# Who are these British Royals, Prince William and Kate Middleton Whats a Royal Wedding



## 52ndStreet (Apr 22, 2011)

Who are these British Robber barons who have stolen from every continent on the planet.
What is  a royal wedding.?

These people are a clan of theives that have abused people from all over the world, and have stolen natural resources from every continent.

There is nothing royal about that is there?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 22, 2011)

52ndStreet said:


> Who are these British Robber barons who have stolen from every continent on the planet.
> What is  a royal wedding.?
> 
> These people are a clan of theives that have abused people from all over the world, and have stolen natural resources from every continent.
> ...



Who are you to care?  Last I checked, you weren't a citizen of the UK.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Apr 23, 2011)

Gunny said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > Who are these British Robber barons who have stolen from every continent on the planet.
> ...



No, maybe not the U.K. , but my not to distant relatives were enslaved on the British controlled sugar caine plantations, and Rum distilaries on the Island of Jamaica.


----------



## LumpyPostage (Apr 23, 2011)

There's a _prince _William now?


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 23, 2011)

52ndStreet said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



Not sure what that has to do with William.  Or Kate.  Or the wedding.

Or anything for that matter.


----------



## Toro (Apr 23, 2011)

52ndStreet said:


> Who are these British Robber barons who have stolen from every continent on the planet.
> What is  a royal wedding.?
> 
> These people are a clan of theives that have abused people from all over the world, and have stolen natural resources from every continent.
> ...



A royal wedding is a wedding involving a member of the British Royal Family.



I hope this was helpful for you.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 23, 2011)

Whar weddink? Whar?


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 23, 2011)

Technically I believe both parties in the wedding must be royalty in order for it to be an official royal wedding.  The last official royal wedding was Charles and Diana.  When Charles subsequently married Camilla, it was not billed as a royal wedding but rather a civil ceremony that would be blessed by the Church.  So the upcoming marriage of William and Kate will be the first royal wedding since Charles married Diana.

The official final guest list was released I believe today.  President Obama and the first lady were not on it.  I wonder what they think about that as President and Nancy Reagan were invited to Charles and Diana's wedding.  Nancy went alone, however, as President Reagan was still recuperating from the assassination attempt and was not yet well enough to travel.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 23, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Technically I believe both parties in the wedding must be royalty in order for it to be an official royal wedding.  The last official royal wedding was Charles and Diana.  When Charles subsequently married Camilla, it was not billed as a royal wedding but rather a civil ceremony that would be blessed by the Church.  So the upcoming marriage of William and Kate will be the first royal wedding since Charles married Diana.
> 
> The official final guest list was released I believe today.  President Obama and the first lady were not on it.  I wonder what they think about that as President and Nancy Reagan were invited to Charles and Diana's wedding.  Nancy went alone, however, as President Reagan was still recuperating from the assassination attempt and was not yet well enough to travel.



Wonder whether they were invited but declined.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 23, 2011)

tigerbob said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Technically I believe both parties in the wedding must be royalty in order for it to be an official royal wedding.  The last official royal wedding was Charles and Diana.  When Charles subsequently married Camilla, it was not billed as a royal wedding but rather a civil ceremony that would be blessed by the Church.  So the upcoming marriage of William and Kate will be the first royal wedding since Charles married Diana.
> ...



Nope, according to all the accounts I've seen, they were not invited.  I think there is no way in hell Michelle would have declined.


----------



## editec (Apr 26, 2011)

What is a king?

Usually it is the scion of the former baddest thug in a nation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 26, 2011)

editec said:


> What is a king?
> 
> Usually it is the scion of the former baddest thug in a nation.



Not necessarily the baddest but the one with the most power to be bad to the most folks.  The U.K. removed almost all that power from the British Royal family but kept the Royal familyitself as they could not imagine an England without them.   And I suspect one of the guilty pleasures of many of us is enjoying the history and stories of tradition and customs and pomp and circumstance associated with the British royal family more than any other monarchy.

