Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family II

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family II

<

William and Kate: The Movie – so bad it'll probably be a smash

Quote:
Perhaps the PR handout gives it away: "Shot entirely in Los Angeles and inspired by true events." That might account for the mountains in the backdrop to a pheasant shoot in Gloucestershire, buses driving on the right in London, the Middletons' modern house transformed into a Californian Tudor mansion and the famous dragon boat race training that Kate Middleton once undertook on the Thames at Chiswick being transposed to the High Sierra.

The film has sparked a worldwide media frenzy, according to its promoters. This is the Wedding of the Year as imagined in Wichita or Wyoming, with dialogue so authentic it follows you round the room. As in all the best plays, they tell each other things they must already know. "I say, Wills," says Prince Harry. "I am not the heir. I am just the spare."

"You do realise this is the 21st century?" Kate expostulates to her etiquette coach. "In your world, perhaps, but not in his," said coach replies portentously, and a million heads will nod knowingly, from Houston to Hawaii.

Monarchists abroad may be shocked when William informs his intended that half the country loves his family and the other half thinks they are irrelevant throwbacks – a little bit of social comment there – but they will soon be back on track when he adds reassuringly: "My mother was one of the people. She tried to change the monarchy."

Kate replies: "We'll still be us. Nothing will come between us." At which point some in the audience at the film's preview unaccountably began to titter.

Previous thread.

Please keep arguments for and against abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. This thread is for mocking the repulsively rich and privileged. Tx.

 

 

Slumberjack

Catchfire wrote:
This thread is for mocking the repulsively rich and privileged. Tx. 

But we have the four horsemen from the election debate threads for that.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hey-o!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture
al-Qa'bong

She looks like one of the Manson girls.

Frmrsldr

Read an article the other day that made me laugh until my sides ached:

The Associated Press wrote:

LONDON - Britain's government said it has begun the process of reviewing the ancient, discriminatory rules of royal succession, so if Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child is a baby girl she would eventually become queen.

The current rule ... puts boys ahead of their sisters ...

Fidel

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24493]Britain's Royal Wedding Fiasco and its "Dirty little Secret" in Bahrain[/url]

Quote:
The British royals were in recent days coming under fire in some of the UK press for inviting the Bahraini prince, who is also the deputy supreme commander of the Bahrain Defence Forces.

Despite a lack of coverage in the British and Western mainstream media generally, nonetheless there has been a public outcry in Britain over the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy movement. More than 30 civilians have been killed in state violence - which escalated on March 16 after Saudi-led forces from the other Gulf countries entered the diminutive island of some 700,000 indigenous population.

Thousands others have been injured from army and police opening fire on peaceful protests. Up to 1,000 people have been unlawfully detained, or "disappeared", including doctors, nurses, lawyers, human rights workers and bloggers. Four people, including Bahraini journalist Karim Fakhrawi [1], have died while in custody, showing signs of torture. The Shia majority in Bahrain is particularly targeted by the Sunni rulers and their Gulf allies. Hundreds have been sacked from workplaces, accused of being supportive of the anti-government uprising that began on February 14.

They abandoned their cousin Nicky in 1917 for fear of importing revolution.

6079_Smith_W

Not a smart, or a gracious move to leave Gordon Brown and Tony Blair off the list, even if they don't like them:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=4667208&sponsor=

 

6079_Smith_W

and Frmrsldr, 

I heard a similarly laughable interview with a fellow on CBC last week who didn't want them to open up the rules of succession because he felt it would ultimately lead to opening up the throne to Catholics, and go on from there to remove the place of Christianity in royal tradition. 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

and Frmrsldr, 

I heard a similarly laughable interview with a fellow on CBC last week who didn't want them to open up the rules of succession because he felt it would ultimately lead to opening up the throne to Catholics, and go on from there to remove the place of Christianity in royal tradition. 

Yeah,

as I've often said you cannot have a hereditary (and thereby unelected, unrepresentative, anti-democratic and inegalitarian) institution existing within a democratic egalitarian society.

In order to reform monarchy so that it's compatible with a democratic and egalitarian society, it must be made elected.

Even that's not good enough because opening up such an institution to the democratic process would favor the rich and those most fit for such an office because of education - which again is to say it would favor the rich and well-connected.

The only truly fair and egalitarian approach would be to open the office of the crown to a national lotteryLaughing. (And limit it to a term of 4, 5 or 6 years.)

Or fire them from their day jobs and rehire them as "living history" actors employed by the (British) Ministry of National History and Museums (or whatever it's called) to remind us of how we used to do things in the 'bad old days' and how much more enlightened and progressive we now are.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, anyway.... 

