Royal Wedding

[Alpe d'Huez]

I couldn't agree more, but why bring it up on a cycling website?

It's the cafe! Look at every other thread in here! Agree with all you said though.

Yes, Kate is an attractive woman, no doubt. But so are Charlie Sheen's goddesses, and I don't need to see them in the media anymore either.

 

[forty four]

I for one congratulate Britain, the Commonwealth and especially William for such a beautiful future queen. Beats Camilla and Charles by light years and that's something worth celebrating

but of course you realize they serve utterly no purpose in any way shape or form worth speaking of in real life.... common knowledge no??? oh p.s. i see hotter chicks daily on a ride.. enjoy the coolaid lol.... society

 

[blutto]

...found it interesting that they had to bring troops back from Afghanistan to bolster the security detail...

...and just to put the costs of stuff into perspective, if about 80 of those troops were kept in Britain for a year the savings would have more than covered the cost of the wedding....priorities...priorities..so if you conceivably had a choice between funding a supposedly useless spectacle and a spectacle that is not only useless but also massacres people, I think the former may be preferred...though your mileage may vary..

Cheers

blutto

 

[Archibald]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm so incredibly sick of the Royal Wedding. Even though it's finally over, it's still plastered all over everything. What a bunch of aristocratic glop.

America will never need royal anything.

I must be missing something here... complaining about media coverage of royals getting married, and linking it to some cowardly American bullying a brit at gun point...


As for Gillard, ACF, you can bet anything you like that that snake was lovin' being amongst it all... how naive can you get?

Loved them getting married - i got the day off, so went riding down through surrey with a kiwi mate. Brilliant quiet roads in the sunshine!! Went no where near a tv except for a dvd that night. What wedding??

 

[craig1985]

surely this should be for more private places though

Good spot.

LMAO.

 

[PedalCastro]

Royal wedding is a waste of taxpayers money and a distraction from the actual social problems in society for a short time. disgrace

 

[Christian]

For all the germanophones:

Die Ballade von William und Kate (ZDF)

 

[The Hitch]

.so if you conceivably had a choice between funding a supposedly useless spectacle and a spectacle that is not only useless but also massacres people, I think the former may be preferred...though your mileage may vary..

Cheers

blutto

Your accusing British troops in Afghanistan of massacring people.

That is a very serious accusation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...found it interesting that they had to bring troops back from Afghanistan to bolster the security detail...

...and just to put the costs of stuff into perspective, if about 80 of those troops were kept in Britain for a year the savings would have more than covered the cost of the wedding....priorities...priorities..so if you conceivably had a choice between funding a supposedly useless spectacle and a spectacle that is not only useless but also massacres people, I think the former may be preferred...though your mileage may vary..

Cheers

blutto

WoW nice work.

 

[Mambo95]

Royal wedding is a waste of taxpayers money and a distraction from the actual social problems in society for a short time. disgrace

It certainly wasn't a waste of taxpayer's money. It cost 20-30 million and for that Britain got a day of blanket positive publicity on TV channels all around the globe. If you wanted to buy that, it would cost you billions.

Secondly, if you want to spend every waking hour thinking about social problems in society, then that's your prerogative, but other people like to have some fun and enjoy themselves once in a while.

 

[LugHugger]

Your accusing British troops in Afghanistan of massacring people.

That is a very serious accusation.

it's just possible that blutto meant that the equivalent money spent on the wedding sends 80 men or women off to be 'massacred' and that perhaps if 80 soldiers are not sent because of the money spent last friday then maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

phew.

 

[pedaling squares]

It certainly wasn't a waste of taxpayer's money. It cost 20-30 million and for that Britain got a day of blanket positive publicity on TV channels all around the globe. If you wanted to buy that, it would cost you billions.

I'd agree with that. Royalty is huge business in Britain and this put it on nearly every television set, news site, and newspaper across the globe. I bet they reap millions above the costs in tourist and other associated revenue over the next several years.

 

[blutto]

Your accusing British troops in Afghanistan of massacring people.

That is a very serious accusation.

...yeah, if I had said that, you would be right...but I didn't...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

it's just possible that blutto meant that the equivalent money spent on the wedding sends 80 men or women off to be 'massacred' and that perhaps if 80 soldiers are not sent because of the money spent last friday then maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

phew.

...thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not responding with either a knee-jerk reaction or a misreading of what was said...just to clarify...I feel that war is an ugly business, and that the Afghanistan conflict is not only ugly, but also largely useless, so that virtually everyone that dies in that conflict is, for want of a better term, massacred...it is this sorry war spectacle, not British troops, that massacres...and British troops, have in fact, been some of the unfortunate victims of this spectacle (and who could have been used to better effect in other more Brit-centric duties such as simply serving as part of the security detail for The Royal Wedding)...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It certainly wasn't a waste of taxpayer's money. It cost 20-30 million and for that Britain got a day of blanket positive publicity on TV channels all around the globe. If you wanted to buy that, it would cost you billions.

