The Royal Wedding Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Vanna
Wasnt Kate just stunning....that dress was beautiful. Fancy and gawdy does not always equal beautiful, and she made the absolutely perfect decision of beauty with that dress.

Personally I think it is boring and dated.

Such a modern looking young couple - - - really too bad she didn't opt for something more updated and stylish.

Man, they're 12th cousins, once removed...

Which, in any culture, is basically "no relation"....

The "cousins" angle is a bit misleading....

Originally posted by Gazrok
Man, they're 12th cousins, once removed...

Which, in any culture, is basically "no relation"....

The "cousins" angle is a bit misleading....

Interbreeding is interbreeding.

I did not watch it. Did not plan on it either. I would have had to get up at 3 am, if I wanted to do so.... To be honest, I don't care at all about this wedding, not to be rude.

But, I did watch a few minutes off some highlights that they were showing on TV... Is it bad that during the silent, extra boring parts, I kept hoping some one there would accidently rip one? .... You know.... Just to.... spice things up a little?


Yeah, probably.

reply to post by Selfpreservationalist


You do know that "Jerusalem" is widely considered to be the defacto national anthem of England?

You do don't you. It's got nothing to do with Zionism, so chillax man!

reply to post by Gazrok


Who are, Catherine (yes CATHERINE) is a commoner

Her Dad used to work for British Airways!!

Thats cool by me!

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Gazrok

 

Who are, Catherine (yes CATHERINE) is a commoner

Her Dad used to work for British Airways!!

Thats cool by me!

How is she a "commoner" when she is William's cousin? i.dailymail.co.uk... Blood is blood. Related is related.

Show me a totally unrelated marrage in the Royal family? Please?


The "commoner" and "down to earth Willy" is all PR.

She is a commoner in that she is not landed gentry nor granted title. her family did NOT have right to bear arms. and so as such was a commoner.

If you want to go back far enough, you will find that so many people are related in one way or another. to suggest this is inbreeding is ludicrous.

I though we were about denying ignorance here,

ETA: Sir Thomas Leighton (1530 - 1610) OH NOES the REPTILES ARE COMING!!!

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
She is a commoner in that she is not landed gentry nor granted title. her family did NOT have right to bear arms. and so as such was a commoner.

If you want to go back far enough, you will find that so many people are related in one way or another. to suggest this is inbreeding is ludicrous.

I though we were about denying ignorance here,

Titles are just names, how many names has the house of Windsor been using ? Quite a few.

Bloodline's are important here not names. Infact, they have changed names many times in history.

Exactly you muppet. the house of Windsor were the Hannovarian dynasty, i.e. the Saxe-Koberg.

if you check you little daigram, you will see the very very VERY distant relation through the Spencer line.

Not to mention many branch of matriarchal lineage.

Genealogy is no your strong suit is it

ETA: you never know YOU could be a distant relation of a monarchy, does THAT make you nobility?

errrr NO.

At the end of the day, had her Dad remained a flight dispatcher at B.A. there is no way we would be seeing her as our future Queen, At least mine, I don;t know about you.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Exactly you muppet. the house of Windsor were the Hannovarian dynasty, i.e. the Saxe-Koberg.

if you check you little daigram, you will see the very very VERY distant relation through the Spencer line.

Not to mention many branch of matriarchal lineage.

Genealogy is no your strong suit is it

ETA: you never know YOU could be a distant relation of a monarchy, does THAT make you nobility?

errrr NO.

edit on 29/4/2011 by JakiusFogg because: (no reason given)

If means something to them, not us.

reply to post by moogins


You've been watching too much David Icke!!

So which ever way you want to take it, it does not remove the fact that Sir Leighton was NOT of the royal bloodline, although titled. the title of nobility did not pass down the line.

In Williams case this lineage came through his mother. NOT the royal line.

Nobility has to be established in the preceding 4 generations of which on her side they are not.

If you want to be technical about it. The TRUE King currently lives in Australia. and is titled, by default. AN original Plantagenet. is he King? no!. Is he Nobility? yes. why? because the title was passed down.

That is why she is a commoner.

Also being a "Sir" does not make one Noble.

it makes one a Knight of the Realm.

Would you consider Alex Ferguson, or Elton John to be Nobility???

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by moogins

 

You've been watching too much David Icke!!

So which ever way you want to take it, it does not remove the fact thatSir Leighton was NOT of the royal bloodline, although titled. the title of nobility did not pass down the line.

In Williams case this lineage came through his mother. NOT the royal line.

Nobility has to be established in the preceding 4 generations of which on her side they are not.

If you want to be technical about it. The TRUE King currently lives in Australia. and is titled, by default. AN original Plantagenet. is he King? no!. Is he Nobility? yes. why? because the title was passed down.

That is why she is a commoner.

edit on 29/4/2011 by JakiusFogg because: (no reason given)

Who is David Icke? You mean the grandstand reporter? lol

Never watched him outside of football results lol.

reply to post by moogins


Who is Davi.... Yeah OK!!!!!

Well done on joining today by the way.

might want to jump to the intro board first tho'

Don't forget to stop by the T&C's

We're a different type of Forum here, We actually respect people!! or at least try to./

Shock horror.

Pay heed or you'll be eaten alive by some of the people here.

ETA: Mods don't take kindly to blanket quotes like you have been doing. It's a sure fire way to get your post removed!

I was up at 5am to watch.

Kate looked beautiful!! I loved her dress, very elegant and classy. I see many knock offs in the future

I also loved how William looked at her, you could see how much he loved her just with the looks he gave while looking at her. It was really sweet.

I thought the wedding was beautiful and I wish them both the best. They have a great love story!

the whole thing felt like a giant advertisment

I have a conspiracy for you.

One of the cakes was made from a "Royal Family Recipe" and produced by McVities.

I will bet hard Silver that replications of that cake will soon be on sale, courtesy of MV's

How is that for a conspiracy? or maybe just the Royals way of saying in these hard times:

"Let them eat cake!!!"

reply to post by moogins


I'm quite sure he was refering to the kid... my thoughts exactly. ENOUGH. Shut up already. Then again, the peasants must worship their gods/overlords sometime.

P.S. Jakius... SHUT UP!