Things that make you go hmmmm

On Faceless book, some of my England based friends are running a poll - which will you watch, the Wedding day coverage or the FA Cup final or neither. Most are going for Neither as they cant stand United or Chelski and arn't as Royal as they used to be.

They won’t admit it but they’ll all take a peep at the royal wedding.

I watched with open minded curiousity until that absolute loon of an american preacher took the stage and started blitzkrieging the crowd with the power of gods love. I mean I know Harry likes to support people suffering from mental health issues but did he really have to give podium time to one of them?

Elton John looked like a transgender Mr Blobby.

Strange days.

WTF drugs had he been smoking. It went on and on and on. I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement have a very important part to play in a Royal marriage. The Queen didn't look too impressed, Charles, Harry & Meghan looked bored and embarrassed as it went on. Jame's Brown in the Blues Brothers would have delivered a better service. That guy was the only disappointment. That 19 year old Cellist was the highlight for me - Yep, I watched it and the first half of Celtic v Motherwell.

How sexy is David Beckham though. He was the star of the wedding. Oh also Amal Clooney was one of the best dressed.

and how bitchy looking was David Beckhams wife?

However why was she wearing a yellow wheel hub cap and a fishing net? Beckham is always cool, his wife is just a plastic barbie android, hence no emotion is shown.

Her name is Victoria, by the way. 

do you think she looked and acted bitchy by the way?

She looked like she didn't want to be there. No smile like everyone else.

I got the feeling she was only there for the photo opportunity 

I don't think I have ever seen her smile.

she has been quoted as saying something along the lines of saying that smiling is not fashion.

She did once when she first got her hooks on/into David. She knew she was on a winner there and then. He's a cool guy.

I think you are being a bit unkind. She was famous before David.

and I thought she couldn't smile because of all the botox she'd had

Was just flicking through my Spice Girls album and back in the day she had a lovely smile and a flat chest. Now its the other way around

Little bit unkind to be fair lads, just because someone doesn't smile that much doesn't mean they're some sort of b*tch or something...

On the royal wedding, I saw a claim on twitter, saying that the royal family brings 400m into the UK annually, of which the government "keeps" 360m.

And a couple of other similar facts, supporting the person's point, which was that tax-payer money invested in royal family things like this wedding actually pays itself back in spades, and is not some kind of waste. 

Thoughts?

I always thought the royal family was a terrible waste of cash, but didn't really consider the tourism industry etc, and that they might actually be beneficial for the british people financially...

Obviously have just posted here without researching anything though! So interested to hear what more learned people have to say on the subject...

Perhaps the plastic surgeon screwed up? all those kids and a very flat tummy and perfectly shaped boobs without any hint of a sag? Either a brilliant diet and exercise regime or Dr 90210

I think the Queen has had a fantastic  influence on the UK and the rest of the world.Most people who go to London go for that reason.They bring in almost 500 million quid a year to the economy. 

And she looked bloody good on the day. Remembering her age. She almost always dresses in class and a style that suits her. Talk about aging gracefully. She has and is.

I don't have a problem with the Royal Family, I think the Queen has done a great job over her long reign. I hope NZ never becomes a republic either 

What do you mean by great job? 

Just be a good ambassador i.e. behave herself and say the right things?

Obviously the number of engagements they have to get through means they are all required to work hard, and kudos for that, but just interested to hear what a great job means for a royal in the modern world.

And that's nice that someone has "aged gracefully" but not really sure why that's a reason for praise. 

The Commonwealth seems to be running rather smoothly don't you think? Unlike the EU which many people are keen to leave ;-) 

Also I can't remember any complaints about The Queen and instead she is held in very high regard by many around the world. 

It's not the sight of a royal family member that bring people to the UK, it's the castles and palaces. Even in a republic, if these building were retained and maintained as buildings of significant importance (as they are in France), the tourism would likely remain the same.

No one says "let's go to the UK, we might see Prince William..." rather, they like to visit the places of history and opulence. Tax already covers the cost of these buildings maintenance and you'd remove cost associated with the actual family.  

Yep, there are millions desperate to leave EU and find a better life for themselves in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe. 

