homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.155.142
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >     
Will and Kate's Wedding to stream live
Youtube live...
tangor




msg:4300679
 8:16 pm on Apr 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

Those of you hoping to escape the forthcoming nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton had better stick YouTube on your list of proscribed media, because the 29 April wedding will be streamed live on The Royal Channel.

[theregister.co.uk...]

 

Samizdata




msg:4300687
 8:25 pm on Apr 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

Suddenly all those cute cat videos seem much more interesting.

...

LifeinAsia




msg:4300699
 8:34 pm on Apr 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

Suddenly all those cute cat videos seem much more interesting.

As well as the non-cute ones...

Leosghost




msg:4300708
 8:50 pm on Apr 19, 2011 (gmt 0)

Even the cat hacking up furball ones..

tangor




msg:4300906
 1:42 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I hope the young couple has a happy day. As will (probably) a million or so other couples around the world at or about the same time). Meanwhile, I hope you guys will leave the little pussies alone...cats ARE royalty (just ask 'em!).

Samizdata




msg:4300990
 3:29 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

cats ARE royalty

Then royalty has fleas and makes a mess on the carpet.

But a cat may look at a king. I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where.

...

incrediBILL




msg:4301037
 4:12 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Then royalty has fleas and makes a mess on the carpet.



They only mess on the carpet if you don't clean the litter box, it's a HINT ;)

Also, they only have fleas if improperly groomed, gave mine 'the program' and never saw another flea ever.

Then again, local kids had lice in schools while my cat was flea free, he was kept more like royalty than those lousy children.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4301152
 9:15 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think I will stay in bed for 24 hours that day.

viggen




msg:4301158
 9:30 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

...a balding, part time helicopter pilot, and an unemployed housewife getting married,

...as if i care...

jecasc




msg:4301160
 9:36 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Oh my god I am so excited. What will the wedding dress look like and the hair? And the make up and the hat? Will the wedding dress have a train and how long will it be? And what flowers, the flowers are important, too.

Uhuhuhu if it were only 29th already. I can't wait I am so excited. And of course I wonder if they will have fleas and make a mess on the carpet, too.

Old_Honky




msg:4301179
 10:09 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I am so bored by the prospect of these two people I don't care a fig about getting married, that as an act of protest I will be working that day rather than taking the bank holiday off and watching the wall to wall coverage on TV.

It is only interesting if you speculate which of the many dysfunctional Royal Familly members and heads of state worldwide got an invite. Sadly I hear a certain Mr Gaddafi is not going to be able to make it...

Visit Thailand




msg:4301191
 11:02 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

This is going to be such a momentous day. I hope I am able to watch it all.

I wonder why so many people mock this special occasion, it is historic and yet the future too, something all of us should treasure.

Sometimes I get the impression some people would prefer to see two Hollywood celebs get married.

Anyway, if you are not into it just look upon it as a great big p*** up, er I mean party.

I for one will pray for sunshine. May they live happily ever after.

bhonda




msg:4301192
 11:02 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Sadly I hear a certain Mr Gaddafi is not going to be able to make it...

Ah, the reason why it is to be put on YouTube becomes clear...

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4301196
 11:21 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I wonder why so many people mock this special occasion, it is historic and yet the future too, something all of us should treasure.


TBH I am not quite sure that I understand why I should treasure this. I am afraid that the royal family means nothing to me.

Old_Honky




msg:4301197
 11:22 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

If the track record of previous Royal Family members who have also given us a "momentous day" is any indication they will be divorced in about 4 years.

Visit Thailand




msg:4301202
 11:31 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I am afraid that the royal family means nothing to me.


And yet, the world would be such a very different place if it were not for the British people and as such, the British monarchy.

It may mean nothing to you today, but it has, and does, mean something to a lot of people around the world.

It has formed who many of us are, the language we speak, and so many other things too.

Plus unlike the Oscars or a Michael Jackson concert, this is historic. Something we should all cherish because once it has gone then the only place our children, and then theirs etc will be able to see such things will be in a museum.

