This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)
Yes. But the evidence suggests that a lot of the new members are armchair socialists, who'll vote in a leadership or NEC election, by post or online, but who won't come out to a selection meeting - which is why the left's dominance in national Labour Party elections isn't translating into a slew of left-wing parliamentary candidates.
Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)
It varies. People join because they want redistribution, socialism, progress, however you put it. They like the general drift of Corbyn's approach, and admire his tenacity and good temper. Very few are dogmatic line-followers either of the leadership or any faction. Very few yearn for vague centrism, but a good local candidate will get a fair hearing and will beat someone whose main recommendation is one faction or another.
Which makes it weird when centrists drift off into apathy. There's plenty of scope for them to win selections if they bother.
Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Who'd have thought in 2018 we'd still have men attempting to determine what women wear .... perhaps Harry should invest in a chastity belt for his wife when he's away alone from the marital home !!
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Some excellent comments today on the private enterprise/free market/capitalism vs state-run/nationalised debate.
I do fear the Conservatives, these days, have a tendency to look as though they are to free market economics as cargo cultists are to aircraft. They recite a few things that they're told work, wherever they align with their prejudices, but without attempting understanding or context.It could equally be argued that Labour tend to be exactly the same but for nationalisation.
In fact, it's not just arguably unfair, but legitimately unfair. David Herdson is a Conservative who's made an eloquent case; Nick Palmer a Corbynite who's shown equally insightful understanding, and many commentators here from all over the spectrum have done likewise. Maybe it's the media trivialising and oversimplifying things? Or maybe those with power tend to the cargo cult side of things?
Market economies haven't been successful because business people have been cleverer than politicians. They've succeeded because disciplined pluralism (the compulsion to try multiple ways of doing things due to competition in an ever-changing climate, coupled by a fast (and ruthless) feedback and winnowing mechanism) is more innovative and responsible to people's needs than centralized decision-making.
Centralized decision-making requires the people making the decisions to better know the needs and desires of the people for whom they're making the decisions better than those people themselves. For all of them. When those needs and desires are changing rapidly and unpredictably. And to ensure that they are properly co-ordinated and do it very quickly.
But the pluralist processes of competition within the market economy reveal information and promote innovation more effectively than any centralized organization - public or private.
But markets (and private enterprise) do have limits and issues: - Incomplete/imperfect information. Social contexts tend to develop to deal with these differences. - Much economic activity can't be organized by negotiations between large numbers of potential buyers and potential sellers in impersonal markets; we need to work in organizations and teams and co-operate in small groups. Ethical values, blending of working and social lives are all necessary. - While co-ordination is more effectively achieved through mechanisms of spontaneous order than central direction, it's not immediate and infallible. Government interventions, social institutions and agreements between firms are often necessary. - Non-materialist motivations are very important. - Dealing with externalities and standards and enforcement of the co-operation immediately above are crucial. [See John Kay and Tim Harford for excellent explanations of these]
Rather than diagnosing a specific ownership model, the key is to do whatever is necessary to ensure fast feedback, rewarding of experimentation, encouraging apolitical investment, and competition.
Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
Having earlier praised the coverage on Sky - and it was better than the BBC - they let themselves down by having Kay Burley anchor the coverage. I was pleased to see that Meghan was looking the other way when they went past the Sky podium. Kay made a right fool of herself shouting out at them whilst live on air.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
There are members of the clergy who would decline to marry cohabiting couples - or non-cohabiting couples who have clearly consummated their relationship. I applaud such people who make a stand on principle - at least they show that not all vicars etc are merely concerned with protecting their incomes.Meghan did not have to wear a white dress - symbolic of a purity she has long lost probably in relationships pre-dating Harry. A Civil Ceremony would have been far better - whether at a Registry Office or a Stately home. The wedding of the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson in 1937 comes to mind.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Are you for real?
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)
Which makes it weird when centrists drift off into apathy. There's plenty of scope for them to win selections if they bother.
Certainly I would think that if the main gripe about opponents is that through their passion and determination they keep winning the internal battles, then the problem is not really the opponents. I feel the same about the bemoaning of loss of religious identity - it has had to fight off sterner challenges than modern apathy.
Glorious day for a cycle ride - not many people out and about along the local canal for a change, all watching the royal coverage I guess!
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
Why? What on earth has it got to do with either?
With Trump there was at least the initial thought about if world leaders would be invited (apparently not necessary for 6th in line to the throne) but is a stretch, and the latter surely nothing at all.
If the Church of England wants to boost their attendances - learn from that American Bishop!
Passion, humour, dynamism. That's how to preach. /blockquote>
I'm not religious, so my insight into the subject is questionable to say the least, but while I can see such delivery is surely not for everyone, I'd have thought part of being a preacher is making sure the audience is engaged, not just reciting the proper words in formulaic ways. I'm given to understands many vicars can be quite creative in delivering their message.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
Yes, I'm sure he will be annoyed by another MP who will probably vote with him 95% of the time and campaign for him to become PM.
