I hope I'll receive my royal mug before the wedding.

Thor premieres on the 29th over here. Good thing you weren't talking about that. Also, that gives me something to DO that day intead of staying home watching TV and not being able to escape your event..

There was a slight misunderstanding at the royal requisitions office. Everyone will now be going home with a royal pug. Which just goes to show you, cursive writing may be fancy, but no one can read the damn stuff.

Hey....

Since we are on the topic... A few months back, angry Brit students stormed London to protest the three fold increase in University tuition.

So I'm curious, how are the useless Imperial figureheads funded? Do your tax dollars keep an archaic relic of the Middle Ages living in the lap of luxury? Or does some private funding keep the upper lip stiff?

I mean, if England is suffering some budget shortfalls, wouldn't it be prudent to stop having a royal family?

I'm seeing images of pugs running around in little tiaras!

You're not alone, Reaver.

Which, depending on how you interpret the above sentence is either comforting or unsettling.

I'm with you there man. It's got to the point where if anyone tries to talk to me about it I just tell them to shut up until they do. >.>

Even though £8m is nothing in terms of the budget, they would still be fine without it. They own ridiculous amounts of land and don't need the £8m.

Thank the gaming Gods (NOT EA) for that, I read this morning about the number of official applications for street parties in Scotland, a total of 3.... I think that says a lot for how most Scottish feel about it.
I think it was HBH that said he'd "tap that" dont get me wrong I wouldnt kick her out of bed for farting but I wouldnt want her to stay in my bed for longer than necissary either.
Funding of the royal dickwads has been discussed.
Errm... that was it, Inbreeding in the family, it does still go on as they are expected to marry into high powered families (Harry Euginies got her eye on you) however Kate (or Catherine as she is to be called now) is classed as a commoner so it be good to get some fresh genes into that proverbial soup they currently have.
Also what isnt mentioned much is how it was planned to get them together (The Royals are wanting a super injunction to stop any further reporting last I heard)
Kates family are a family of social climbers, Kate seems to have got top spot though

There are pro-monarchists? You mean, people happy with a history of being brutally subjugated under a throne want to remember that like they were just charming rogues? This is a source of pride for someone?

....wut

In a partisan world like ours there are pros and cons just about everything.

Actually pro-monarchists are those who understand the Royal Family actually do a job more than waving and putting Liz's face on the bank notes. It's part of the history and culture of the country whether you like it or not and it does bring in a shitload of tourism. I guess you actually have to live in London to appreciate that. They also do pay a load of taxes on their properties and ancillary businesses. £8 Million of the Civil List is a pittance to be honest for how much they directly and indirectly put back into the country. The government can waste twice that with another happiness study.

Anti-monarchists want them gone not because of who they are but what they represent. Most of the vocal anti-royals are also anti-globalisationists and anarchists. There are also the self-apologists who believe the English should be asking forgiveness for everything their ancestors have done over the history of the world, every day for as long as they live.

At the end of the day the Royals cost fuck all compared to what they bring in so it makes no sense to get rid of them. If you want to persue people who are stealing from the country then go after companies like Vodafone and Top Shop who don't pay a penny in tax.

Subjugated under a throne? Royalty of British empire didn't have much power for ages now. It is not like they just lost their power...

In the same vein as what Ham stated earlier...

Princess Eugenie of York

I'd tap that.

I am aware of it, if only because my daily internet "rounds" of websites include www.salon.com , www.slate.com , www.npr.org and www.therumpus.net (and used to include Gawker until they had that DREADFUL site makeover that made their previously efficient webpage now a cluttered chore to read) so there is a broad base of cultural news items scribbled about. I'm something of a news and culture maven, though I remain mostly indifferent about this affair. The amount of digital ink spilled has gotten tiresome this year, I admit.

I imagine it was little different in the heyday of Princess Di's reign. I was just a teenager then and not online, though my parents got Newsweek and I seem to recall plenty of local on-air news time dedicated to the modalities of the monarchy. And of course when her death hit, the news cycle exploded, water balloon like, everywhere. It was only to be surpassed by 9/11.

I always figured all these obsessive "lifestyle" pieces penned about Kate's breakfast regimen, ladies-in-waiting, Prince Williams' receding hairline and his equestrian hobbies just feed into a traditional hunger, both here and over the pond, of voyeurism into the lives of celebrity. Whether athletes, politicians, entertainment stars, or remnants of a Monarchy, it's a form of bonding and vicarious living with the proles who live anonymously outside those in-the-know spheres (hence the proliferation of reality TV shows this decades, to give the plebians an outside shot of the image of celebrity so greatly lusted after).

I'm not immune to this, being a big tennis fan and I aggressively follow indie-film festivals and certain stars/directors who swim in that stream, however, the foibles and fustiness of noble-blooded toffs 5000 miles away is not one of them.