It is not as if there is a Royal Wedding every year!

divorce


And it is not about how the wedding goes, or whether she is right or wrong for him etc. It is about history, carriages and horses, the pomp, the guards, the Red Arrows, the kiss on the balcony, Buckingham Palace, London and the ceremony that will be watched by millions, perhaps billions around the world. It is about the occasion.

Long live the Queen!

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4301217
 11:49 am on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

... the British people and as such, the British monarchy.

AFAIC the "Great" in Great Britain has nothing to do with the Monarchy so I don't get your analogy? Let them have their wedding and I am sure many people will enjoy it but I will not be one of them. ;)

engine




msg:4301282
 2:33 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's right, it's history, like it or not. As two people getting married, I wish them well, and to any others that might also be getting married on that same day, too.

For those that can't attend (Gadaffi included) youtube will come to their aid. Isn't technology great!

Gotta go, I have to run up another cat video and monetize it.
:)

StoutFiles




msg:4301303
 2:52 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I wonder why so many people mock this special occasion, it is historic and yet the future too, something all of us should treasure.

Sometimes I get the impression some people would prefer to see two Hollywood celebs get married.


Um, the royal family ARE celebrities, and that's all they are.

And yet, the world would be such a very different place if it were not for the British people and as such, the British monarchy


While it could be argued that without monarchies the world would be a better place (hence, no more British monarchy), I don't understand two things.

A: We're celebrating the descendants of power-hungry royalty. Aren't king's and queen's generally disliked by the working class? (behind closed doors, natually)

B: We're celebrating descendants at all. While their ancestors did things, what does this new generation do that's worthy of recognition? So far they just run around spending their massive inheritance. Why should anyone care?

Maybe your views are skewed living in Thailand though. What a great king you have over there...

(King) Bhumibol is legally considered "inviolable", and insults, claims that he is involved in politics, and criticism of him can result in three to fifteen years in jail


He's also worth 30 BILLION US dollars. Wonder how king's get so rich? That's because they take from you. But hey, royal families, so great!

Plus unlike the Oscars or a Michael Jackson concert, this is historic. Something we should all cherish because once it has gone then the only place our children, and then theirs etc will be able to see such things will be in a museum.


How sad that some people cherish the events of the rich, who are only rich because they've taken from your ancestors.

Matthew1980




msg:4301384
 5:27 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

The only thing I am greatful for is that it means I get an extra day off from work. But I shall make a point of doing something interesting for the day that doesn't involve TV or the internet or my phone.

Though lolcats is better sometimes than youtube. Cats are the funniest things, have you seen the new advert for Lumix camera's where the cat gets a lift from the tortoise? Funny!

Cheers,
MRb

wyweb




msg:4301388
 5:34 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

The thing about marriage.. and I don't know if it's the same in Royalty or not. Obviously there's going to be a few differences.

It's a piece of paper but it changes things. Now you're hooked and I think a lot of people look at it exactly like that.

"Now I'm in marriage hell."

I can tell you unequivocally that I've had several wives and we were doing good until we got married. That piece of paper seemed to have the effect of dampening things though. It's like we're bound now, like somebody just put handcuffs on us.

Samizdata




msg:4301402
 5:48 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've had several wives and we were doing good until we got married

Spoken like genuine royalty.

Probably Henry the eighth in this case.

...

akmac




msg:4301450
 7:14 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I will watch the entire ceremony from start to finish.


As long as it is designed, overseen, and officiated by the surviving members of the Monty Python troupe.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

johnhh




msg:4301507
 9:18 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

a cat may look at a king


Oddly I thought it was from a book or poem but "The origin of this proverb is unknown." - I cheated used Google !

But come the day, as we here enjoy an extra day off, I guess there many "cats" looking at the future "king"

Not sure it will be Charles though ..

I think the wife has worked out a complete timetable for the day !