And who voted for him in both leadership elections, apparently
Ha. I have no knowledge of that internal race, but it seems like a good approach for Corbynistas in general would be to put up several candidates, 1 of whom to be ghost of Karl Marx, at every selection, that way no matter how far left or corbyn loving the winner looks 'moderate' by comparison.
If the Church of England wants to boost their attendances - learn from that American Bishop!
Passion, humour, dynamism. That's how to preach. /blockquote>
I'm not religious, so my insight into the subject is questionable to say the least, but while I can see such delivery is surely not for everyone, I'd have thought part of being a preacher is making sure the audience is engaged, not just reciting the proper words in formulaic ways. I'm given to understands many vicars can be quite creative in delivering their message.
Being a good vicar is rather like being a good teacher, you have to inspire your congregation every week in your sermons or the classroom.
Being a teacher or a priest is a different skill set from being an academic in an ivory tower university
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
There are members of the clergy who would decline to marry cohabiting couples - or non-cohabiting couples who have clearly consummated their relationship. I applaud such people who make a stand on principle - at least they show that not all vicars etc are merely concerned with protecting their incomes.Meghan did not have to wear a white dress - symbolic of a purity she has long lost probably in relationships pre-dating Harry. A Civil Ceremony would have been far better - whether at a Registry Office or a Stately home. The wedding of the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson in 1937 comes to mind.
There are still a few just as there are clergy who do not accept women priests or will not marry divorcees or oppose gay marriage but they are increasingly a minority.
Mr. 86, she is not. As far as I understand it, she converted to Church of England.
Ah, I see. But I don't think she had to do that to keep Harry's place in line to the thrown (unlike Autumn Kelly).
By the way, I see that Michael Buffer was at Hampden Park for the Scottish Cup Final. Why couldn't they have had him at the wedding?
The guests are ready. The Archbishop of Canterbury is ready. The bride and groom are at the altar and they are ready. Wedding fans, are you ready? For the thousands in attendence and the millions watching around the world. Your Majesty, my lords, ladies and gentleman. From St George's Chapel, Windsor. Let's get ready to rumble!
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Are you for real?
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress. Many vicars would be unhappy at marrying a divorcee. I recall too that the Queen declined to attend the wedding of Charles to Camilla because of the conflict it implied with her role as Head of the Church of England. That raises the question as to why she attended this service!
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Are you for real?
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.
It seems so. Really odd....
With respect, in the 1960s - perhaps later - such views would have been seen as entirely mainstream.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress. Many vicars would be unhappy at marrying a divorcee. I recall too that the Queen declined to attend the wedding of Charles to Camilla because of the conflict it implied with her role as Head of the Church of England. That raises the question as to why she attended this service!
Charles and Camilla got married at the registry office. I remember the royal guests arriving in a bus and the late James Whitaker said it was like the away team arriving at a football match!
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Are you for real?
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.
It seems so. Really odd....
It's a good thing there were no bastards in the mix too!
When will we get the first royal bastard of the modern age I wonder.
Monarchism is essentially a form of Socialism! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, consider:
1) Monarchs have a job for life, which is quintessentially Socialist!
2) The hereditary principle, a feature of Socialist dynasties around the world, such as the Kennedys in the USA, Nehru-Gandhis in India, and the Kims in North Korea!
3) Pomp and circumstance - Trooping the Colour is after all merely a toned down version of all those North Korean and (former) Soviet military parades!
So, my fellow PBers, I put it to you that Monarchism = Socialism!
What's the difference between Tsarism and Communism?
Under Tsarism the throne goes from father to son. Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(Popular in c.1984-85 as Brezhnev was succeeded by Andropov then Chernenko.)
Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
Why? What on eath has it got to do with either?
Meghan is considered small-l liberal because of causes she's supported in the past which are unlikely to gain Trump's favour. No idea how Brexit comes in!
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
You're last paragraph is spot on. When Eugenie gets married later this year, that will be five of the Queen's eight grandchildren to have married. All of them have married commoners. Okay, they're not proper plebs like us, but this generation of royals are very much making their own choices.
It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.
Emma Dent Coad also as I recall made false and defamatory remarks about Harry's qualifications and experience. She then blamed a media smear campaign for the backlash only a few days ago.
She really is a nasty piece of work and clearly not very bright either. I have to say I think the people of Kensington made a pretty poor exchange ditching Victoria Borwick for her.
There speaks a man who has never gone to church (or at least only for weddings and funerals).
Rolling your eyes - and more - during a sermon is expected. How else to indicate to the priest when he's being a bore or going on too long or being tactless? Or, in the case of a funeral I once went to, getting the deceased's name wrong?
