Finnegan Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 They mean she's not from some European royalty. I always find it hilarious when she's called a commoner. I love the idea of Harry marrying Crackwhore Trisha* from 'tha Monsul' *No reference to any real person.
Jon the Hat Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 They mean she's not from some European royalty. I always find it hilarious when she's called a commoner. I love the idea of Harry marrying Crackwhore Trisha* from 'tha Monsul' *No reference to any real person. Really? The middletons made their money from selling party tat online. Before that they were pretty normal middle class, and if you go back a few generations there are solid middle class professions on one side and working class on the other. The point being she is not common, but that she is not an aristocrat, like for example "the people's princess".
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 Fvck the cynics you're boring. Great day. Agreed fvck the cynics
BoneDog Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 I've deleted that insult* because I don't want to get bogged down in a whole tit for tat hornets nest of bow downers vs the antis insults! *but I see LargeAl has quoted my riposte!
Fox1651 Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 To all the cynics, did all your misery and disgust make you happy today? I missed the wedding today because I had to work but you could feel the happiness just from the coverage on the radio. Lighten up and just enjoy life for once. me too - missed it because of work, some people just want to be miserable - fvck them, be happy Monarchy is all we have left.. 2 Billion viewers worldwide.. The envy of the world.. Its a shame that people dont understand what it means.. The royals are our biggest source of tourism revenue.. How anyone can say that they do fk all and get piles of cash doing it is just ignorance.. Lets get a USA style president and watch him/her make everything better.. Republican scummers.. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.. Agreed
BoneDog Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 Really? The middletons made their money from selling party tat online. Before that they were pretty normal middle class, and if you go back a few generations there are solid middle class professions on one side and working class on the other. The point being she is not common, but that she is not an aristocrat, like for example "the people's princess". They made their fortune online? So that means they've only been rich for 20 years max! I thought that her father is descended from Sir Thomas Fairfax, and that even further back, his great great great grandmother was married to the Duke of Buckingham? That seems to me that they have a long line of being far from 'average' citizens who happened to get lucky because of an internet business. Edit : The last sentence doesn't make much sense, but you know what I mean!
The Doctor Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 i've always wondered: are Fox1651 and Carlito's Way the same person? I agree with empty, **** the pro's. Stop forcing the wedding on us, couldn't stand all the union flags flying on friday - so tempted to fly a pirate flag to balance it out a bit. Also there was **** all good on TV all day.
FoxyPV Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 Anyone without a title is a commoner so technically before William was married he was a commoner. Anyone who goes to a £30k a year school is not down with the people.
The Doctor Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 isn't Mr/Miss/Mrs a title? Sure it's at least classed as that on forms.
BoneDog Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 Another point.....even though I didn't quite bow down as much as I was apparantly supposed to, that doesn't mean I was miserable because there was a royal wedding on! I had just as much fun on Friday as the pro royals. The only difference in my day was that I wasn't spending a whole day going on about dresses, romance, kisses and what supposedly makes Britain great. Just talked about normal shit and had an ice cream, some chips, a burger and a couple of beers. So can we stop accusing people who aren't pro royal as miserable please Ooooh they love us commoners arguing about trivial issues between ourselves whilst we are getting covertly bummed up the jacksie in alot of very important ways that will eventually leave Great Britain in a worse condition.
The Doctor Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 Another point.....even though I didn't quite bow down as much as I was apparantly supposed to, that doesn't mean I was miserable because there was a royal wedding on! I had just as much fun on Friday as the pro royals. The only difference in my day was that I wasn't spending a whole day going on about dresses, romance, kisses and what supposedly makes Britain great. Just talked about normal shit and had an ice cream, some chips, a burger and a couple of beers. So can we stop accusing people who aren't pro royal as miserable please Ooooh they love us commoners arguing about trivial issues between ourselves whilst we are getting covertly bummed up the jacksie in alot of very important ways that will eventually leave Great Britain in a worse condition. that's a proper holiday - i wasn't miserable on friday either - i was enjoying taking advantage of sales and a lack of traffic in shops + having a chip shop supper.
Guest Bilo Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 I should be monarch or at least dictator. I'd be fucking epic at it.
The Doctor Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 I doubt people want a monarch/dictator that will be pissed 24/7 or that a bloke who's unsure of the meaning of the word sober would make a good monarch/dictator.