Seeing as the tradition used to be to give amnesties, free prisoners and clean the slate on occasions like this, it is very bad form for the royal couple to make their first mark such a childish and vindictive one. 

It's not as if they have to like the two men, but they should have at least recognized that they represent a lot of people and that the role of a figurehead isn't to just side with their little clique. 

Royalty has learned a few times before where their power really comes from, and these two may be setting themselves up for another lesson.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Please keep arguments for and against abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. This thread is for mocking the repulsively rich and privileged. Tx.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I am behind on my reading about security arrangements for the BIG BIG DAY. Any updates on dealing with the avian threat? They should be taking it much more seriously - pigeon shit can ruin your whole day. Perhaps the Bahraini prince is being invited so that he can bring a crack troop of falconers along with him. (Damn, more ethnic stereotyping... royal weddings bring out the worst in us, don't they?)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Catchfire wrote:
Please keep arguments for and against abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. This thread is for mocking the repulsively rich and privileged. Tx.

Okay, this is not an argument, just a statement: Abolish the Monarchy! Make the Rich pay!

 Tongue outTongue outTongue outTongue outTongue out

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Please keep arguments for and against abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. This thread is for mocking the repulsively rich and privileged. Tx.

What is your opinon on making monarchy an elected office or opening the title or position of the crown to a national lottery?

1. (The British) Monarchy will still continue to exist.

2. With a national lottery, as the name of every adult British, Welsh, Scottish, North Ireland citizen (from the census, the revenue service and other national registries) the monarchy is made egalitarian with every eligible person having an equal chance of being selected. Should a person already a member of the royal family be selected this would count as a disqualification.

These two proposals will retain the monarchy while at the same time shatter the (hereditary) privileges and priviledged status it confers on that peculiar British family.

If you don't think that's hilarious:

Enter a room of repulsively rich and priviledged (pro) monarchist snobs and mention making succession to the throne a democratically elected or national lottery selected process.

Then watch the changes in the look on their faces and their reactions.

Trust me.

You will be laughing so hard you will be gasping for air.Laughing

 

6079_Smith_W

@ BoomBoom

Yes! And a few manners and reading skills for the downtrodden, while we are at it!

Huzzah!

Not that I'd make a special trip or anything, but if I were over there, I would definitely turn up with my Tony Blair mask on

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes! And a few manners and reading skills for the downtrodden, while we are at it!

Huzzah!

The way the repulsively rich exploit and abuse the poor (especially in the name of the crown during colonial times) isn't very good manners, is it?

Words and their meanings are very important. Ask any lawyer.

6079_Smith_W

Well I actually meant better manners and reading skills for internet geeks, but that doesn't have quite the same stirring ring to it.

So I take it you won't be sitting up Thursday night with scones and tea? 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ BoomBoom

Yes! And a few manners and reading skills for the downtrodden, while we are at it!

 

What's wrong with my manners and reading skills? Surprised

humanity4all

Keep paying your taxes. Canadian subjects are very good at this!

Hoodeet

If you want to watch a really disgusting show, try to find on line yesterday's Piers Morgan (the brit who replaced Larry King) interviewing David Frost about the monarchy and the wedding.  At one point the two agreed that given all the awful stuff happening in the world (Fukushima, the Middle East, the financial crisis,etc.) ALL BRITS are happy to take a break and enjoy the week and the wedding.  Two talking heads with exaggerated oxbridge accents chatting away as if there were no opposition in the UK.  AMAAAAZING. 
But keep a barf bag next to you if you find the program...

Hoodeet

PS:  I LOVE the thread title.  It threw me for a loop until I read the contents.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Piers Morgan is a horse's ass. One more reason not to watch CNN.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I actually meant better manners and reading skills for internet geeks, but that doesn't have quite the same stirring ring to it.

The manners I've seen displayed on this thread are all proper.

If it's the writing skills you are referring to where there may perhaps be a discrepancy between the desired intent and the meaning imparted by the words used, that's not my problem. Like I said the words used (to express oneself) and their meanings are important. Ask any lawyer.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So I take it you won't be sitting up Thursday night with scones and tea? 

Given my posts on this subject on other threads, did you even need to ask?Wink

Given that the crown and a number of very wealthy British families made a lot of money from tea plantations in China and India (not to mention the Opium Wars in China) back in the colonial days, I have a (psychological) "allergy" to tea.

The capitalists' use of symbols such as "Nabob" and "Red Rose" (an allusion to the "War of the Roses", perhaps) to sell tea gives me a natural reaction of revulsion.