Leosghost




msg:4301510
 9:33 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

It was mentioned in Alice in Wonderland ..but Alice says "I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where." so predates Lewis Carroll, real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.. 1832 to 1898.

Visit Thailand




msg:4301520
 10:18 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Um, the royal family ARE celebrities, and that's all they are.


Be serious. Celebs are here today gone tomorrow. The Royal family, especially the British monarchy, have had an impact one way or another on ALL our lives for hundreds of years.

Maybe your views are skewed living in Thailand though.


No comment. Think yourselves lucky that you are able to discuss and question such things without the very real fear of arrest.

How sad that some people cherish the events of the rich, who are only rich because they've taken from your ancestors.


?! Cherish the events of the rich ?! What does that even mean? I cherish history as without it how can we know who we are, where we have been or learn from our successes and failures.

And they have given us so much more in return too. Some obvious, some less so. Some tried to take too much and were eventually dealt with.

Take tourism to the UK. The Royal family, their palaces, gardens bring in billions of tourism receipts each year. These same tourists need to sleep somewhere, eat, move around, and see other things like go to Scotland to see how whisky is made or got to Bath etc. etc.

And that is just today, but what I am talking about goes back centuries.

But hey, if you do not like the Royals that's fine, it is a free country, and maybe one day if they are gone (I hope not) Hollywood may make a movie about them which will at least in parts be accurate.

Old_Honky




msg:4301557
 11:21 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Take tourism to the UK. The Royal family, their palaces, gardens bring in billions of tourism receipts each year.
Often repeated by the pro-royals this is in fact wrong. Check this link which gives the latest visitor figures for top tourist attractions. None of the current palaces are in the top 20, the tower of London scrapes in at no. 8, but this is mainly an historical attraction.

[guardian.co.uk...]

Leosghost




msg:4301573
 11:57 pm on Apr 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

The current UK royal family are recent German imports ..who had to change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha after the first world war ..

[en.wikipedia.org...]

[en.wikipedia.org...]

They are not English ..and their "English history" does not go back even one century.. yet ."they" have given the country of England or the assemblage which is Great Britain nothing ..except by their presence, which possibly, spared the country the instabilities of many Republics in the 20th century ..

Old_Honky,

Thank you for the "an"
an historical
..all is not lost for the English language, when such things exist in "Foo" :)
Samizdata




msg:4301577
 12:09 am on Apr 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

what I am talking about goes back centuries

OK let's look at the last thousand years:

1011 - Various English kings warring with each other
1066 - Frenchman invades and makes himself king
1156 - Another Frenchman makes himself king and rules from France
1216 - French king overthrows incumbent and makes himself king
1485 - Welsh rebel overthrows incumbent and makes himself king
1605 - Scottish kings invited to take over
1649 - Republic
1660 - Scottish kings invited to take over again
1689 - Dutch kings invited to take over
1707 - German princes invited to take over
1917 - German incumbents change family name for PR purposes
1936 - Incumbent abdicates and goes to visit Hitler

The institution seems durable, but the "royal blood" seems irrelevant.

...

Visit Thailand




msg:4301683
 4:31 am on Apr 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Often repeated by the pro-royals this is in fact wrong. Check this link which gives the latest visitor figures for top tourist attractions. None of the current palaces are in the top 20, the tower of London scrapes in at no. 8, but this is mainly an historical attraction.


Two things.

As far as I can tell that interesting link does not say how, or even if (as far as I can see), they differentiate between domestic tourism and overseas tourism.

Plus it is hardly surprising that museums rank at the top as well, as I am sure the visitor numbers include schools etc. But ALSO a lot of the stuff in the museums do have Royal links, which of course make them more interesting to visit.

But regardless of that, the museums protect history (although granted a lot of the pieces may actually belong to other countries - again an empirical Royal link), and that is what the Royal Wedding is all about, history and the institution.

So I think if you analyse the data carefully, you will find Royal links to a lot of the places in that list.

I do not think it can be argued that the Royal family, and British history, do not contribute significantly to the entire British economy through enormous increases in tourism.

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved