constantine Gluecksburg was announced as the "king" of Greece. That is an endorsement of those who would again undo democracy in that country.

These are unsavory characters -- the Sopranos don't rule the world either, but if they had a fancy wedding on TV that you liked watching, you still wouldn't think they weren't mobsters.

PS, sorry, Brenda would be this woman:

[Bunny]

58. *yawn* If all monarchies were abolished,

there would still be a small cabal of people that control the money. It's always been that way, getting rid of kings and queens isn't going to change anything. But keep dreaming on, maybe someday you'll get your utopian world village.

[JackRiddler]

60. And this is supposed to mean what?

There will always be a ruling class, therefore let us cheer them on and live vicariously through their televised celebrations and behave like good little commoners?

[Bunny]

72. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

75. It's a logical derivation of your apathetic pose.

[slackmaster]

51. No, I don't mind the fact that ridiculously wealthy people can throw lavish parties

At the end of the day the wedding is two people publicly announcing a commitment to each other. In the bigger picture it's no more important than two people eloping on the cheap.

Isn't this really a sign that we're WAAAAAAYYYYY the hell past the time when the world still needs kings 'n queens 'n stuff?

The British people have the power to abolish the monarchy if they choose to do so. It appears that's not what they want to do.

[Zorra]

62. Greed, gluttony, privilege, and ostentation

really ain't cool.

[Autumn]

66. I like them, enjoyed the wedding

the Monarchy is a nice bit of culture and history. I really like history. Loved all the hats and the pageantry. Kind of like our political dynasty's, only better.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. It's the choice of the Brits. Each and every one I've asked would keep the Royals...

Stay out of the affairs of other countries. It's what is the most fucked up thing about this country; our propensity to think we're better at deciding the fate of others than they are themselves.

[JVS]

70. Can't they re-organize it into some kind of sporting competition?

Something where the royal people pull pranks on each other or go through elaborate schemes to get the better of one another?

[Generic Other]

85. I like Monty Python, so why wouldn't I like the royal sideshow?

As for abolishing their privilege, I suspect it would have very little real impact. She'll still be rich and powerful. Her personal fortune--jewels, art, horses, castles--is vast. She owns Sandringham and Balmoral outright. And she has the right to use the state palaces.

Her family attends 1000s of charity functions, lends her majesty's presence at state dinners, promotes tourism, etc. And they feed the tabloid press. If Brits quit subsidizing the Queen's lifestyle and asked her to pay her own expenses wouldn't it likely cause the family to cease their charity work and stop representing the government at state social functions without really impacting their lives much? They will always be tabloid fodder. They will always hold court in a land of social climbers and heads of state will always clamor to sit at their banquet tables.

I can see why monarchy is anti-democratic and a throwback to the days of medieval serfdom, but today they are more like Disney workers in Mickey Mouse regalia. Part of what you get as the price of admission at "Ye Jolly Old England" theme park.

[LongTomH]

107. Actually, if they abolished the Monarchy,

The ex-royals would soon have lucrative careers on the boards of British corporations, and maybe not just British corps. After all, what corporation wouldn't love to have and 'HRH' listed on their board of directors?

[Ken Burch]

108. Then they should be paid Denny's/Disney theme park wages.

(and Denny's and Disney theme park people themselves should get a living wage, by contrast).

[Snoutport]

89. WE did abolish it here. We don't have any say in what another country does.

[Odin2005]

91. The royals attract tourism $$$.

[Lucian]

92. Except, you know, they're figureheads.

Nothing more.

Who do the people pay taxes to in the UK? That's who leads them.

Geez people.

[Nye Bevan]

95. Fascinating to see how many DUers are really, really bothered by the UK Royal Family (nt)

[RandomThoughts]

96. It is not the group of people.

It is those that propagate that delusion, even some of them believe it.

[Ken Burch]

106. And how many are weirdly protective of them.

n/t.

[cherokeeprogressive]

111. I'm more weirdly protective of the British right to do whatever the hell they want with regard to

their own country, its history, and its future.

I'm weird that way.

[Ken Burch]

115. They have that right.

And I have the right to my opinion.

It's not as if what I'm going to personally push the Battenbergs off the throne.

[cherokeeprogressive]

127. As I to mine. My opinion though is no more a statement of protection than yours is a call

for their demise.

Both are tantamount to farts in the wind and should be seen as such.

[ScreamingMeemie]

97. It was a thing that I watched on t.v. with my kid. The silliness of some

of my fellow DUers in freaking out over this is mind blowing. I hope you find some way to relax today. :hi:

[WinkyDink]

98. "[M]akes a case" whereat? The Hague? In your imagination? The notion is risible.

[LongTomH]

109. All in all, I did enjoy missing the Royal Wedding.

I kept the TV off all day.

Edited to add: I consider myself a bit of an Anglophile. I've enjoyed many British writers, most recently Sir Terry Pratchett. I'm just not a fan of the Royals (Unless you're talking about Kansas City's baseball team!).

[robcon]

113. I enjoyed the royal wedding immensely.

Has nothing to do with monarchies. Has everything to do with a flawless ceremony.

[blueamy66]

114. Well, heck, if I had a couple million or so $ to spend on my wedding,

I'm sure it would be flawless as well. :-)

But I sure as heck wouldn't have worn that boring dress.

[Ken Burch]

116. I like a lot of things English AND British...

a lot of the music, new and old.

Some of the politicians...people like Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone(especially in the heyday of the Greater London Council in the 1980's), Caroline Lucas(the first Green elected to the British House of Commons), the CND, and all of the activists there who stood up for peace and justice and equality and against things like capitalism, apartheid and the Empire.

A lot of the comedy and drama.

Even some of the food.

[MasonJar]

112. I loved it. The prince and princess were lovely and obviously in love.

Why do you care? If you don't like the royals, stay out of England. The royal family is the greatest British attraction and brings in multitudinous tourist dollars. The Brits know that and are smart enough to let it enrich them all.

[Texasgal]

117. I think it;s none of our business.

We have enough bullshit to deal with right here in the USA.

[BOHICA12]

Not me .....

...but you know the difference between a monarchist and a terrorist?

You can negotiate with a terrorist! :P

[AngryAmish]

122. If there are no royal wedding, where do we know where to start the fires?