Alf Bentley Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 I'm not too interested in "Britain's greatness" (invites the question "compared to who?" and comes across as aggressively nationalistic, a quality that has caused plenty of problems in history). I'd prefer to think of some "great things about Britain": - Magnificent countryside - Wide-ranging sense of humour - Football culture - Superb real ales & great pubs - Tolerant, helpful people (minority exceptions apart) - Decades of great, innovative and diverse music - Racial integration/tolerance (not perfect but better than most) - Proper chips - NHS, teaching assistants - Punk rock revolution - Centuries of popular & trade union struggle I hope everyone enjoyed the big day, participants and spectators alike, but the idea that Wills & Kate have made a bigger contribution to Great Britain than Blair & Brown is ridiculous. I have major criticisms of Blair & Brown (immoral Iraq war, bank deregulation, PFI deals ripping off future generations, ID cards, not tackling tax avoidance), but the good things they did shouldn't be overlooked either: minimum wage (I was on £2.50/hour for barwork in mid-90s), hospital waiting lists slashed, tax credits, childcare provision, teaching assistants in schools, devolution, civil partnerships etc. It is also scandalous that some combination of Cameron, Charles & the Palace arranged for 2 Tory ex-PMs to be invited to the wedding and 2 Labour ex-PMs to be excluded - I thought the royals were supposed to represent the whole nation? As for "colourless republics"...you mean "colourless republics" like the USA, France or Brazil?! All have their problems, no doubt (as we do) but being a republic certainly doesn't make your colourless! Well I'd say one day of William and Katherine did more to help the concept of Britain's greatness than the entire administrations of Blair and Brown put together. As in: Great for creating an atmosphere. Great for uplifting most who watched. Great for its ceremonial dignity Great for its royal folklore. Great for its royalty-created tourism Great for its historical settings Great for staging such an extraordinary party Great at getting international interest and admiration.. Great for countering the idea of a colourless Republic Great for hundreds of businesses on the day Great for its sheer spectacle. Great for creating the seeds of goodwill across the world Great for bringing people together. Great as a source of hope Great for all those who played a part. Great for our sense of nationhood. If you want some more I'm sure there are plenty of things I've omitted.
Guest Bilo Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 I doubt people want a monarch/dictator that will be pissed 24/7 or that a bloke who's unsure of the meaning of the word sober would make a good monarch/dictator. I know what sober means. And it terrifies me. Teetotals scares me. Hitler was a teetotal. Tells you all need to know. Bloody teetotals.
Guest Bilo Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 More or less permanently pissed. Never touched a drop. Booze saves lives. Makes you chill out and worry more about where the next shag is coming from than the Jewish influence on the banking system.
The Doctor Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 when the arguement is phrased like that it makes you wonder why binge drinking is frowned upon, surely the binge drinkers are trying to avoid wars due to concerns about the influence of certain religious groups. How'd a thread about the royal wedding get onto the pros and cons of having alcoholic dictators?
Guest Bilo Posted 30 April 2011 Posted 30 April 2011 when the arguement is phrased like that it makes you wonder why binge drinking is frowned upon, surely the binge drinkers are trying to avoid wars due to concerns about the influence of certain religious groups. How'd a thread about the royal wedding get onto the pros and cons of having alcoholic dictators? YES. Drunken bar brawls about spilling a bloke's pint are a way of channelling aggression in a microcosmic way as opposed to letting them al boil over into a big war and getting all genocidal. The CEO of Stella Artois should get a Nobel Peace Prize really.
BoneDog Posted 1 May 2011 Posted 1 May 2011 ALERT!! Some classic professional pro-establishment, zionist, cia, metropolitan police trolling going on here. Topic Dilution and Forum Sliding in evidence!
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 1 May 2011 Posted 1 May 2011 Maybe so, Not the best Analogy but here goes. The recent floods and cyclones in Australia brought out the best in the majority of Australians. Millions of people donated money and a lot of people showed some real Aussie Spirit that brought Australians together. Does this mean natural disaters make Australia great? i wouldn't of thought so. This refers to people who sympathise with natural horrors like this. Compassion is a totally different thing, to national pride.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 1 May 2011 Posted 1 May 2011 Don't try and defend your argument by subtly changing what I said, which didn't even mention "Royal residences" . Warwick Castle, is a massive tourist venue that has longstanding royal connections but is not a royal residence. Caernarvon Castle, Hampton Court, the Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle are the same and there is massive royal connection relating to Westminister Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, York Minster, Canterbury Cathedral and so on. You really would try to convince yourself of anything. I've visited Belgium and Holland once my life as a tourist. Says it all really and exactly confirms the validity of my argument . Well said. :thumbup:
purpleronnie Posted 1 May 2011 Posted 1 May 2011 This refers to people who sympathise with natural horrors like this. Compassion is a totally different thing, to national pride. He doesn't understand. Pudding?
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 1 May 2011 Posted 1 May 2011 I agree.. theres always 2 billion people watching this lots presidents get wed..... look up "ignorant" on google. you may well find your level.. :appl: Little Miss Blue thinks she's on a crusade. What a sad soul. Bless her.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.