How 'bout you, are you "that into" them?

The soldier from the peculiar British "welfare" family and his future bride, I mean.

6079_Smith_W

Frmrsldr wrote:

Given my posts on this subject on other threads, did you even need to ask?Wink

How 'bout you, are you "that into" them?

The soldier from the peculiar British "welfare" family and his future bride, I mean.

Well I'm sure if you've seen my recent posts you can tell its the only thing that has been on my mind lately. 

But I think you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face by not tuning in. There was a piece on CBC last night on security and protest groups, including an "anti-crusade" group, the window-smashers, and best of all, an old couple who have a guillotine set up in their back yard.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 and best of all, an old couple who have a guillotine set up in their back yard.

Off with their heads! Royal good for nothing parasite scum. Laughing

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But I think you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face by not tuning in. There was a piece on CBC last night on security and protest groups, including an "anti-crusade" group, the window-smashers, and best of all, an old couple who have a guillotine set up in their back yard.

Heavens no, my good man.

If you read all my posts on the subject, you will know that I do not advocate ending the suzerainty of the British monarchy over Canada, thereby making Canada a fully sovereign and independent nation state, by violent means - even in jest.

Murder of anyone regardless of who it is and even if in jest is not a proper subject for discussion.

I have no interest in watching British people attend the wedding of a British couple - one of whom belongs and the other will soon join a peculiar British family and who will himself, along with a (possible surviving offspring) of theirs and the institution that they will inherit, become the head of state of what to them, is a foreign country - Canada, thereby impinging upon and reducing the sovereignty and independence of the nation state(?) of Canada.Cry

Aside from the irony, anyone who finds this funny has a strange sense of humor.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I'm sure if you've seen my recent posts you can tell its the only thing that has been on my mind lately. 

But I think you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face by not tuning in. There was a piece on CBC last night on security and protest groups, including an "anti-crusade" group, the window-smashers, and best of all, an old couple who have a guillotine set up in their back yard.

Is that why you're going to watch it?

6079_Smith_W

I knew something was bugging me about this, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. How come they picked an actor who looked more like his brother whatshisname - the one who likes to dress like a nazi? He certainly has his hairdo. 

Especially since William looks more like his mother, you'd think they'd want to play that up.

No word on if Elton John is making a cameo as himself, eh? 

Caissa

Maybe he can perform Your Song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTa8U0Wa0q8

Caissa

Canada's wedding gift will be a $50,000 donation to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

The organization was chosen by William and Kate to be the Canadian beneficiary of a special charitable fund set up to celebrate their wedding.

In a statement Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the donation will help the Coast Guard provide a permanent search-and-rescue program and help prevent injuries or loss of life at sea.

William and Kate had publicly asked for charitable donations in lieu of traditional gifts

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/royalwedding/story/2011/04/28/royal-wedding...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Tabloid couple to festoon Ottawa on Canada Day, may bring creepy hat army

Quote:
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Kate, will arrive in Canada on Thursday for a royal tour that is prompting a reaction among young people ranging from excited adulation to indifference or even hostility.

The Monarchist League of Canada says that people under 25 make up 15 per cent of its 15,000 members and are the fastest-growing segment.

Matthew Rowe, a spokesman for the league in the Ottawa region, says William and Kate are relevant to young people: "This is monarchy 2.0. This is the new generation. The institution is being reinvented for a new generation."

Tom Richards, 21, is looking forward to meeting Will and Kate at a Monarchist League of Canada reception in Ottawa this week. "Wow, what an honour," he says. "I'm sure we'll be introduced in some way."

Richards once believed Canada should cut ties with the monarchy, but says he changed his mind after studying history and political science at St. Francis Xavier University.

William and Kate have historical importance beyond their appeal as celebrities, he says.

Cheap replicas infuriate hat man Philip Treacy

 

Quote:
"People are certainly wearing hats more since the royal wedding," said celebrity milliner Cozmo Jenks. "But the word fascinator makes me want to be sick. I started making headdresses years ago, but the high street ones are so badly made and look cheap. You have to have money to afford the kind of headgear we make."

The designer Victoria Grant said the high street had "killed" the fashionable fascinator. "The danger with these fascinators made in China is that they're bundled together and not made with care – just a few feathers in a comb. They make me think of a burlesque hen-do," said Grant, whose latest feather-spray Bellini hat costs the queenly sum of £469.

 

 

 

Frmrsldr

wrote:

William and Kate have historical importance beyond their appeal as celebrities, he says.

What kind of moron writes garbage like this?

