What wedding is this then?

Depends on what you mean by 'good' and 'fun' but I'm sure to invite you to the misery!

http://zattoo.com/view#bbc-one

Free site for watching English telly streamed live - register, no charge, watch a 60 second advert, and you're away.  I was using it until I brought a freesat box over from the UK and hooked it up to my wok.

Row three aisle seat

Is it a good pub? thanks for the info

Where?

Actually I misread the title and was thinking of the cathedral where it is taking place.  As a good royalist I have to admit I do not even know which cathedral.

On a similar point was any one else upset by the Charles Diana wedding in the same way I was?

I had sent some photos to be processed that week (in London) and, when they were returned, an unsolicited slide of the royal wedding was included.

Should I have complained about unsolicited publicity?

the online shop where i buy my work shirts just emailed me saying that theyre offering 10% off everything till tues because of the wedding....

Westminster Abbey is the Church of England place where they will marry (by Parliament in London) I suspect since Westminster "Cathedral" is actually Catholic, and there would be uproar if they got hitched there I suspect.

My invitation got lost in the post i suspect... and anyway, if O'Driscoll is too busy to attend then so am I...

There is no fun place or anything to watch the Royal Wedding tomorrow 

Club house said they weren't doing anything special for it, but suppose they could put it on the TV if we asked as they are open for lunch. 

But...... If anyone has any idea's ??

http://www.bscc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=873:royal-wedding-events&catid=47:member-news&Itemid=85

Been there, done that and here's the video as proof.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/royal-wedding-video-goes-viral_100527330.html

Been there (before) and done that (before),

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1299334/Chelsea-Clinton-Wedding-Pictures-Bill-Hillary-happy-daughter-walk-aisle.html

Best wishes to them! :D

Aside from the one off cost of this wedding they cost each UK tax payer less than £1 a year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

Hardly a huge drain on peoples hard earned money. I suspect the Politicians cost more than that with their dishonesty, ineptitude, waste and expenses.  

They also contribute to the economy hugely by drawing in tourists in huge numbers that spend their money in the UK. 

As for their outrageous wealth

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-special-how-rich-is-the-queen-and-what-does-she-really-own-606171.html

There are people on the planet that are far wealthier than them. Bill Gates has probably got more real money than them and I find his c**p software far more offensive.

You make quite large sweeping statements about the Uk. I did note one recently that claimed that most or quite a lot of British people have drink problems!!

@ Stef. You are of course entitled to your opinion but you are Italian? So why do you care?

Indeed couldn't have put it any better myself!

exactly.. well to me this marriage seems like as if it is marketed to make some revenue out of it...no doubt in it.. expected income to be generated from this marriage is  985 million USD... isn't amazing? well i would call this marriage ceremony of the royal family has become a live show/flim...

Strength of a nation and history in the making!

It's not the amount, it's the principle that matters. If someone mugged you in the street and took your money, you'd probably be pretty annoyed about it even if you happened to have only had 1 franc in your pocket.

Wow - someone wants to know a cool spot to watch the Royal Wedding that is located in Geneva (and I am guessing she never meant an internet webiste) and look at the responses.

It would've be been if you all hadn't commented at all.

Unfortunately I know none but I hope you were successful elsewhere in your search.

And your point is?

Personally I don't particularly begrudge my 69p or whatever the tiny amount is. I am far more bothered by my tax being handed over to the repugnant, dishonest, inept bankers! However as we all know, in reality, tax payers have little say or control over how their tax is spent. That's life!

If you are so thoroughly offended you could always apply for citizenship somewhere else!

Hmmm and here I thought the strength of a nation was/is its people.  Seems wee Willie Windsor is smart enough to have married someone who can only improve that family's gene pool.

In the case of the UK, I don't that there is that much difference betweeen the royalty, politicians or the bankers. All part of the same ruling class.

Nice to see Queen Elton there at the proceedings, though.  And I even counted a few non-white faces...

Sorry,  meant to type "I don't think that..."

A satirical comment from the US website, the Onion

APRIL 22, 2011 | ISSUE 47•16

LONDON—Onlookers throughout the English-speaking world remained enthralled this week by the majesty and pomp of the upcoming nuptials of England's Prince William, a man who wouldn't in a million years be caught dead associating with any of them, sources reported. "What a beautiful dress—and that cake!" said Arizona housewife Jeanette Tyler, 47, a woman Prince William has been raised since birth to believe he is genetically superior to in all respects. "It's like a fairy tale." The wedding of Price William, whose full title is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, will be broadcast to six continents of the eager hoi polloi, none of whom he would ever even stand within 50 feet of unless they were part of a carefully orchestrated photo opportunity.

DemocracyNow has just aired a very good interview of a British Journalist on the wedding... I think it will add some fuel to the discussion.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/29/johann_hari_frenzy_around_britains_royal

Xutka....So you watched it then ...LOL.... how else would you know all these facts?

I offered my kids who were staying, to watch it... my son, jumped in joy at the horses, and as soon as they didnt show any close up horse footage they both went back to the serial destruction of my appartment, and the TV went off.