There was still a British monarchy when this country was founded however, and the Founders intended that no monarch or any other form of government would have power to do badness to the people without giving the people plenty of power to retaliate, protect themselves, and/or correct the situation.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
After age 40 there ought to be a damn law that your ass has outgrown Princehood.


----------



## Robert (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
> After age 40 there ought to be a damn law that your ass has outgrown Princehood.



LOL move out of Moms house and become the damn King all ready


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
> After age 40 there ought to be a damn law that your ass has outgrown Princehood.



That whole Camilla thing is strange as hell.  She's always been plain dumpy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

Robert said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
> ...



Moved out in 1972.
Mom is dead.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
> ...



2 bagger.


----------



## ROBESPIERRE (Apr 28, 2011)

Can Prince Charles help it if his mother comes from a long line of Centinarians?

That Old Bag Elizabeth is going to live until 101 just like her mother did. Prince William will be an old fart by then too.

You just can't beat the British !


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 28, 2011)

ROBESPIERRE said:


> Can Prince Charles help it if his mother comes from a long line of Centinarians?
> 
> That Old Bag Elizabeth is going to live until 101 just like her mother did. Prince William will be an old fart by then too.
> 
> You just can't beat the British !



Unless you are American.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 28, 2011)

This ain't 'politics'. Just sayin'.


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Apr 28, 2011)

When you're inbred retarded lazy royal freaks a 60 year old prince really means nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > with an ugly as hell girl friend and dried up as a prune?
> ...


 
It's not about looks. They've always been together...she's a horsewoman, so is he (ha,ha) and they share a long and eventful history.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



He's a horsewoman. LOL, I like that one. He does look like one.
I understand that one perfectly. My mother and sisters raised horses for many years in TN and here in Georgia. That crowd is all to themselves. My mother and sisters are beautiful, Mom is 88 years old and still loves horses. But it is a society outside the norm that makes no sense to me. Like flushing cash down the sewer non stop.


----------



## waltky (Apr 29, 2011)

Yea, we was watchin' it on YouTube...

... Granny wantin' to know why Elton John was there?...

... He married to a man...

... when dem lil' kids was singin'...

... he was off to the side, lip-synchin' Benny anna Jets...

... Granny says he's such a hussy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 29, 2011)

It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.

I did get up at o-dark-thirty to watch the Royal Wedding live without commercials on Fox News this morning.  Did all the networks and cable news chanels air it I wonder?  Anyhow it lived up to all expectations--the stuff of fairy tales--and will be talked about for years to come even as the public will now expect the next heir to the throne to be forthcoming within the next year or two.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Technically I believe both parties in the wedding must be royalty in order for it to be an official royal wedding.  The last official royal wedding was Charles and Diana.  When Charles subsequently married Camilla, it was not billed as a royal wedding but rather a civil ceremony that would be blessed by the Church.  So the upcoming marriage of William and Kate will be the first royal wedding since Charles married Diana.
> 
> The official final guest list was released I believe today.  President Obama and the first lady were not on it.  I wonder what they think about that as President and Nancy Reagan were invited to Charles and Diana's wedding.  Nancy went alone, however, as President Reagan was still recuperating from the assassination attempt and was not yet well enough to travel.



No, it doesn't requite both parties to be royalty. This one was a Royal Wedding, because it is the future monarch who got married. However, because he is not the immediate heir (that's Charles), it is not a State Occasion, it is a family wedding. That means that William and Catherine had more control over the wedding than Charles and Diana had. 

Catherine is now HRH, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Damned Cambridge. Should have been Oxford.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.
> 
> I did get up at o-dark-thirty to watch the Royal Wedding live without commercials on Fox News this morning.  Did all the networks and cable news chanels air it I wonder?  Anyhow it lived up to all expectations--the stuff of fairy tales--and will be talked about for years to come even as the public will now expect the next heir to the throne to be forthcoming within the next year or two.



Being a 'Sir' is not royalty. He was invited because he's been a friend of William's since Diana died.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 29, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.
> ...



