Pissed Off About The Royal Wedding

[Prophet 451]

Or, to be more accurate, pissed off about Americans talking trash about the wedding. You don't care? That's fine, I understand that, he's not going to be your head of state. You're pissed at the wall-to-wall media coverage? That's fine and I understand that too. This isn't directed at you.

But there seems to be something going around that makes it fashionable to insult the Royals. So far, I've heard bullshit about Royalty being undemocratic, when our democracy predates your own. I've heard crap about the Royals doing nothing to earn their riches like that doesn't apply to everyone who married or was born into wealth like the Bushes, the Kennedys, John Kerry and hundreds of others. Back when the subject of royalty came up a few years back, I can remember hearing rubbish like "if you're born a Royal, you can be born a slave" except slavery was abolished here before it was abolished in the USA. So I've heard a lot of bullshit today but what the words actually mean seems to be the same in every single case: "We resent it because it's not how America does things".

WE'RE NOT FUCKING AMERICAN! We have different traditions and customs, we do things differently here and it is the height of "American arrogance" to insult our traditions and customs simply because they aren't how you would do things. The Royal family have no power these days, they can't even vote, they don't affect our lives or yours in the slightest. In short, they're powerless figureheads who exist to generate tourist income and play purely ceremonial roles in our Constitution, so this tendancy to piss on our parade just makes you look petty.

[secondwind]

1. We've been up since half past three this morning. I love watching these events,

I love the pomp and ceremony, and I was reminded today how united everyone in England was, their patriotism, and their love of tradition.

We have nothing here. Just a lot of hate and division.

Thanks for posting.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

117. I LOVED every minute of it

Glorious! A 3 Kleenex event.
:loveya:

[Whisp]

2. good rant. It's that Exceptionalism thing, ya know. :)

nothing can be finer than being American. Even Here! lol

[Youth Uprising]

66. No, it's not.

I don't believe in American exceptionalism and I don't believe in hereditary monarchy, either.

[whoneedstickets]

3. British democracy does not predate US democracy

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Magna Carta dates from 1215. Get real.

[whoneedstickets]

23. Check your facts, the Magna Carta had nothing to do democracy

if the latter means popular selection of government representative through legal means such as elections.

It did place some restriction on the absolute rule of kinds with regard to 'free men'(meaning non-serf lower nobility)

[sinkingfeeling]

38. I don't agree with your definition that it does mean selection of representatives through election.

I have a broader view that democracy as a form of government that grants human rights, allows for political diversity, the rights of due process and expression of grievances for redress. How it is achieved or how many representatives are elected, isn't the defining process.

[whoneedstickets]

39. Sorry, your definition is wrong. it is a form of decision making..

Definition of DEMOCRACY (from webster)
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


What you are talking about is modern "liberal democracy" but by those standards the US beats the UK too.

see Wiki

Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.

[sinkingfeeling]

48. Well, there's a whole lot of folks around the world who don't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-80426,00.html

Which country can claim to be the World's oldest democracy?

[whoneedstickets]

53. Doubtlessly, many societies incorporated democratic decision making rules...

However, the first, and longest lasting, and still persistent nation-state democracy is the USA

Britain had some interludes, following the English revolution (roundheads and cavaliers) but it wasn't lasting or really election based.

[Maven]

155. That is quite literally what democracy means.

All of those things you mention flow from a democratically elected system of government.

[murphyj87]

16. British democracy...

British democracy predates American democracy by centuries, and Canadian Democracy predates American democracy by decades. The United States had hereditary monarchy very recently .... King George I (George H.W) and King George II (George W.) Especially with King George II being crowned in 2000 in a demonstration of the American monarchy. Most of the time it is big corporations and millionaires who are the American monarchy. In Canada, governments are elected by, and responsible to, and work for the people, unlike the United States corporate monarchy.

[whoneedstickets]

35. Really?

This is nonsense. Go do some research if the standards of democracy is lack of hereditary monarchy then Canada is still not a democracy.

In any case, the glorious revolution, while it certainly started Britain down the road to democracy, still left in place a constitutional monarchy where parliament acted to constrain royal power. English democracy begins in the 1830-1860 with the reform acts.

[Prophet 451]

54. Hang on

You're inserting a requirement that doesn't exist in the definition. No definition of democracy requires a lack of hereditary monarchy. If you want to define democracy as an elected government, then it dates from the Glorious Revolution. If you want to define it as a restriction on the power of royalty then A) that's not part of any definition of democracy and B) it dates from either the Magna Carta in 1215 or the Bill of Rights in 1689.

You're making up your own definition of democracy just so you can claim that the USA was first. That's no different than conservatives claiming the USA was always a Christian nation.

[whoneedstickets]

64. An elected government with real governing power!

The parliament of the glourious revolution was at best a check on royal perogatives, not a legislative body that made public policy on behalf of its electors.

again, these are all pre-democratic efforts that culminate in democracy in the UK in the mid 1800s.

[Prophet 451]

65. "A legislative body that makes policy on behalf of it's electors"

Again, you're back to the Bill of Rights.

Again, you are making up your own definition purely so you can claim the USA was first.

[Prophet 451]

33. Yes, it does

Democracy in England dates from De Montfort's Parliament in 1265. Now, you could, if you were stupid, argue that that doesn't count as a "democracy" since the vote was restricted in various ways but if that's the case, the USA didn't have democracy until the end of the Civil War which means we still predate you.

[whoneedstickets]

37. early and unrecognized gathering don't count as 'British Democracy'

These meeting had no power vis-a-vis the crown. The mere fact that British society was around longer and that a few members played around with the concept does not a democracy make. Britain didn't even have universal male suffrage until the 1900s. Parliament didn't incorporate any concept of equal representations of people in territorial districts until the 1830s. The power of the monarch wasn't really pre-empted until the late 1800's

[jberryhill]

50. Not long after the pilgrims landed the British were under direct Parliamentarian rule

...at least during Cromwell who was supported by.... the Puritans.