My father - good Catholic though he was - would very ostentatiously tap his watch if he felt the priest's sermon was taking away valuable post-Mass walk-then-pub time. On occasion he would pretend to fall asleep, visibly wake and then say in the sort of loud stage whisper which could have been heard miles away "Has he finished yet?". Sometimes he would substitute this with "Is he asking for money again?"
Nothing wrong with the substance of the sermon: just a bit impersonal and a bit too long.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
Would this be the Emma Dent-Coad who, according to her Wikipedia page was:-
- Leader of the opposition Labour Group on the council from 2014-15 - Served as a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, the tenant management organisation which manages the council's housing stock, from 27 June 2008 to 31 October 2012; and - between 2013/4 was a member of the council's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee.
Did she take any action during this time to ensure that spider infestation, say, was a reason for being allocated housing? Have the rules changed since she stopped being concerned with housing as a councillor? If not, and the council is applying the same rules, then what is her complaint exactly?
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?
It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.
Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?
I have some knowledge of custom and practice in this area.
I'm no Christian, but if I had to, I'd much rather listen to the American guy than the usual bland platitudes. Some genuine passion and enthusiasm for his faith. Whatever next?
A logical point.
Of course, what most Brits really want is the pretty church buildings and ceremonies, without any of the religious guff.
And the sound of church bells on a Sunday morning. Can't get better than that... unless you live right next to the church
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
If you'd told me her dress was Ivory I would have believed you, so even were you larger concerns in this arena more widely shared, I don't think it would be that big a deal.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
If you'd told me her dress was Ivory I would have believed you, so even were you larger concerns in this arena more widely shared, I don't think it would be that big a deal.
Agreed. It's a bit like cricket whites. I didn't realise when I was young, but what I thought were whites were actually creams, which are considered posher than whites. I only realised this when the England team went back to wearing whites and I remember thinking it looked weird.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.
Did she take any action during this time to ensure that spider infestation, say, was a reason for being allocated housing?
Since when does serving as an Opposition member require you take responsibility for the mistakes of the (in this case Conservative) group which has controlled the decisions of that Council and exercised effective control of the decisions of its appointed bodies since time immemorial?
And why on earth do you assume that in that role she was not previously critical of the failure of both K&C Council and the Conservative UK Government to take action to increase the supply of decent affordable housing in that borough (and elsewhere)?
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
They should have auctioned the overseas TV rights like the Premier League!
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.
A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doing
More than admit it, given such a fuss would not be made if there was not sufficient market to cater for it. Polls can say x% aren't very interested, and no doubt that is true, but clearly enough are interested enough to ensure there is not a backlash to the over emphasis on such events. If there were, there wouldn't have been this fuss.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
Especially when said public pay for it all and the humungous bank books these chancers have amassed over the years. Most other despots at least camouflage it and put it in Swiss bank accounts.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.
I doubt it comes to anywhere near £15m, and there will also be offsets not just from tourism, but also from selling TV coverage abroad.
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?
I have some knowledge of custom and practice in this area.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.
Are you wealthy enough to make that guarantee?
I’m most definitely on the pauper end of the spectrum. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong though.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.
that's one argument, another is it's an excuse to promote your hobby horse campaign.....
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doing
More than admit it, given such a fuss would not be made if there was not sufficient market to cater for it. Polls can say x% aren't very interested, and no doubt that is true, but clearly enough are interested enough to ensure there is not a backlash to the over emphasis on such events. If there were, there wouldn't have been this fuss.
For sure there are plenty loonies in this country who like them for some bizarre reason. Amazes me that some of them get let out on their own.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.
that's one argument, another is it's an excuse to promote your hobby horse campaign.....
This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.
A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.
I would expect only a relatively small minority of committed churchgoers to have behaved in that way.Allowance also has to be made for those who have been widowed. Others may have seen an earlier marriage break down but still remained chaste in terms of the new relationship.
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.
I doubt it comes to anywhere near £15m, and there will also be offsets not just from tourism, but also from selling TV coverage abroad.
I assume that most of the cost is in the form of security, and maybe it is less than my ballpark estimate, but the point is the same nevertheless - I certainly have no intention of dismissing the shitty situation too many people are living in, and I think local government in particular has been cut enough (and the government sort of agrees, given it has given more leeway for them to raise council tax without needing to go to referendum), but the idea the amount of the wedding means anything significant vs the cost of concerns re poverty is for the birds I think. Not even 10 fewer jets, but 1, would pay for it.
But it is time to head back out into the sun anyway.
Comments
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
Nice to see Philip walking easily. He will be 97 next month.
England looks gorgeous in weather like this. Few places to beat it.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
+1
Or was he in a plane over Windsor trailing a banner?
One of the pieces played was Salut d’Amour by Elgar - here beautifully played by Aldo Ciccolino - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcHjmXmEg0. Enjoy!