The British crown/monarchy as an institution has historical importance [for Canada and its other [mostly former] slave colonies.]

Wilhelm/Willie (pronounced Vilhelm/Villie) and Kate as individuals do not [have historical importance.]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Quebec protesters hire bodyguards for royal visit

excerpt:

Bourgeois said protest organizers plan to cause civil disobedience during the royal visit — but no violence. The group is expecting 300 protesters in the streets to denounce the monarchy during the royal couple's July 3 visit to Quebec City.

Bourgeois said his organization has hired around 40 imposing security guards for the event to keep radical protesters from making the situation ugly.

Lefauve

Disguise everybody like Vendeta!

It will be harmless but will give them the cold shoulder!

Lefauve

Or even the quiet staring! might be good too!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Lefauve wrote:
Disguise everybody like Vendeta! It will be harmless but will give them the cold shoulder!

 

al-Qa'bong

Frmrsldr wrote:

 

The British crown/monarchy as an institution has historical importance [for Canada and its other [mostly former] slave colonies.]

Wilhelm/Willie (pronounced Vilhelm/Villie) and Kate as individuals do not [have historical importance.]

Slave colonies?  Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

And while you're nattering on about the meaningless papier maché monarchies in someone else's country, your own government is slipping into absolutism.

 

 

President 'becoming an absolute monarch' on war powers

Hoo rah!

6079_Smith_W

Lefauve wrote:
Disguise everybody like Vendeta! It will be harmless but will give them the cold shoulder!

Good book, but I think Anonymous and others who wear that mask forget who their vigilante hero was disguising himself as - 

The real Guy Fawkes was an arch-monarchist - a Roman Catholic fanatic who wanted to destroy the closest thing to a democratic institution which existed in the UK at the time - parliament - and bring back an absolute monarch (under the thumb of the pope, of course).

 

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

The British crown/monarchy as an institution has historical importance [for Canada and its other [mostly former] slave colonies.]

Wilhelm/Willie (pronounced Vilhelm/Villie) and Kate as individuals do not [have historical importance.]

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Slave colonies?  Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

I don't have to because you and others who post such threads and make such fawning and gushing posts about monarchy in such threads are already doing that.

That's rich coming from a guy who in a related thread claimed that he preferred Canada's ensign over the current national flag.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

And while you're nattering on about the meaningless papier maché monarchies in someone else's country, your own government is slipping into absolutism.

Bullshit cop out excuse al. If the monarchy was so meaningless, then why are there so many brain dead pro monarchy monbot (monarchy+robot="monbot") zombie fanaddicts posting such garbage like this on this and other related threads?

In Canada, the British crown/monarch is the de jure Commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. When Canadian soldiers rape, maim and murder Afghans and burn their villages, homes, men, women and children, they do it in the name of the British queen. 

And yet will any Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders hold the British queen accountable for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and the atrocities and war crimes committed by those troops in those countries?

Oh no, according to you and others, not that "meaningless papier mache" figure.

The Canadian Prime Minister (for all intents and purposes) is the de facto Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As for Prime Minister Herr Harper 'becoming an absolute monarch' on war powers -

How do you feel about the fact that there are going to be ~950 Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan as "trainers" until the end of 2014?

Did the House vote on this?

No it didn't.

This was the result of a royal proclamation by king Stephen I.

Just the other day 400 documents of the heavily redacted "Torturgate Papers" were released.

So how's the prosecution of Herr Harper and his government as war criminals going al?

When the War Resolution to vote on Canada's escalation of the war on Libya to September was brought before the House, lawmakers voted "Yes" 492-1.

How does that grab you al?

At least there are a number of U.S. lawmakers who are openly criticizing Obama on his illegal war on Libya.

Your dichotemy is a false one.

I am in complete agreement with you here.

You know better than that.

I am antiwar and anti-interventionist.

My postings in the Afghanistan and Libya threads substantiate this.

You still can't disabuse yourself of the notion that being antimonarchy and prorepublican does not of necessity mean that one therefore argues that after throwing off the chains of the British monarchy, Canada should slavishly adopt the chains of the American government system, can you?

To disabuse yourself of this notion re-read my posts on this subject.

Caissa

Frmrsldr, do you want to explain which former colonies were "slave colonies"?

Maysie Maysie's picture

alQ wrote:
Slave colonies?  Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

What a racist, ahistorlcal and offensive phrase.

Canada had slaves.

To use the song "Strange Fruit" as a violent sexualized insult (perhaps you aren't aware male slaves were often castrated and raped before being lynched? Or perhaps you are?) is despicably offensive.

Shame.