[whoneedstickets]

63. By a parliament that they didn't select!

No reading of the English Civil war could suggest that the institutions of government, the rump parliament and the council of state was anything other than the replacement of one elite with another. Cromwell even took on the semi-royal position and Lord Protector and tried to pass the title on via heredity.

This was a shot a post-monarchical government, but not democracy.

[Prophet 451]

57. You're making up your own definition

You're inserting a requirement that doesn't exist in the definition. No definition of democracy requires a lack of hereditary monarchy. If you want to define democracy as an elected government, then it dates from the Glorious Revolution. If you want to define it as a restriction on the power of royalty then A) that's not part of any definition of democracy and B) it dates from either the Magna Carta in 1215 or the Bill of Rights in 1689.

You're making up your own definition of democracy just so you can claim that the USA was first. That's no different than conservatives claiming the USA was always a Christian nation.

[whoneedstickets]

73. The bill of rights makes no mention of representation..

it imposes limits on the sovereign power of the king to tax, create armies and not interfere with the courts system. But the origination of all legislation is still the crown. the parliament could not impose or suggest taxes, they couldn't muster an army. They simply restricted the king. The source of legislative power was not the parliament (nor was that body elected by the 'people' even under the simplest standard of universal male suffrage.

Parliament = not representative, not a legislative body = not representative democracy.

[Prophet 451]

77. It remove3s the monarch from any sort of power over the law

The source of legislative power WAS parliament. The fact that the law claimed to originate from the crown is purely a technicality of our legal system, it still says the same today. Also, that isn't part of the definition of democracy, you're shifting goalposts yet again.

[joshcryer]

116. It's not a damn technicality, it's not tested, it is very real. Canada knows all too well.

The Crown holds powers no others have, none.

1) The power to appoint the Prime Minister, anyone at whim, or keep the position vacated.

2) The power to dissolve the Parliament (which would result in a General Election but just imagine what would happen if the crown kept dissolving the Parliament!).

3) The power to dismiss the Government, wholesale (see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis">1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute">2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute). Poof, bye bye, your votes are irrelevant.

4) And most scarily of all, refusal of royal assent, which basically means that they can unilaterally refuse to assent to any laws being passed.

You'll say it's a "royal perogative" that they "follow the whims of the people," but it's never been questioned in court, and not enshrined in law, and I think Prince Charles is nutty enough to play with fire (since he wins either way, if it works, he becomes a dictator for life, if it doesn't he's the Last King of England and goes down in history).

I think that's a reason really so many Britians want Prince Charles out of the picture; the British people have set up a system that endows a single person in their society with vast powers under their own laws, that they don't want a senile old man with wacked out views dictating to them.

[Prophet 451]

122. Oi, here's British Constitution 101

1) No, the monarch only has the power to appoint a Member of Parliament. Also, see 4.
2) Yes, it would trigger an automatic election. See 4 again.
3) Um, no. We have a whole body of Constitutional law which prevents that. And again, see the next answer.
4) Technically, yes but it hasn't been refused in centuries and doing so would instantly trigger a Constitutional crisis (since it would bring two Constitutional provisions (specifically, the supremacy of Parliament and the soverign as legal fount) into direct conflict) which would result in Britain disestablishing the monarchy by the end of the week.

Actually using any of those powers would doom the monarchy and Charles knows it. Senile old man he might be but he's not that stupid. Both the Australian and Canadian crisises (crisi?) were caused by the actions of the Governor and while they are technically appointed by the monarch, they have autonomy with regard to their actions and both dissolutions of Parliament were at the request of the sitting Prime Minister. Since we don't have fixed term governments here (while there is a maximum term, an election can be called at any time prior to that upon the PM's request), this is also exactly what happens prior to every general election.

Again, you seem to be protesting simply because we do things differently to you.

[joshcryer]

124. The fact that such a possiblity exists should bother you.

I'm not "protesting because you do things differently" I am merely pointing out that all power in your state comes from the Crown and that Republicanism is alive and well in Britian and her Colonies.

It's only a matter of time. :hi:

[Prophet 451]

128. Republicanism is alive and well here

And, in time, maybe a referendum (it HAS to be done by referendum) will do away with the monarchy. I'd vote against it but if that's the will of the people, so be it.

Technically, all power flows from the Crown but that power is purely ceremonial. Actually excercising any of it would end the monarchy.

[patrick t. cakes]

150. i'd say the twenties...

when women were finally allowed the vote.

[laconicsax]

4. Having a hereditary monarch makes as much sense as a hereditary accountant.

Just to say.

[Prophet 451]

36. Maybe but it's our tradition

And a majority of us are happy with it.

[whoneedstickets]

43. Don't let my dissagreement above leave you thinking

..that I don't respect the British Constitutional monarchy. I think Parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state are highly effective. Frankly, even preferable to the US system where the elected head of state is also head of government (which allows them to cowardly hide from criticisms through calls to patriotism = "don't criticize the president during wartime")

[Prophet 451]

59. Thank you

I appreciate the clarification.

[calimary]

83. Totally. Don't let some harrumphers here ruin your day! This was a WONDERFUL day!

Every last bit of it. I love how we all got to share it and enjoy and laugh and smile and look at hundreds of thousands of HAPPY PEOPLE out there all crowded together smiling and laughing and celebrating and waving their Union Jacks and wearing their own funny hats and paper Wills masks with their periscopes from some local department store so they can see over the tops of the heads in front of them.