I was talking about the EU as a collective of countries in the same way the the Commonwealth is a collective of countries ;-)

ie people wanting their country to leave a collective agreement.

gosh are you saying that Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are shark hole countries?

How does the commonwealth need to run though? What are the areas of risk, that she has personally managed well? In fact what does the commonwealth even need to work together on, and how is the royal family's involvement important other than as symbolic figureheads? If there's any policy decisions etc the royal family will ceremonially sign them off, but other than that they won't have any meaningful involvement right? 

I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just trying to drill down to what it is that they actually do, aside from public engagements and ceremonial openings/sign-offs etc etc. 

I recently watched a great documentary series on Queen Victoria, and her juggling diplomacy with her relatives, who were all in very crucial positions in countries throughout Europe. Whether you consider her successful or not, it seems worlds away from what the current Queen has to deal with, and would have involved a hell of a lot more pressure. 

The Queen has no real power. The PM acts on her behalf but realistically, all decisions are made in parliament. If the UK was going to war and parliament decided this was a course of action, the Queen could not actually stop them.

http://thecommonwealth.org/faqs

...and in regards to how the women dressed or appeared...

If they liked their dress, if they chose not to smile, who are we to judge.

Don't see any commentary on which dudes looked scruffy, or had a beer gut etc.

Did you not see my comment where I said I thought Elton John looked like a transgender Mr Blobby?

Plenty of critique went on for the guys too. Were people making judgements or just simple observations?

If I see a Mr Blobby on the loose I call it out

Unfortunately, they are. And for reasons not entirely unrelated to the Commonwealth (and its actual predecessor).

Zimbabwes problems are of their own making. Mugabe was/is a racist tyrant. They have no-one to blame but themselves for creating the shark hole they now live in.

South Africa seem pretty keen to go down the same route.

Leave em to it.

I would say that reducing the problems of these two countries to what's happened over the last 20-30 years and ignoring the particularly difficult histories that preceded that is rather uncharitable.

The writing was always on the wall though. Centuries of tribal fighting being interrupted by the arrival of the europeans and their distasteful regimes. Now that they have gone it is business back to normal. 

Sometimes reality isn't a forgiving proposition let alone charitable one.

Africa for Africans: I am all for it but I fear its not going to end well from what I have seen so far.

Anyhow African nations seem pretty keen to get re-colonized by China these days and I think we all know who is going to benefit the most from that set up and who is going to come out worse off.

Like I said, leave em to it. Just don't come crying for help when it all turns to custard 

I did the 40 hour famine when I was a teen, what a waste of money that was. Throwing cash at Africa will never solve anything. Africa needs to stand on its on two feet and take responsibility for itself imo. They have all the resources to do so, so whats stopping them?

Tribalism and greed.

I think some of the magic of these things would be lost if there wasn’t a royal family. For example if Buckingham Palace wasn’t a working palace, say, it is just a large Victorian building, and for from the most impressive in London. I think even the castles around the place are given context by the current royals. I’m visiting some Welsh castles next month, built by Edward I, one of which is where both he, and the  Queen, made their sons the Prince of Wales. The history is certainly fascinating without the existence of a royal family, but I think it seems more tangible because some traditions have continued to the modern day. 

Also “we might see Prince William” or Harry or both, or someone els,  is largely the reason thousands of people line the streets for events like this. 

I think it's really naive to throw all africans into these generalised terms. They aren't all the same people. Africa is f*cking huge, there are so many people, and they vary greatly in many different traits. It's such a large area and population that you have to go case by case to start looking into why some countries are doing worse than others. Even if Zimbabwe and South Africa are drawing comparisons to some, that is not a large percentage of Africa. Different countries have gone and are going through many different problems, at the hands of many different people, from their own area, their own continent, and many other parts of the world.

Yep, don't quote me on this but I believe the main reason that Africa is so screwed and has been for the last century is because of the borders the British originally created. They split tribes down the middle, put warring tribes within the same country, and created pretty much all the war that existed for the next century, bar other powers trying to claim land (Belgian war in Congo, Italian war in Eritrea etc.)