 I say good luck to them as a normal married couple, as with everyone else who got married yesterday, and will again today... but apart from that.... zero interest.

I don't understand all the fuss Amy and Juan are making on the invited guests.  After all you would invite your friends to your wedding n'est-ce pas?  The Colombian and Mexicand drug cartels unlikely invite Santos and Calderon to their parties.

Laura Flanders has a good short piece on the similarity between the British and American royals here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/28-6

And to go further in depth on Britain's real role in the world as discussed by Johann Hari one only needs to read Mark Curtis' 'Web of Deceit': Britains Real Role in the World and/or 'Forgotten Wars': The End of Britain's Asia Empire by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper.  Both have an extensive list of references to documents, correspondences and various institutes where the evidence is kept.

I didn’t even know the wedding was on yesterday and must rely on the media (mainstream and alternative) to help me relive the wondrous celebration of.....?  Something or other!  Part of the picture I’m picking up is on the choice of music.

Unsurpassed Levels of Excess

Royal Wedding Music

By DAVID YEARSLEY

Would the existence of a Royal Channel streaming state events in all their pomp and circumstance to a worldwide audience via YouTube have saved the British Empire?  Would the blaze of red uniforms, the glitter of Anglican gold, and the blinding white of the wedding dress and its wearer’s morganatic teeth have kept the diverse subjects true to the Imperial Crown? 

The official claim that the nuptial musical choices were made by the bridal couple should not be believed. This crucial aspect of the ceremony was micromanaged by the Windsor elders and their handlers.  In the Internet Age the Royal brand needs vigorous defining, defending, and marketing.  As one will soon be able to hear on Decca Records’ The Royal Wedding: The Official Album, to be released within two weeks, the hoary musical numbers of the ceremony are hardly of the younger generation.

(from http://counterpunch.org/yearsley04292011.html )

David Yearsley teaches at Cornell University. He is author of Bach and the Meanings of Counterpoint His latest CD, “All Your Cares Beguile: Songs and Sonatas from Baroque London”, has just been released by Musica Omnia.

Yeah and many were invited to the wedding!  And I'm sure they looked lovely as well! Better luck to them than Chuck and Di and Randy Andy and Fergie!

How much do the royals pay for their meals, their stables, the heating in their palaces, the royal yacht, the upkeeep of the corgies, their military training at Sandhurst (where Idi Amin also was a star graduate), their limos, the secret service protection...........?

xutka B may sometimes paint with a broad brush but she isn't as daft as one. Exaggeration is a legitimate way to draw attention too an issue and is a good rhetorical device if it doesn't lead to outrageous falsehoods. Comediians use it frequently to get their point across.

As for Stef and his Italian background perhaps he's curious about the state that helped undermine Italian (and Greek) democracy post-WWII and how it might have evolved if at all.

The monarchy is not harmful in political or economic terms (e.g. the larger government budget scheme of things).  They are just useless and pointless.  They don’t do any value added productive work and to suggest they give comfort to some sufferers (Diana & AIDS patients: HRM & Philippe talking to flood victims); well there are plenty of ‘celebrities’ who could do the same for free.  In fact it would be much better to spend money on flood prevention and relief and a well staffed and equipped healthcare system.

The only ‘danger’ of a monarchy is that it is part of the mythology that helps give legitimacy to (and hide) the real financial/economic powers in our society also served and hidden by our not particularly representative, first to the gate elections’ winning MPs and government.  Royalty are part of the smoke and mirrors but beyond that not uniquely or particularly threatening to our democracy or economy. Were they like us, working, paying bills etc. then they wouldn’t be special, possessing an aura of royal superiority/otherness.  If they continue as they are in their non-functional privileged positions they serve no purpose.  So the only thing to do is to abolish it - not for political/financial reasons but for reasons of non-utility.

Societies have their myths and mythologies and their ‘royalties’.  The US for example has all the pomp surrounding their president ‘king’, with reporters never bothering to ask serious questions about their powerful backers or their lies and about-faces.  Other (all?) countries do the same.  Let’s quickly dump the royalty and get to work on the serious business of building a democracy that responds to the political democratic, economic/employment and environment management needs of the country rather than the interests of a few.

Let's look at the strength of the nation: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp

From the British Office of National Statistics.  Note 2.45 million unemployed and the number of vacancies at 453,000

Summary of labour market statistics published on 17 November 2010

The employment rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for the three months to September 2010 was 70.8 per cent, up 0.3 on the quarter. The number of people in employment aged 16 and over increased by 167,000 on the quarter to reach 29.19 million. Employment is up 286,000 on the year but is 210,000 lower than two years previously. The quarterly increase in total employment was mainly driven by self-employment, which increased by 112,000 on the quarter to reach a record high of 4.03 million, and by part-time employees, which increased by 94,000 on the quarter to reach 6.76 million. The number of full-time employees fell by 62,000 on the quarter to reach 18.17 million. The number of employees and self-employed people who were working part-time because they could not find a full-time job increased by 67,000 on the quarter, to reach a record high of 1.15 million. Comparable records for these employment series began in 1992. 