It's just NICE. And FUN. And HAPPY. And PRETTY TO LOOK AT. Why should that be a bad thing? I think we all desperately need an uplifting time-out like this from all the shit that's gone on around us, whether it's the nuke disaster in Japan or the walker disaster in Wisconsin or the trump/palin/birthers/teaRACISTS all over our country (yeah, sure. American "Exceptionalism" :eyes: ) and all the many assorted catastrophes in between.

If NOTHING else, can't everyone just stop for a moment and enjoy the celebrating people? Forcryingoutloud! Put your inner Grinch away til Christmastime. You're sure as hell not gonna spoil MY vicarious party!

:P

[laconicsax]

But is it a tradition that serves a useful purpose?

Most of Europe has already abandoned that tradition to no ill effect.

What benefit does the Crown have over an elected head of state?

[Prophet 451]

141. Hmm

Here, we tend to take the opposite approach of not doing away with traditions unless they do some harm. I guess that one's a basic cultural difference. And the freest, most socialistic and democratic countries in Europe (Sweden and Denmark) retain their monarchies too.

Now, whether they actually carry any benefits. Well, they're powerless so we don't have to worry about them enacting disgusting legislation (unlike our current government). They generate a ton of tourist revenue which an elected head of state is unlikely to do. They provide a living link to the past and history and we value that here. They do a shitload of charitable work which elected heads of state don't (and don't have time for).

And we like having them. In every poll, the British people want to retain the monarchy (albeit the margin is sometimes small).

[laconicsax]

139. Dupe, please delete.

[murphyj87]

5. The main difference...

One of the big differences between Canadians and Americans is that Americans think there's no difference between Canadians and Americans, and Canadians know there's a BIG difference between Canadians and Americans.

On Monday, Canadians are going to show the biggest difference between Canadians and Americans. Canadians are going to throw right wingers out of office, which Americans are not smart enough to do.

[riverbendviewgal]

29. You got it!

The little W Bush boy Harper is not going to get his majority on Monday...AND our third party the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (NDP) is going full hilt...even getting Quebec votes, that usually are BLOC (Separatists). Most Canadians fear Harper and his desire to have a Republican government that the tea partiers want... The NDP are for the workers, the seniors, the disabled, the immigrants and not the elite. They are the WE ARE ALL IN THIS BOAT TOGETHER party.

Canadians shudder at the thought of giving up our health care and our social insurance like Harper wants to do to us..

As for the royal wedding ..Some Canadians don't care and some do, like me. I watched at 9 am when I got up. I cried happy tears and loved the classy wedding ceremonies.. Such a nice change from all the neo-con politics and racism that I have been hearing and watching in the USA lately and the unfortunate tornadoes, floods and fires.

May Kate and William have a long and happy marriage. They are a lovely couple and a million people actually went out to see their wedding...

If England wants this then so be it. America can watch or not watch.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Actually, Canada and the US is sort of like Southern and Northern California.

Northern California is greatly aware of So. Cal, So. Cal is only dimly aware that there is something up on top of it.

[a la izquierda]

62. Oh Canada!

Nice response. You had this American laughing. But I'm not an exceptionalist in the slightest.

[GomezLives]

6. We have royalty - they're called celebrities.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I wish we had half the dignity of the British. It doesn't matter what country I go to, I can

usually pick out the Americans.

[CBGLuthier]

8. In america when something is totally useless, we throw it away.

And don't act as if there aren't anti-royalists in the UK.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Are you serious?

There are all sorts of useless things lingering around this country ... Too many to count.

[Heidi]

12. And very often, wasteful as many of us are, we throw away still useful things. (nt)

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Name something.

[ZombieHorde]

52. I will name your post, "Samuel." I have named something. nt

[leftynyc]

75. I spit out my latte

at your post. Well done.

[Prophet 451]

14. Of course there are

What does that have to do with anything?

[murphyj87]

22. Then why...

Then why haven't Americans thrown out their insurance run and insurance rationed health care system, which kills 45,000 Americans a year because insurance company bureaucrats, not physicians, decide which Americans get treatment and what treatment they get, demonstrating that American health care is totally useless, yet you insist on keeping it.

[Rebubula]

44. AWESOME!!!

That has to be the greatest (and most ignorant) post that I have seen on this topic.

I do not know where to start. But I will start...


Things that the US does NOT throw away - even if useless


Electoral Colleges
NCLB
Republicans :evilgrin:
Disco
Paris Hilton (et al)
Racism (to be fair - all countries have racist policies and racism has been a world wide problem since before recorded history)
Vinyl Albums
War
Hate


Shall I go on?

I am all for pointing out inhumane flaws in other people's cultures - but to be a dick about something that harms no one is pretty ethnocentric and antithetical to the progressive mindset.

[quinnox]

11. As if you speak for all of Britain

Plenty of people who live over there who think the royalty thing sucks as well.

And if you don't like the criticism, too bad. Its free speech, deal with it.

[Prophet 451]

17. Oh wow, the "free speech" defence already

You seem to imagine that free speech gives you the right to insult our way of doing things but doesn't also give me the right to reply to it.

And yes, there are plenty of people here who have a problem with royalty but since they actually live here, they usually know what they're talking about.

[quinnox]

27. Why are you so surprised by this reaction

You do know this board has a vast majority of Americans right?

Did you really expect a board with these kind of demographics would be fawning over the royals? (though there has been a bit of that here even so)

Its like going to a NRA site and complaining they love guns in the forums.

[Prophet 451]

34. No, I expected them to be ignoring it

Or possibly getting annoyed that the US media was giving the wedding such heavy coverage and either of those would have been perfectly reasonable reactions.