I think you're probably right.  He and Diana were friends and I can believe that he and William continue the friendship.  I think he also is a second cousin or something like that to the queen which would make him royalty?  I think I read somewhere that his real name and title is Lord Reginald of Dwight?

I dunno for sure.  Anyhow, I thought it appropiate that he was there.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 29, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.
> ...



My brother is a 'Sir' and, as if to prove your point, I don't believe he was invited either, though he does know many of the Royal Family quite well.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



His name won't be Lord Anything of Anywhere unless he's been ennobled.  Has he Cali?  I thought he was just a Knight.  I'm rather out of touch with Who's Who.

I use the term "just a knight" advisedly.  There are different levels of Knighthood, sort of.  Being for example a 'Knight of the Garter' is a VERY, VERY big deal.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.
> 
> I did get up at o-dark-thirty to watch the Royal Wedding live without commercials on Fox News this morning.  Did all the networks and cable news chanels air it I wonder?  Anyhow it lived up to all expectations--the stuff of fairy tales--and will be talked about for years to come even as the public will now expect the next heir to the throne to be forthcoming within the next year or two.


I agree, and it went off without a hitch.  Princess Catherine is a truly beautiful lady, and I wish them the very best.

I watched the complete rebroadcast this morning on BBCAmerica.  May as well get it straight from the experts.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 29, 2011)

tigerbob said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



To the best of my knowledge, no, he's not a Lord, just a Sir. 

It's the Knight of the Garter that become Lord or Lady, I think.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 29, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually Sir Elton John, knighted by the queen herself, and therefore proper royalty who would be invited to the wedding.  And I don't care who he sleeps with.  He remains one of my all time favorites in the music world.
> ...



She's not 'Princess Catherine', She's HRH, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. The term 'Princess' will be added as and when William becomes Prince of Wales, ie when his father inherits the crown and becomes King, he will pass the title of Prince of Wales to William. At that time, Catherine will become HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales. (Like Diana was)


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2011)

52ndStreet said:


> Who are these British Robber barons who have stolen from every continent on the planet.
> What is  a royal wedding.?
> 
> These people are a clan of theives that have abused people from all over the world, and have stolen natural resources from every continent.
> ...



Watch it Buddy. You are trashing the 51st State there!!!


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 29, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Has Prince William been demoted to Duke, until Charles assumes the throne?


----------



## California Girl (Apr 29, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No, he was born a royal, therefore he is a Prince. He is now HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. His wife, not having been born a royal is not entitled to the title Princess. So, she is HRH (she become Her Royal Highness by marrying into the royal family) Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. 

Complicated shit.


----------



## waltky (Apr 29, 2011)

Granny says dey shoulda sent some o' dem reporters around...

... to cover her backyard after-the-Royal Wedding Party...

... she even rented one o' dem lil' English midgets...

... in a court jester outfit...

... dat could do cartwheels, an' backflips, an' somersaults...

... an' made some o' dem balloon animals too...

... it was real entertainin'

... an' a good time was had by all.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 30, 2011)

California Girl said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The wife of a knight always takes the title 'Lady'.  The title of 'Lord' is only for those who have been ennobled (Knights are just 'Sir').

Not sure if she retains the title 'Lady' after a divorce.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Apr 30, 2011)

As a small r republican, I found the whole thing annoying.    But I like weddings, so that was cool.   And since they rode past Parlement square, they also rode past that statue of Cromwell that is there.  (When I visited England back in the day, it amused me that one of the main streets in "The royal Borough of Kensington" was Cromwell Road.)  
Also, I noticed that the red carpet in the abbey went around the Churchill Memorial plaque.    It is right there in the middle of the front entrance and they intended to bury him there, but the family insisted on his home in Kent.   That they ran the carpet around it showed a bit of class.

Otherwise, they behave like a bunch of Okies, what with keeping their cars on the front yard and their marital troubles.    Elizbeth was famous for loving _Dallas._  A show about a family just slightly less dysfunctional than her own.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2011)

Tony Blair was not invited, but it wasn't a snub.  Since it did not involve the heir to the throne, it was not a state event, it was a family event.