I'd agree with that. Royalty is huge business in Britain and this put it on nearly every television set, news site, and newspaper across the globe. I bet they reap millions above the costs in tourist and other associated revenue over the next several years.

I think this is a false supposition. There are many ways to spend 20-30m on various types of publicity and tourism attraction. I also would argue that this isn't necessary "positive publicity". After this self-gratifying indulgence I now actually have less interest in going to GB than before.

Does the Royal family pay taxes yet at least?

 

[Ferminal]

How much did the TV rights earn and who received them?

 

[andy1234]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm so incredibly sick of the Royal Wedding. Even though it's finally over, it's still plastered all over everything. What a bunch of aristocratic glop.

America will never need royal anything.

So America will never need anything Royal because it can rely on being a bully with more firepower than the next man?
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Why you would want to admit that? I have no idea.

 

[pedaling squares]

I think this is a false supposition. There are many ways to spend 20-30m on various types of publicity and tourism attraction. I also would argue that this isn't necessary "positive publicity". After this self-gratifying indulgence I now actually have less interest in going to GB than before.

Does the Royal family pay taxes yet at least?

It's not an easy one to state with certainty. Many say that the Royal Family brings a lot of income to GB via tourism. On the other hand, France seems to do well with tourists despite not having a royal family. Ok maybe it's the weather, but I think GB and especially London would still do ok via tourism without them.

As for taxes, she's paid income tax for about 20 years. I don't think she pays capital gains tax though. Apparently the Queen costs each Briton less than a dollar a year, this figure might be highly manipulated though just like our federal budgets.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

So America will never need anything Royal because it can rely on being a bully with more firepower than the next man?

Those are your words, not mine.

 

[andy1234]

Those are your words, not mine.

Well you posted the video, so what was your point?

 

[Archibald]

Well you posted the video, so what was your point?

this is something I questioned earlier - "I must be missing something here... complaining about media coverage of royals getting married, and linking it to some cowardly American bullying a brit at gun point..."

I do, however, find it interesting when Americans complain about other countries wasting taxpayer money... something about glasshouses?

 

[Spare Tyre]

Alpe, can you explain what it was you thought "self-gratifying[ly] indulgent"?

 

[auscyclefan94]

But then 34.7 million watched at least part of it on TV (and another million were there in person), so a lot of those people must have changed their minds.

Just because a lot of people watched it, doesn't mean they like it. I watched it but I definetly don't support the monarchy and what it is all about.

As for Gillard, ACF, you can bet anything you like that that snake was lovin' being amongst it all... how naive can you get?

 

[Astana1]

So America will never need anything Royal because it can rely on being a bully with more firepower than the next man?
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Why you would want to admit that? I have no idea.

Every time I travel to a foreign country and I hear Lady Gaga, Prince or Michael Jackson blaring out of someone's car stereo, or see movie theater filled with people watching movies from American studios, or go to London and watch a live performance of "Chicago", turn on the tv and watch "Family Guy" translated in German, or see the basically the entire world rejoice at election of Barack Obama, I know that that when I see statements like this I can just dismiss it as the BS that it is.

It's not like we're forcing people to consume our pop culture at gunpoint.

Last winter after a trip to London, I begrudgingly took my girlfriend to see the Empire State Building and waited in line with throngs of European tourists doing the same who were no doubt taking advantage of the weak dollar.

I suppose we held them at gunpoint and forced them to buy a plane ticket and make hotel reservations too.

I am not saying that our "culture" dominates the world. But perhaps you could concede that the US has a bit more to offer than superior firepower.

You should reconsider that comment.

 

[andy1234]

Every time I travel to a foreign country and I hear Lady Gaga, Prince or Michael Jackson blaring out of someone's car stereo, or see movie theater filled with people watching movies from American studios, or go to London and watch a live performance of "Chicago", turn on the tv and watch "Family Guy" translated in German, or see the basically the entire world rejoice at election of Barack Obama, I know that that when I see statements like this I can just dismiss it as the BS that it is.

It's not like we're forcing people to consume our pop culture at gunpoint.

Last winter after a trip to London, I begrudgingly took my girlfriend to see the Empire State Building and waited in line with throngs of European tourists doing the same who were no doubt taking advantage of the weak dollar.

I suppose we held them at gunpoint and forced them to buy a plane ticket and make hotel reservations too.

I am not saying that our "culture" dominates the world. But perhaps you could concede that the US has a bit more to offer than superior firepower.

You should reconsider that comment.

Maybe you should address this to Alpe?

He posted the video, not me. If he wasn't infering that US superior firepower is more important than Royalty, then maybe he can explain what he did mean?

For the record, I spend a great deal of time in the states, there are many more things I like about it than dislike about it, but I was challenging the original point...

Oh and we gave you the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zep, Queen, Monty Python etc etc so you can keep Ga Ga. You just need to forgive us for Benny Hill.