The Royal Wedding

I'd love to hear from the Brits here on what they thought about this event.

They're too busy getting over their hangover from it all.

Most people were just cynically happy to get the day off work. A thoroughly enjoyable day. Prince William for various reasons, is arguably the most popular royal and Kate Middleton, despite some reservations from the media a few years ago, really shone on the day.

It was just nice to kick back, have a drink and a bbq and have something to feel good about right now and forget all the doom and gloom. It seemed to go so smoothly and a more laid back affair than Charles and Diana's.

From the pov of the monarchy in general, I think yesterday registered a fundamental change. The staid Victorian ideals are no longer appropriate in 2011. And I think that is why Charles is not particularly popular and many people want the succession to skip over him and go straight to his son.

What is staid Victorian ideals?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Most people were just cynically happy to get the day off work. A thoroughly enjoyable day. Prince William for various reasons, is arguably the most popular royal and Kate Middleton, despite some reservations from the media a few years ago, really shone on the day.

It was just nice to kick back, have a drink and a bbq and have something to feel good about right now and forget all the doom and gloom. It seemed to go so smoothly and a more laid back affair than Charles and Diana's.

From the pov of the monarchy in general, I think yesterday registered a fundamental change. The staid Victorian ideals are no longer appropriate in 2011. And I think that is why Charles is not particularly popular and many people want the succession to skip over him and go straight to his son.

Thanks Matt! And I think you are quite right about the Victorian ideals. I think there was just the right amount of cheek in the ceremony, while still respecting the longstanding traditions of a royal wedding (I liked Prince Harry's little exchange with William, and William's quip about it being a small family affair).

For me, I thought it was a thoroughly magnificent affair. This is one thing I've always admired about the British - no one does pomp and ceremony like them. I know it sounds frivolous but I personally think this is one of the more endearing aspects of British culture - the tremendous respect for tradition and the flawless way in which something like a royal wedding is pulled off.

By the way, I can completely understand why the Brits would want to skip over Charles and move straight to William. For a royal, William seems immensly more grounded and in touch with the times than Charles. And I think Kate really comported herself extremely well during the ceremony.

All in all, I thought the whole affair was a net gain for Britain, the UK and the Commonwealth.

Am I off base in that sentiment?

TexasBlue wrote:What is staid Victorian ideals?

The notion of the stiff upper lip, cold and unemotional at all times and, to a degree, strong emphasis on the class system. There was a time for that and I feel that time has now passed.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What is staid Victorian ideals?

The notion of the stiff upper lip, cold and unemotional at all times and, to a degree, strong emphasis on the class system. There was a time for that and I feel that time has now passed.

Ahhh, the old 'I'm better than you' routine, huh?

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What is staid Victorian ideals?

The notion of the stiff upper lip, cold and unemotional at all times and, to a degree, strong emphasis on the class system. There was a time for that and I feel that time has now passed.

Ahhh, the old 'I'm better than you' routine, huh?

I think it's also an 'I'm of better birth than you' routine.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Most people were just cynically happy to get the day off work. A thoroughly enjoyable day. Prince William for various reasons, is arguably the most popular royal and Kate Middleton, despite some reservations from the media a few years ago, really shone on the day.

It was just nice to kick back, have a drink and a bbq and have something to feel good about right now and forget all the doom and gloom. It seemed to go so smoothly and a more laid back affair than Charles and Diana's.

From the pov of the monarchy in general, I think yesterday registered a fundamental change. The staid Victorian ideals are no longer appropriate in 2011. And I think that is why Charles is not particularly popular and many people want the succession to skip over him and go straight to his son.

Thanks Matt! And I think you are quite right about the Victorian ideals. I think there was just the right amount of cheek in the ceremony, while still respecting the longstanding traditions of a royal wedding (I liked Prince Harry's little exchange with William, and William's quip about it being a small family affair).

Actually, the part that brought it home for me was when the screen doors to the Palace balcony opened and the new Princess declared "oh wow!" as she stepped out with William. In times past she would have been expected to just smile sweetly and wave. The two exchanges you mentioned and this really brings it home just how much in charge of the wedding Prince William was and how much more input the new Princess had.

What I think is ridiculous though is that royal aides have told her that she will not be permitted to refer to herself as "Kate". I think she should be allowed to call herself whatever she damn well pleases. That's the sort of thing I mean when I said that things are going to change over the next few years. Charles will expect that, but I can't see William having any of it.

dblboggie wrote:For me, I thought it was a thoroughly magnificent affair. This is one thing I've always admired about the British - no one does pomp and ceremony like them.

haha, yeah I think we have very few contenders. Only the Catholic church can really give us a run for our money in that respect.

Yet in some ways, this was a small and laid back affair. I do remember Charles and Diana's wedding and I seem to remember it being much bigger in scale.

dblboggie wrote:By the way, I can completely understand why the Brits would want to skip over Charles and move straight to William. For a royal, William seems immensly more grounded and in touch with the times than Charles. And I think Kate really comported herself extremely well during the ceremony.

It isn't just about William's popularity, it is also about how unpopular Charles is. He seems to have very few supporters. Some people don't like him because of what he did to Diana but as somebody who sees her as a calculating manipulator, I think this is the wrong reason to be concerned about his succession. He has shown himself already to be an interferer. I can actually see him clashing with Parliament during his reign. He has already overstepped the boundary of his position legally. Ok, this case was pretty benign but the thing about Charles is that he clearly believes his own supremacy. I feel that the English Bill of Rights may even become prominent in keeping him under control. I'm all for conservation of our heritage, as an archaeologist, I welcome his input. But I cannot condone the underhand tactics he has used and the abuse of power in getting what he wants.