[leftynyc]

79. So - watching a beautiful

wedding and enjoying all the pomp and circumstance (especially since I don't have to pay for it) makes me a fawner of the royals? Would it really have killed the people who had no interest in the wedding to scroll on by those threads? Apparently so.

[Dawson Leery]

15. The monarchy is a British tradition.

America's existence is due the a rejection of the "Divine" rule by a Sovereign. To believe in monarchy, one must have the same blind devotion which
religion requires.
As an American, I reject the premise that someone has been born into privilege. At this time, many of us are fighting against those
who are born into wealth and privilege AND are doing everything they can to keep the rest of us down.
Now, I understand the modern Monarchy is merely ceremonial when it comes to power. Still, I have no use for them and do not understand why
there is so much fascination with them around the world.

[Prophet 451]

18. We abandoned "divine right" long ago

These days, we accept that it's pure accident of birth. Truth be told, I'm not sure why the rest of the world is so fascinated. I know why we are, they're our Royalty and the monarch is our head of state but I don't understand why the rest of the world cares. I'm just glad they do because they bring in so much tourist revenue.

[CJCRANE]

21. "(I) do not understand why there is so much fascination with them around the world."

I was wondering the same thing.

It just seems a little absurd to me for a million people to stand around waiting to see a man kiss a woman on a balcony.

[Dawson Leery]

25. The "logic" that Britain at one time ruled much of the world does not hold

as a reason as to why people are fascinated with them. Why does this line of reasoning not hold?

Imperial Spain had a similar influence on the world. People are not fascinated by the Spanish Monarchy.

[CJCRANE]

30. My guess

is that it's more due to the "Cinderella" aspect of the romance, and also the love for Diana that still exists around the world.

[pipi_k]

19. As far as I'm concerned...

the only ones who have a right to "hate" the Royals and the Wedding and anything else associated with it are the people who actually live with it all.

Like you said, and I agree...William will not be our (USA) head of state.

It's not his fault he was born into the family he's in. It's like people want to blame him for being who he is, and what his role will be some day.

Americans hating the Royals and the Wedding is about as stupid as, for example, Brits saying they hate our Superbowl. Or our Fourth of July.


I saw hundreds of thousands of Brits having a hell of a good time earlier. A big ol block party in the streets. If anybody has a right to resent this whole thing it would be them. But they were happy as hell.

I guess some here think it's their job to inform all of those partiers that they're too damned stupid to know they should be storming Windsor Castle with pitchforks and torches instead of having a good time.

oy...

[CJCRANE]

26. I agree with you...

It didn't really affect me that much but it seems to mean a lot to millions (or even billions) of people, maybe because they remember Diana or William growing up or the whole Cinderella aspect of it. I don't begrudge them their day in the sun.

[NYC Liberal]

20. But most people here on DU

also criticize the dynasties, the political royalty, and the super rich of the United States every single day. Most DUers will be the first to criticize flaws in the American political system or terrible things the US has done in the past.

Some of us don't like the very idea of "royalty" in whatever form. It doesn't mean anyone who doesn't like it is really saying they "resent it because it's not how America does things." It's a different opinion. If "they don't affect our lives or yours in the slightest," then why the wall-to-wall media coverage?

[Prophet 451]

24. I'm not sure why the wall-to-wall coverage

Here, there's actually been little coverage except for today (discounting the gossipy tabloids, anyway). Today, it's understandable since it's a big national party and he will eventually be our head of state. Why the US media has gone overboard on wedding coverage, I have no idea.

[XemaSab]

89. I don't know why our media is so obsessed with the wedding

but I must say that it's nice to see some good news somewhere in the world. :)

Some of those hats notwithstanding. :o

[polly7]

28. I love the Royals. This was a beautiful, dignified wedding and it makes

me happy to see how many people were out enjoying themselves to be there for it.

:toast: (Champagne for this day) I hope with all my heart William and Catherine have a long, loving marriage.

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. There are some days

that I am embarrassed to be fucking American.

Based on comments I have seen/heard today wishing death to royalty among other things - today is one of those days.

[Mz Pip]

32. I watched it

and I enjoyed it. I like a bit of pageanty now and then. I can't imagine being such a sourpuss that I would trash a wedding. I wish William and Kate well. They dook like a sweet young couple.

[CJCRANE]

40. Do you mean "Americans" or..."DUers"?

This is DU, we argue about everything. That's what we do here. Don't take it personally.

[Prophet 451]

42. LOL, fair point

There's been a lot of anti-British slagging on HuffPo too but people have been nice enough to say kind things too.

[undeterred]

41. I don't understand why some people here feel annoyed by it.

I turned the television on this morning and watched for a while. Its nice to see something so elegant and how can anyone not be happy for them. What little girl doesn't dream of such a lovely wedding? If people don't want to watch nobody is forcing them. I normally don't watch the MSM anyway, and I turned it on today just to see some wedding coverage.

[Prophet 451]

46. And that, I entirely understand

William isn't going to be your head of state so I can entirely understand those who just ignore it or maybe take a brief look for the sheer spectacle.

[undeterred]

114. To me they're just people.

Will and Harry didn't get to choose their situation in life and I don't imagine its that easy to find a wife who is willing to marry into the royal family, after the well known problems of Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah. Looks like Will has done very well for himself and I wish him the best.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. I thought it was a gorgeous ceremony and I wish them all the best.

Congratulations on a job well done. You guys sure know how to do pomp and circumstance like no other. Thanks for allowing the world a glimpse.

[SidDithers]

47. K&R...

good post.

Sid

[Warren DeMontague]

49. My advice? Let it go.

There are plenty of people on our cheery little globe celebrating the nuptials of these two folks, including a lot here in the USA. But demanding that all 350 Million Americans refrain from snarking on it; well, you don't understand us very well, do you?