58 street parties, 12 Harry and Meghan look-alike events and a ducking stool for Republican whingers and the day is yet young !!
Which makes it weird when centrists drift off into apathy. There's plenty of scope for them to win selections if they bother.
Anyway the neighbours are having a barbecue and the smell of frying meat on such a hot day is ghastly. So time for a walk.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.
I do fear the Conservatives, these days, have a tendency to look as though they are to free market economics as cargo cultists are to aircraft. They recite a few things that they're told work, wherever they align with their prejudices, but without attempting understanding or context.It could equally be argued that Labour tend to be exactly the same but for nationalisation.
In fact, it's not just arguably unfair, but legitimately unfair. David Herdson is a Conservative who's made an eloquent case; Nick Palmer a Corbynite who's shown equally insightful understanding, and many commentators here from all over the spectrum have done likewise. Maybe it's the media trivialising and oversimplifying things? Or maybe those with power tend to the cargo cult side of things?
Market economies haven't been successful because business people have been cleverer than politicians. They've succeeded because disciplined pluralism (the compulsion to try multiple ways of doing things due to competition in an ever-changing climate, coupled by a fast (and ruthless) feedback and winnowing mechanism) is more innovative and responsible to people's needs than centralized decision-making.
Centralized decision-making requires the people making the decisions to better know the needs and desires of the people for whom they're making the decisions better than those people themselves. For all of them. When those needs and desires are changing rapidly and unpredictably. And to ensure that they are properly co-ordinated and do it very quickly.
But the pluralist processes of competition within the market economy reveal information and promote innovation more effectively than any centralized organization - public or private.
But markets (and private enterprise) do have limits and issues:
- Incomplete/imperfect information. Social contexts tend to develop to deal with these differences.
- Much economic activity can't be organized by negotiations between large numbers of potential buyers and potential sellers in impersonal markets; we need to work in organizations and teams and co-operate in small groups. Ethical values, blending of working and social lives are all necessary.
- While co-ordination is more effectively achieved through mechanisms of spontaneous order than central direction, it's not immediate and infallible. Government interventions, social institutions and agreements between firms are often necessary.
- Non-materialist motivations are very important.
- Dealing with externalities and standards and enforcement of the co-operation immediately above are crucial.
[See John Kay and Tim Harford for excellent explanations of these]
Rather than diagnosing a specific ownership model, the key is to do whatever is necessary to ensure fast feedback, rewarding of experimentation, encouraging apolitical investment, and competition.
Glorious day for a cycle ride - not many people out and about along the local canal for a change, all watching the royal coverage I guess!
By the way, I see that Michael Buffer was at Hampden Park for the Scottish Cup Final. Why couldn't they have had him at the wedding?
The guests are ready.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is ready.
The bride and groom are at the altar and they are ready.
Wedding fans, are you ready?
For the thousands in attendence and the millions watching around the world.
Your Majesty, my lords, ladies and gentleman. From St George's Chapel, Windsor. Let's get ready to rumble!
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.
When will we get the first royal bastard of the modern age I wonder.
Under Tsarism the throne goes from father to son. Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(Popular in c.1984-85 as Brezhnev was succeeded by Andropov then Chernenko.)
She really is a nasty piece of work and clearly not very bright either. I have to say I think the people of Kensington made a pretty poor exchange ditching Victoria Borwick for her.
Rolling your eyes - and more - during a sermon is expected. How else to indicate to the priest when he's being a bore or going on too long or being tactless? Or, in the case of a funeral I once went to, getting the deceased's name wrong?
My father - good Catholic though he was - would very ostentatiously tap his watch if he felt the priest's sermon was taking away valuable post-Mass walk-then-pub time. On occasion he would pretend to fall asleep, visibly wake and then say in the sort of loud stage whisper which could have been heard miles away "Has he finished yet?". Sometimes he would substitute this with "Is he asking for money again?"
Nothing wrong with the substance of the sermon: just a bit impersonal and a bit too long.
- Leader of the opposition Labour Group on the council from 2014-15
- Served as a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, the tenant management organisation which manages the council's housing stock, from 27 June 2008 to 31 October 2012; and
- between 2013/4 was a member of the council's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee.
Did she take any action during this time to ensure that spider infestation, say, was a reason for being allocated housing? Have the rules changed since she stopped being concerned with housing as a councillor? If not, and the council is applying the same rules, then what is her complaint exactly?
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
And why on earth do you assume that in that role she was not previously critical of the failure of both K&C Council and the Conservative UK Government to take action to increase the supply of decent affordable housing in that borough (and elsewhere)?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6328552/meghan-curtsy-queen-twitter-royal-wedding/
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997762381806698496
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997766833078972417
https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/997771715353763841
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997834064236343296
But it is time to head back out into the sun anyway.