The unemployment rate for the three months to September 2010 was 7.7 per cent, down 0.1 on the quarter. The total number of unemployed people fell by 9,000 over the quarter to reach 2.45 million, although the number of people unemployed for up to six months increased by 21,000 on the quarter to reach 1.18 million. Male unemployment fell by 40,000 on the quarter to reach 1.43 million but the number of unemployed women increased by 31,000 on the quarter to reach 1.02 million, the highest figure since 1988. 

The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (the claimant count) fell by 3,700 between September and October 2010 to reach 1.47 million, although the number of people claiming for up to six months increased by 10,400 to reach 943,900. The number of male claimants fell by 5,400 on the month to reach 1.03 million but the number of female claimants increased by 1,700 to reach 431,400. 

The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for the three months to September 2010 was 23.2 per cent, down 0.2 on the quarter. The number of inactive people aged from 16 to 64 fell by 83,000 over the quarter to reach 9.27 million. Most categories of economic inactivity fell over the quarter. The category showing the largest fall over the quarter was those looking after the family or home, which fell by 35,000 to reach 2.28 million, the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1993. 

The number of vacancies for the three months to October 2010 was 453,000, down 27,000 over the quarter. The sector showing the largest quarterly fall was education where the number of vacancies fell by 10,000 to reach 31,000.

The point is one of principle, which count for something in some kingdoms and republics! Agree with you on the banksters and the MPs expense accounts etc. but I would suggest the royals are part of the whole charade where such individuals go unpunished and sometimes invited to staely dinners and other royal functions or run into each other at Ascot where they can recycle those wedding hats.  There are many things one can find offensive and you have pointedout the inept bankers - where did you send your passport and plan to emmigrate?

Yeah! Cos they like, have got like, loads of castle’s ‘n’ Bentleys ‘n’ Jags ‘n’ shit – for like, free! Which is like kinda, like an abuse of like Britain-land peoples’ human rights and this an’ that which is like TOTALLY unfair! An’ if you like, google shit, you’ll find like loads of stuff about like, how it’s unfair on like the population and that an that, cos we like did that last week in Sociology, like republics ‘n’ stuff.

Word.

We learned all about the Royals in school and believe me, they’re a weird bunch.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/your-problems-solved%2c-with-holly-harper-201104273756/

What a devastatingly intellectual riposte!  Now all our posts said in seriousness and fun have been shot down in flames.  Now, there's nothing left but to pick up the pieces of the shambles, calm down and get over myself - the latter will be difficult!

Yes I suspect the latter will be very difficult!

It's a real shame how very angry and serious people feel they have to be!

Would actually rather watch the wedding all over again than continue to read this.

Off to have a cup of tea in my Kate and Wills mug now.

Funny and amusing how people with no rational or logical reply resort to calling those who do and present their evidence as 'angry'  As for serious I threw in a few humorous jibes at the royals.  If you like them and admire them and feel they have a role to play in British society then fine.  I don't think many would agree with you though.  So perhaps the royals shoud just get over it!

Still can't get over the arguments so you result to insults.  Well done.  Haviing raised three wonderful children, devoted a good deal of time to studying medicine, helping litttle old ladies cross the street, standing up to a man twice my size who was shouting at his girlfriend and was a serial wife abuser, loving my wonderfully hardworking generous parents qualifies me as nasty.  As for arrogance, having opinions and arguing them logically and rationally is not arrogance. Finally calling someone nasty and rude for pointing out the obvious might be considered rude.

Get over it!

I was defending myself against the accusations of being  nasty, rude and arrogant and not claiming to be a "catch".  Your reply illustrates quite well your outstanding ability to be rude and nasty if not also somewhat arrogant as you feel that you can simply dismiss the arguments and claims of many on this democratic Forum with feeble insults.  If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen!

What is it about you that reminds me of this American pundit who tried to inform an older Canadian journalist that Canada sent troops to a war (Viet Nam) which was one of the more important recent ones in American history?

No claim to perfection and I don't resort to petty insults when I lack the rational logical arguments to back up my opinions.  People who know me professionally and personally know me as a pesron who is not afraid to voice his opinions and neither afraid to admit when I am wrong.

The paraphrase that follows has been attributed to a number of lawyers: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when they are against you, throw mud.

This thread started with a simple request for information which, as it happened, very few people were able to provide.

It’s since developed into a crusade for the abolition of the monarchy and then some pretty acrimonious comments.  Well, everyone’s  entitled to his/her opinion on this issue, but if I were Mimet Met, I’d think twice before ever asking a question again.

Unbelievable!

Why does a simple question have to turn into the mandatory 'I'm smarter than all of you and will keep arguing until everyone leaves this thread' story?

Really - get over it. 

You are entirely correct, O, and I apologize to the original poster for not treating the question as I would any other on Glocals.  

I will, in future, attempt to confine my sarcasm to threads started for that purpose and answer queries in the spirit in which they are asked.

Thanks for setting me (I won't write for anyone else) straight.