He has also attempted to interfere in the running of the NHS in putting in strong words for the investment of so-called "alternative" remedies. I feel the same way about alternative therapies in medicine as I do about creationism in biology classes.

dblboggie wrote:All in all, I thought the whole affair was a net gain for Britain, the UK and the Commonwealth.

Am I off base in that sentiment?

From a cynics point of view, yes it will be good for tourism what with the Olympics and the Queen's 60th Jubilee next year it will inject some much needed money into our economy. Both the wedding and the Queen's jubilee will probably see a net gain in popularity for the royals too. Also, with so much doom and gloom in the last three years it was nice to have something to feel positive about.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What is staid Victorian ideals?

The notion of the stiff upper lip, cold and unemotional at all times and, to a degree, strong emphasis on the class system. There was a time for that and I feel that time has now passed.

Ahhh, the old 'I'm better than you' routine, huh?

I think it's also an 'I'm of better birth than you' routine.

Sort of. It is also about the separate-ness of the crown being above things like petty human emotion.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Most people were just cynically happy to get the day off work. A thoroughly enjoyable day. Prince William for various reasons, is arguably the most popular royal and Kate Middleton, despite some reservations from the media a few years ago, really shone on the day.

It was just nice to kick back, have a drink and a bbq and have something to feel good about right now and forget all the doom and gloom. It seemed to go so smoothly and a more laid back affair than Charles and Diana's.

From the pov of the monarchy in general, I think yesterday registered a fundamental change. The staid Victorian ideals are no longer appropriate in 2011. And I think that is why Charles is not particularly popular and many people want the succession to skip over him and go straight to his son.

Thanks Matt! And I think you are quite right about the Victorian ideals. I think there was just the right amount of cheek in the ceremony, while still respecting the longstanding traditions of a royal wedding (I liked Prince Harry's little exchange with William, and William's quip about it being a small family affair).

Actually, the part that brought it home for me was when the screen doors to the Palace balcony opened and the new Princess declared "oh wow!" as she stepped out with William. In times past she would have been expected to just smile sweetly and wave. The two exchanges you mentioned and this really brings it home just how much in charge of the wedding Prince William was and how much more input the new Princess had.

Yeah... I forgot about that moment. It was such an authentic moment - something one doesn't expect to see from a Princess.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:What I think is ridiculous though is that royal aides have told her that she will not be permitted to refer to herself as "Kate". I think she should be allowed to call herself whatever she damn well pleases. That's the sort of thing I mean when I said that things are going to change over the next few years. Charles will expect that, but I can't see William having any of it.

I wholeheartedly agree! This is the part of the monarchy that I think is out of touch with the times. If she want's to call herself Kate, then she bloody well should be able to. In my mind it makes her, and the monarchy by extension, more accessible. I don't see how that could be a bad thing. Naturally, I could be wrong - but I don't see how.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:For me, I thought it was a thoroughly magnificent affair. This is one thing I've always admired about the British - no one does pomp and ceremony like them.

haha, yeah I think we have very few contenders. Only the Catholic church can really give us a run for our money in that respect.

Yet in some ways, this was a small and laid back affair. I do remember Charles and Diana's wedding and I seem to remember it being much bigger in scale.

Wow! You call that a laid back affair?

You are truly pomp-and-ceremony spoiled...

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:By the way, I can completely understand why the Brits would want to skip over Charles and move straight to William. For a royal, William seems immensly more grounded and in touch with the times than Charles. And I think Kate really comported herself extremely well during the ceremony.

It isn't just about William's popularity, it is also about how unpopular Charles is. He seems to have very few supporters. Some people don't like him because of what he did to Diana but as somebody who sees her as a calculating manipulator, I think this is the wrong reason to be concerned about his succession. He has shown himself already to be an interferer. I can actually see him clashing with Parliament during his reign. He has already overstepped the boundary of his position legally. Ok, this case was pretty benign but the thing about Charles is that he clearly believes his own supremacy. I feel that the English Bill of Rights may even become prominent in keeping him under control. I'm all for conservation of our heritage, as an archaeologist, I welcome his input. But I cannot condone the underhand tactics he has used and the abuse of power in getting what he wants.

He has also attempted to interfere in the running of the NHS in putting in strong words for the investment of so-called "alternative" remedies. I feel the same way about alternative therapies in medicine as I do about creationism in biology classes.

Very interesting! As you might imagine, I don't exactly follow the antics of the royal family, but I can't say I'm surprised about this aspect of Charles. I have to say that I very seriously doubt that Rogers finds Charles' intervention here "benign."

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:All in all, I thought the whole affair was a net gain for Britain, the UK and the Commonwealth.

Am I off base in that sentiment?

From a cynics point of view, yes it will be good for tourism what with the Olympics and the Queen's 60th Jubilee next year it will inject some much needed money into our economy. Both the wedding and the Queen's jubilee will probably see a net gain in popularity for the royals too. Also, with so much doom and gloom in the last three years it was nice to have something to feel positive about.

Actually, I wasn't referring to tourism revenue as much as saying that this wedding, and the way they both comported themselves was a net gain for the royal family in the eyes of Britain, the UK and the Commonwealth.

But your point is taken. This and the events you mention have to be good for your economy.