MegB

Maysie wrote:

alQ wrote:
Slave colonies?  Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

What a racist, ahistorlcal and offensive phrase.

Canada had slaves.

To use the song "Strange Fruit" as a violent sexualized insult (perhaps you aren't aware male slaves were often castrated and raped before being lynched? Or perhaps you are?) is despicably offensive.

Shame.

I'm afraid I must agree - using the song "Strange Fruit" - a powerful and disturbing protest piece about lynchings - as an instrument of insult is racist, thoughtless and, just bloody awful.  You need to rein yourself in alQ.

Edited to fix my appalingly monarchist typo.

Caissa

Was "reign" an intentional pun given the topic of the thread?

Frmrsldr

Caissa wrote:

Frmrsldr, do you want to explain which former colonies were "slave colonies"?

All of them.

Monarchy is hereditary and therefore unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian. The institution of the British monarchy was behind/the head of colonialism/imperialism. This is the British monarchy's historical and symbolic relationship to Canada. This is what the latest generation of the British royals; Kate and Villie represent, if anything.

Inequality+colonialism/imperialism=slavery.

Slavery doesn't have to mean human beings being echanged for money and put into bondage with chains.

Slavery is when people are treated as less than human beings. Slavery is institutional, cultural and social inequality. Slavery is exploiting others. Slavery is focing others by any means to do things they do not want and would not naturally do for generations.

Caissa

Ah, I see it is the same over-blown hyperbole. Well, carry on. I think your arguments do a disservice to slavery.

MegB

Frmrsldr wrote:

Slavery is when people are treated as less than human beings. Slavery is institutional, cultural and social inequality. Slavery is exploiting others. Slavery is focing others by any means to do things they do not want and would not naturally do for generations.

I wonder what victims of human slavery and their descendants would think of your overly broad and watered-down definition.

6079_Smith_W

True enough. Both the French and English, and some First Nations engaged in slave trade.

It is worth pointing out the irony though, that although there was an abolotion movement, and growing restriction within Canada, the legal institution of slavery only ended when the practice was outlawed throughout the British Empire. 

I suppose if someone thought that absolute control lay in the hands of the monarchy (I do not) you could say that Canadians were ordered by their slavekeeper to stop keeping slaves. 

The evidence would indicate otherwise of course - that religious groups from fundamentalists to Quakers led a grassroots  campaign which was passed in increments by the British parliament. 

So of course, political slavery is a terrible evil, but I can think of one nation which could have done with a bit of firm hand, rather than how they ended up settling the matter.

But if freedom means the freedom to keep slaves, and the freedom to set a record for the number of citizens killed on the battlefield in one day  which still stands today, fair enough.

 

 

Frmrsldr

Caissa wrote:

Ah, I see it is the same over-blown hyperbole. Well, carry on. I think your arguments do a disservice to slavery.

Didn't Karl Marx refer to people suffering from underpaid exploitative jobs as "wage slaves"?

I think your remark does a disservice to the evils of inequality, prejudice, discrimination, racism, poverty, exploitation, colonialism/imperialism, etc.

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

Slavery is when people are treated as less than human beings. Slavery is institutional, cultural and social inequality. Slavery is exploiting others. Slavery is focing others by any means to do things they do not want and would not naturally do for generations.

Rebecca West wrote:

I wonder what victims of human slavery and their descendants would think of your overly broad and watered-down definition.

I wouldn't describe my definition of slavery as "watered-down."

I would say it includes a description of what causes slavery:

The use of violence (in one form or another) to forcefully exploit people and to extort their property and "goods" from them.

It is often based on racism, prejudice, descrimination, sexism and ageism.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Were you using the word "slave" in the Marxist "wage slavery" sense when you referred to Britain's "slave colonies," Frmrsldr? If so, you are mixing metaphors in a very unfortunate way. Many leftists, from communists to privileged liberals, not to mention philosophers, moralists and religious folk have used slave in an ahistorical manner. Most of the good ones have the good sense to distinguish when they are using it in a simple master-slave dynamic from what we in the twenty-first century have grown to understand as one of the worst crimes humanity has committed: the total subjugation of one human to another, without any of the class benefits liberalism affords bourgeois nations like Canada, "inequality" notwithstanding.

Your usage of "slave colonies" demolishes your claim that you hoped to use the term simply in the Marxist tradition (which itself could be said to be spurious, but that's beside the point). Instead, you hoped to draw metaphorical connections between the terrible, inhuman violence that went on in the real colonies of empire and those who had the privilege of being born pasty in an empire on which the sun never sets. Shame.

Pages