The Ignore Thread button is your friend.

FWIW, I wish them happiness, too.

[Prophet 451]

55. You're probably right

I'm probably just howling at the moon here, I just don't see the need to piss on our parade for no real reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. It doesn't matter what the topic is, someone will be along to complain about it.

Look at the knock-down, drag out fights we have over stuff like the Olive Garden, or Macs vs. PCs.

Seriously, life's too short.

[Saturday]

56. I'm one American that watched it and enjoyed it. Best Wishes to William and Kate. nt

[Mikeystyle]

58. If the Brits want royalty let them have it

My only interest in royalty pertains to two interests:

No. 1 is their role in history. Right now they have none. Whether or not the Brits have a king or queen I really don't give a damn, it's their choice. They could peacefully do away with the title if they wanted to. None of my business.

No. 2 I have no interest in the wedding and it's WAY over covered but Kate is HOT. Just sayin'

[Prophet 451]

61. Fair enough

On 1, I can entirely understand that. On 2, you're a long way from the only person to think so :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

67. delete..wrong place

[CJCRANE]

92. And what about her sister..!

Pippa the bridesmaid...

:blush:

I'm guessing she's still single.

You might have a chance there Mikey. You can borrow my litle British sports car for the night...

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. I don't blame you for being angry. Some people hate everything.

I loved the wedding. The entire thing was just LOVELY! William has grown to be a fine young man and his new bride loves him dearly. I hope they will be happy forever and the Paparazzi leaves them the hell alone!

[Prophet 451]

70. Some hope of that

The paparazzi part, I mean. I don't know if they'll be happy together. I hope they will be and I think that, unlike Charles & Diana, they have a real shot at it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. I agree. They are starting out in love. Which is more than we can say for Charles and Diana.

I don't doubt Diana loved Charles, but he was not in love with her. IMO. These kids have a fighting chance because they're starting from a good place. They looked so happy today. I just cried and cried and cried today. Happy for them and so sad his mom wasn't there to see it all happen.

[leftynyc]

69. I LOVED the wedding

I watched and cried at Charles/Diana's wedding, cried watching her funeral and cried again this morning. I had a ball texting back and forth with my sister because we both loved the hats. I'm as American as it comes. Got into a couple of online battles with those you are speaking about and pretty much shot them down with "are you paying for it?".

Another thing that can be pointed out is that unlike most of the children of our privledged, the young royals join their military and fight for their country. I've got no beef with them at all. Sorry you got caught up in all the nonsense. Britain has been our most loyal ally in my lifetime so behalf of only myself, I say thank you and I hope you enjoy all the hooplah that comes with this wedding. I wish I could have been in London myself.

[Starry Messenger]

71. I enjoyed watching it!

It's a little slice of history, it's not like you get to see a royal wedding every week. And for those of us who are old enough to remember Prince William being born, this is kind of full-circle to watch him grow up and get married. I don't understand the hostility either. Geeze, I wish people here would put all of that rage into fighting the actual ruling class in *this* country. Then we might get somewhere.

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. I just can't believe that baby got married!

It seems like just yesterday he was born. I hope he's happy. He deserves it. :)

[Starry Messenger]

82. 28 years! Can't be possible!

I hope they are happy too. :)

[City Lights]

72. K&R. nt

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prophet 451]

80. We're not asking for the right to lecture you

I'm just asking that Americans stop slagging off our traditions just because you don't share them. You wanna ignore the wedding or bitch that it's getting so much coverage, go right ahead.

[RandomThoughts]

81. I only argue the royalty points,

when arguing from the perspective of those that believe in blood lines.

To remove their arguments.


You can actually have the same argument inside of different perspectives, and can show within any perspective if a person is thinking and feeling.

Deep core drilling from the inside.


The fault of most is they have a discussion when the two sides are not using the same perspective or base beliefs, of what reality is. So you have to be able to have a discussion from within their view of existence for them to understand you.

Someone that actually believes they are superior, wont be convinced by you saying they are not, they will say you are a commoner so do not understand, or don't matter.

So step into their perspective, and show you are older, and out rank them, if they want to continue with there faulty perspective, they still don't have an argument.

There is a long topic on towers I am going to post someday.

[leftynyc]

85. Just what this thead needed

You don't like the royals, don't watch, scoll on by the threads and find a topic that concerns you. But, no, you had to do the ugly American thing here. Very classy.

[Fuzz]

86. And the OP was what? Saying it was American arrogance was a compliment?

My post was deleted, but the op crap stays? Both were opinions. I said I was doing something that was not me because the op almost forces one to react that way. I also said I hadn't posted anything about this until I see someone insult every American who disagrees with them. Screw that.

[Prophet 451]

88. For the record

I didn't report your post and had nothing to do with it's deletion, BTW.

[Fuzz]

91. I didn't think you did. It's the overly sensitive American types.

[Prophet 451]

101. Good

Glad we're understood on that at least.

[leftynyc]

90. The OP was right

Many here were judging the royal wedding and behavior by American standards. Since they're not Americans, that's not fair and assuming ours ways are superior is the height of arrogance given how much longer they've been around. It's their traditions, their money and yet people here had to come crap on every thread that was discussing the wedding. Personally, I loved the pomp and circumstance (and the hats). It was fun watching a different country's traditions.

[Fuzz]

95. It's not necessarily an opinion based on a feeling of superiority, it could just be

a damn opinion.

When I go overseas, I am embarrassed by a lot of American tourists and a lot of Europeans think they are boorish. I suppose they think they are superior to us, or is that just a one way thing?