----------



## CandySlice (Apr 30, 2011)

Sadly, I missed the whole bloody show and unless the bride fell flat on her face coming down the aisle or Camilla Parker Bowles groped Prince Charles in the sanctuary I don't think I missed too much. The 24 hr news cycles and the MSM have covered this event _ad nauseum_ so I'm sure anything of interest will be brought to my attention.


----------



## PaulMendozaLine (Apr 30, 2011)

I didn't care when the engagement was announced, nor did I care when the wedding took place. The media, however, was obsessed with it, and expected us to care. But IMO, it wasn't a big deal! 

Besides, I had more important things to do yesterday. We all did.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 30, 2011)

PaulMendozaLine said:


> I didn't care when the engagement was announced, nor did I care when the wedding took place. The media, however, was obsessed with it, and expected us to care. But IMO, it wasn't a big deal!
> 
> Besides, I had more important things to do yesterday. We all did.



I didn't.


----------



## B. Kidd (May 1, 2011)

Jay Leno had the best take on the wedding. Said Kate looked fantastic and William, in his uniform, looked like Capn' Crunch.


----------



## blastoff (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



All I can figure is Camilla is one of those suck-the-chrome-off-a-trailer-hitch kinda gals?


----------



## ROBESPIERRE (May 7, 2011)

*Why British Royals ? I will tell you why:*


*Western Civilization* went through a major change about 500 years ago with the invention of Movable Type Printing, (Gutenberg 1499). With this new invention spreading all accross Europe, it was no longer possible to keep the masses dumbed down. Papers, Pamphlets and even books suddenly became easily available and literacy spread quickly accross the Western World. Within less than 300 years, Europe transended into a new way of life. One no longer to be dominated by "Priestly Kings" but by Science, Banking and Finance. The new movement was called "Capitalism" and it gave birth to economic empires all over the globe.

*The Old Religious Feudal Order* resisted in many parts of Europe, requiring their swift and violent removal during several long and bloody wars. Napoleon did most of the dirty work. WWI and WWII finished the job completely. We now live under the purest form of Capitalism: 
*International Keynsian Debt Capitalism.*

*The main reason the British Royals survived all the turmoil is because THEY went peacfully and willingly over to the New World Order.* Unlike many stubborn Royals on the Continent, *British Kings became Kings of Capitalism.* Their huge navy was created primarily to protect their system of international capitalist monopolies. A system which clearly still exists today under a different name.

Capitalism gave Humanity better education, based upon the *Humble Scientific Method*, (instead of *Devine Revelation*). It gave Humanity more democratic governments; more individual rights; more individual freedoms; better and more plentiful food; better and cheaper medicines, medical research and methods of surgery. Last but not least: It provided the world with Modern Transportation and the freedom to travel anywhere they like in the world.

* In short: Modern Western Capitalism has made life better and longer for everyone living under it, including even the freed slaves!*

So please stop your snivveling and get an education. It is all free under Capilatism, just like the marvelous Internet you are now enjoying . . . .


----------



## 52ndStreet (May 20, 2011)

ROBESPIERRE said:


> *Why British Royals ? I will tell you why:*
> 
> 
> *Western Civilization* went through a major change about 500 years ago with the invention of Movable Type Printing, (Gutenberg 1499). With this new invention spreading all accross Europe, it was no longer possible to keep the masses dumbed down. Papers, Pamphlets and even books suddenly became easily available and literacy spread quickly accross the Western World. Within less than 300 years, Europe transended into a new way of life. One no longer to be dominated by "Priestly Kings" but by Science, Banking and Finance. The new movement was called "Capitalism" and it gave birth to economic empires all over the globe.
> ...




So stop worrying about who those British Royals are, and just be glad that I am reaping the benefits of living in a society that has napalm, chemical and biologicla weapons,
cruise missels, and a water and sewer system that is the best in the world, all because of
British Keynsian capitalism, and European transplanted to America technological innovations.? Is that it?.


----------