[leftynyc]

112. I go to Greece every summer

to the islands where there are many Americans and many Europeans. We've made many friends there over the years and they're very open about how SOME Americans have a sense of entitlement and when things aren't exactly the way they are here (like, on the islands you can't put toilet paper in the toilet), they complain....loudly. But they (the Greeks) also complain about the Germans and the French, love the Italians and find the Brits a lot of fun. I do know that all those countries object to how many Americans just assume everyone speaks English. So I guess every country has their biases about others.

I live in NY and work in Manhattan so I see a lot of tourists here as well. I've had to remind some American tourists that the reason they're not hearing all English is that the UN is down the street and the city is filled with tourists - their assumption is that these are immigrants (probably illegal) who just refuse to learn English. So much of the biases are based on ignorance and a sense of superiority.

[leftynyc]

113. I go to Greece every summer

to the islands where there are many Americans and many Europeans. We've made many friends there over the years and they're very open about how SOME Americans have a sense of entitlement and when things aren't exactly the way they are here (like, on the islands you can't put toilet paper in the toilet), they complain....loudly. But they (the Greeks) also complain about the Germans and the French, love the Italians and find the Brits a lot of fun. I do know that all those countries object to how many Americans just assume everyone speaks English. So I guess every country has their biases about others.

I live in NY and work in Manhattan so I see a lot of tourists here as well. I've had to remind some American tourists that the reason they're not hearing all English is that the UN is down the street and the city is filled with tourists - their assumption is that these are immigrants (probably illegal) who just refuse to learn English. So much of the biases are based on ignorance and a sense of superiority.

[H2O Man]

84. I haven't read

any posts by people "pissed" about the wedding. Perhaps annoyed that American television is covering it 24/7, but that is primarily because there are important things that are newsworthy going unreported.

There is also some dislike for people who promote concepts such as "royalty." We've endured poodles such as George W. Bush, a man from a family that is invested in the myth of a "royal" bloodline.

[Prophet 451]

87. I can understand being annoyed at the media coverage

TBH, your media seems to be going more nuts about it than ours does.

As for the rest: They have no power, we know they're royalty by a sheer accident of birth and their role in our Constitution is purely ceremonial.

[JackRiddler]

93. At least twenty percent of THE BRITISH would end the monarchy.

So you don't speak for all people in the UK.

Even if you did, the medieval leftover is still nominally the monarch of Canada, Australia, and other lucky places.

They get to complain too.

Tough shit. You may have an older democracy, but we have a First Amendment right to be disgusted by the royalist display that is also being forced on us. (As do you to be disgusted with all that is wrong with the United States.)

[Fuzz]

96. How dare they slag off on their own traditions.

[Prophet 451]

99. They live here

They're (partly) paying for it, they live here and they'll be affected (in a tiny, tiny way) by the marriage.

[Prophet 451]

97. Again with the First Amendment

"Free speech" doesn't just give you the right to insult the Royals, it gives me the right to respond to that too. The Commonwealth nations have a right to complain too. And yes, you absolutely have the right to be annoyed at your own media for giving the wedding so much coverage but that doesn't mean you need to take it out on our cultural traditions. When it's our policies, fine, Americans have every right to complain but badmouthing the Royals family, essentially for existing, is roughly equivelent to a Brit blasting the Superbowl or Independence Day and we don't do that. We just ignore them because they're odd cultural traditions which don't really affect anything.

And the 20% (actually, more like 35%) of the public here that's anti-Royal have every right to complain too since they actually are paying for it (partly) and it'll make a (very, very tiny) difference to our country.

[JackRiddler]

100. I hereby invite you to blast (in words) the Superbowl and Independence Day to your heart's content.

[Prophet 451]

103. Why bother?

Really, I just don't see the point in attacking them. Odd, harmless cultural traditions are something to shrug at, not something to get heated over.

[JackRiddler]

107. As presently constituted & historically they are neither merely "odd" nor harmless.

The other point being, maybe you have something interesting to say in criticizing'em. Even if I was the biggest Fourth of July and Superbowl guy out there, I'd hope I wouldn't mind someone else disliking them and saying so out loud.

[Prophet 451]

109. Trust me, I wouldn't

How is having Royalty harmful? They have no power and we all know that they're Royal purely through accident of blood. You seem to be under the impression that we think of them as superior but we don't, just richer and older. We're perfectly at home with both the idea that our citizens are all equals (even if that is bullshit) and the idea of a powerless hereditary monarchy. Maybe that's contradictory but A) I don't think it is and B) it would hardly be the only thing in our national psyche.

[JackRiddler]

94. This is the same argument by which people justify the display of the Confederate flag, by the way.

It's "our" tradition, none of your business, see?

[Prophet 451]

98. Apples and oranges

A) Not the same thing at all.
B) Confederates are actually the same nation, for all that they seem to place state before country.

[JackRiddler]

102. It's true that the Confederates never enslaved Ireland or India.

[Prophet 451]

104. Technically, nor did we

We did some truly awful things to both countries but we never actually enslaved them. Granted, that's not much comfort since what we did do was so awful.

That agreed upon, that was sorted out ages ago. India became independent decades ago, so did Eire and Northern Ireland rule themselves to a large degree (and before a "united Ireland" is mentioned; both Eire and NI voted on it and they don't want to be united).

[JackRiddler]

106. When the royals renounce the history of their own institution...

and the ideology of bloodline entitlement to monarchy, then they'll start earning respect and attention... as equal citizens with something worthwhile to contribute.

[Prophet 451]

108. Why?

The British people want to have a monarchy, every poll shows a majority in favour. What they think about it, we have no idea.

[Little Star]

105. As a member of DU may I please offer my agreement with your OP...

As an American, I have found the rude, hateful postings about your customs offensive.
Sometimes if people have nothing nice to say, they should just say nothing! Shame on them!!!

I for one am sorry for the childish behavior that you had to witness here today.

[Prophet 451]

110. It's ok, I'm over it now

Just needed to vent a little.

[Fuzz]

147. I personally said nothing until this rude post. It was just as bad as any

anti-royal/wedding thread on DU. imho

[tblue37]

111. I believe the royals work pretty hard. I was watching the documentary

The Firm (about the British royals) last night, and just watching their nonstop work schedule--most of it for charities--exhausted me!

[Prophet 451]

134. I didn't see it

I know they do loads of charity work (inbetween ceremonial duties, obviously). Several also have jobs of their own (for example, Prince Harry is professional military).

[alarimer]

115. Your royalty are a complete waste of oxygen, like most wealthy who do nothing of any value

I'd be pissed that taxpayer money was going to them for anything. And I am pissed about all the airtime this farce is receiving here.

[Prophet 451]

133. They generate a stack of tourist revenue

I can understand your anger that the wedding is getting saturation coverage over there though, apologies for that.

[treestar]

137. Sounds like a variation of trickle down

which on DU is not going to go over well (though not all of the US will disdain it)

[Prophet 451]

140. Not really

Granted, the wealth of the Royal family isn't going to trickle down but a lot of the tourist money generated from events like this goes to small businessmen selling assorted tacky souveniers (traditionally, anyone can market anything with the Royals on it as long as they don't use the Royal Seal, try to incite treason with them or otherwise break laws).

[Prometheus Bound]

157. How do you know they generate a lot of tourist revenue?

How or why would they attract people to the country? Of all the times I've visited the UK, nothing about the Royal Family ever attracted me.

[EFerrari]

118. This must be Big Ugly American Friday. n/t

[Snoutport]

120. Super Ugly. We'd be just as pissed if they were attacking our traditions.

[Snoutport]

119. Dear Brits, I'm sorry people are rude about the wedding, I'm sorry we make fun of your food and most

of all I apologize for subjecting the world to George W. Bush.

Really, I mean it. No Sarcasm.

BUUUUUT... we wouldn't mind an apology for letting the Duchess of York make commercials and for subjecting us to mrs beckham.

[Prophet 451]

129. National apology for Victoria Beckham

I didn't know Fergie was making commercials for the US but apologies for those as well.

Feel free to make fun of our food, I make fun of our food.

[Snoutport]

143. Spotted Dick...snicker

Not to mention Mr Brains Faggots (in a country rich sauce)

[joshcryer]

121. The British Empire did not abolish slavery until 1873.

Your "democracy" did not equal that of the United States until 1918 (with regards to the number of people who were allowed to vote; if you think 5% representation = democracy I laugh in your face), and we beat you with womans suffrage. Jim Crow laws are an anomaly, and were fought tooth and nail by the democratic system. They were the teabaggers of their era, and I only hope we fight half as hard to todays modern teabaggers.

[Prophet 451]

127. But slavery in Britain itself was abolished in 1807

And if you want to get into a dick-waving contest about who has the older democracy, I could point out that your democracy didn't include everyone until many years after it's founding either. The definition of "democracy" isn't dependent on the number of people who can vote. And yeah, you beat us on women's sufferage - by a matter of months. Women were given the franchise by the Qualification of Women Act in 1918.
It goes like this: De Montfort created the first representative government in 1265 (composede of barons but there was no apparatus for universal voting at that point). Edward III established the Commons in 1341. During the reign of Edward III and Richard II, Parliament even impeached several ministers of the Crown. At various times, the franchise was restricted to men of property but so what, so was the American franchise for a long time.

You're trying to use your own personal definition of "democracy" just so you can claim the USA was first.

[NeedleCast]

123. I just think its amusing that a country that spent 12,000 years throwing off the rule of Monarchy

Spends such a great deal of time celebrating it.

Go Monarchy!

Love this quote from OP though:

"they don't affect our lives or yours in the slightest"

For something that doesn't affect your lives, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about it.

[Prophet 451]

130. We spend a lot of time talking about soap operas too

The fact that we have spent so long removing all power from the monarchy is exactly why we can celebrate them. Their existence is Constitutionally important but the fact that they have no power turns them into a harmless diversion, useful for ceremonial duties, generating tourist income and providing an excuse to have a good party (like today) but otherwise, a powerless sideshow.

[wickerwoman]

125. +1. I just don't understand the vehemence.

It's not your country. You're not paying for it. These people have less than zero impact on your lives unless you want them too. Why get worked up about it to the point where you're saying "fuck you" to a couple of kids on their wedding day?

As has been said above, if you're worried about inequality and privilege, start *doing* something about it in your own backyard. It's cheap and easy to crap on how other countries do things because ultimately nobody in America who is "outraged" over the Royals is ever going to have to do anything about it.

Chelsea Clinton's wedding got heaps of press coverage and cost a mint but you didn't see tons of people saying "fuck the Clintons"- or you did (hooray DU!) but they were shut down by people arguing that it's tacky to wish people ill on their wedding day. And it is. Whoever they are.

[TBF]

126. These cost up to 5000 pounds each (the hats) -

while average Londoners are facing austerity measures so extreme that they may not know where their next meal is coming from. Discuss.

[Zorra]

131. That's only a piddling $8355 a hat. About the yearly income of

a disabled person on SSI.

Certainly nothing excessive or unreasonable; it is a royal wedding after all.

What's your point?

[Prophet 451]

132. Which part would you like to discuss?

The clothing of the guests (including the Royal Family) is paid for by them personally (although designers frequently give them clothes as a form of free advertising). Are they outrageously expensive? You bet but we don't really want to get into the habit of dictating what clothes people can buy.

The Royal household receives around £2 million a year from the Civil List but for some years now, they've turned around and given it straight back. By tradition, the Queen can't be taxed but for some years, she has voluntarily given a sum equivelent to what she would pay in income taxes (the rest of the family can be and are taxed on their private earnings). The family's wealth comes mainly from the fact that they own huge swathes of land.

As for the wedding itself: According to The Telegraph, the whole thing will cost the national treasury between £1 and £5 billion but it's likely to generate substantially more once the receipts come in from the tourist trade. Additionally, we'd be paying for the security costs even if they got married in a registery office.

Finally, I don't agree with the austerity measures and if you'd like me to swear profusely about them, my Facebook page hosts a number of rants on the subject (since I'm disabled, I'm one of those in the firing line) but they were announced before anyone knew that the couple had gotten engaged and moreover, the cuts are based on Tory ideaology (short version: Help the rich and corporations, starve the unemployed, poor and sick), Britain's budget is just the excuse the Tories are using to try and justify them.

[TBF]

142. Yes, the oppulance on display while others are starving.

It is not the young folks themselves - they are obviously in love and we all hope they are very happy. But those two might have been just as happy with a Justice of the Peace ceremony, and it probably would have been better all the way around.

As far as America vs. Great Britain though, we hold no moral superiority. Chelsea Clinton's wedding may not have had 2 billion people watching it worldwide, but I'd bring up the same issues.

[treestar]

136. I'm not much on fashion

Don't understand how it gains that kind of money either! That hat on Beatrice is like so stupid I would not pay ten cents for it - how do the people who design such things do it? I'm jealous!

[treestar]

135. Though allies now, it brings out the one difference we have

Our country was founded on the principle that there would be no inheritance and no privilege of blood (though initially they failed to apply that concept to black slaves - but eventually we did).

I have nothing against the royals - they can't help being born into that family any more than anyone else can.

The concept, though, is essentially un-american and you know how egotistical Americans can be. Our way is always the best! Or so we think. It is in our nature to fight privilege or disability at birth (well, exclude the birthers, but they are throwbacks). The French royalty is gone and so is most other European royalty, as far as we can tell. Well, maybe we were fascinated with Grace Kelly and her family.

So as you can see it creates debate amongst Americans.

[Prophet 451]

138. Ah, but you still have an aristocracy

The Bushes, the Kennedys, many people who were born into wealth and privilege. Not a criticism, more a gentle rib.

Since we've removed all the power from the monarchy, they're a harmless diversion now. It's their lack of power that enables us to enjoy events like today. And I was insulted at the belief that royalty was inherently incompatible with equality and democracy when nations far more equal and democratic than Britain still retain their monarchs (such as Sweden and Denmark). I've calmed down a lot since I posted the OP. I just got incredibly pissed at what I viewed as "ugly Americanism" over a pretty harmless tradition.

[Fuzz]

148. And we criticize the American 'royals' often here as well.

[hardcover]

144. The wedding was beautiful. I enjoyed watching it very much.

As for the opulence, that was good for the economy, it provided income for a lot of workers. It was a beautiful day, a wonderful celebration and I loved it.

[Catherine Vincent]

145. There's always been a lot of hate on DU

It's not the first and it won't be the last unfortunately.

[Prometheus Bound]

152. It's not hate. It just has no meaning to us.

[TuxedoKat]

146. I thought the wedding was magnificent

and I loved all the personal meanings the couple put into all the details. I wished I could have been there -- what a wonderful historic event. My 9 year old who didn't know anything about the wedding beforehand enjoyed watching it with me too. I would have been very proud to be British today. :) Sorry about the haters -- don't let them get you down -- I don't think that is the majority of us. :)

[Dappleganger]

149. My problem isn't with the wedding, but the disgusting near-orgasmic reactions of the media

US and British, combined.

Personally, I feel sorry for the couple because the odds are stacked against them that this will last and they will be able to keep their happiness. It doesn't look good.

[Prometheus Bound]

151. I couldn't stand more than 10 minutes of it because of the commentators.

Breathless, gasping, almost in tears of rapture when they found out who designed the wedding dress.

Going on and on about how lucky the bride's father was, how he must never imagined he'd be in this position (being allowed to mix with his betters as it were).

Fascinated by the rich, famous and powerful invitees.

Turned it off.

[WildEyedLiberal]

153. Fortunately the opinions of cranks on DU do not reflect the opinions of "Americans" as a whole

Most people I know were interested, in some degree, with the Royal wedding today. I didn't feel like getting up at 6am to watch, but my friend DVR'd it so I might check out the highlights if I have time (final exams, eek!). But please don't think that the asshole malcontents on DU represent anything approaching a representative fraction of the American public. They don't.

[DuaneBidoux]

154. The fact that you care and we care mean there is something special.

For every bad thing you heard there were ten people on their couches in the middle of the night watching the wedding. Trust me, Americans care in a very good way.

This country is used to spreading their power through the military and the corporations (I'm actually surprised you haven't caught on either) so the stereotype of the Ugly American isn't entirely a myth.

Also remember, we have problems here with a fairly large majority of Americans accepting the legitimacy of an African American president.

[Common Sense Party]

156. Didn't it all seem rather churchy?

Just kidding. I'm just surprised more DUers, who are often strenuously opposed to any and all things religious, don't object to all the hymns and prayers, and Bible passages and, you know, Jesus stuff that was in the whole ceremony. I thought I'd hear more complaints about that. Interestingly, I haven't.

[DuaneBidoux]

158. I watched Bill Mahrer and was very disappointed in his royal wedding commentary.

Although I tend to agree with his politics and general world view I find he can be revoltingly crude about that of which he has no appreciation. I cringed as I heard him talk through the mind of a British citizen.

Just remember--an individual is just that and not more. For one you fear there will be ten more who you love if you just search a little bit more.