AH royal wedding mega thread (no flaming queens)

Ann22

Orando Broom wrote: »

Coz you were there?

James Hewitt must have carelessly left his seed lying round somewhere for Diana to bog up her goother because Jaysus, Harry is the absolute puck out of him.

He was with her for five years wasn't he? He told all the details in a book and wanted to sell letters she sent him. Think if Harry was his, he'd waste no time in broadcasting it. I personally don't think Harry does look like him. Hewitt has regular features wheras Harry has Charles' ears, the nose and the too close together eyes.

RichieC

Predator_ wrote: »

Not surprising, RTE are a bunch of west brit traitors.

:rolleyes:

fontanalis

Ann22 wrote: »

He was with her for five years wasn't he? He told all the details in a book and wanted to sell letters she sent him. Think if Harry was his, he'd waste no time in broadcasting it. I personally don't think Harry does look like him. Hewitt has regular features wheras Harry has Charles' ears, the nose and the too close together eyes.

Ah; marryingcousinitis!

Pauleta

Its should be on at 11 in the morning or so. The Gilmore Girls is usually on but i may just watch the 2.30 Showing. Cant think of anthing else that will be on tv at that time so i may give it my viewership.

Just seen an ad for TV3. Theres gonna be no getting away from it :pac:

kfallon

Ann22 wrote: »

Think if Harry was his, he'd waste no time in broadcasting it.

What and be caught for maintenance? :pac:

kfallon

Ann22 wrote: »

Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until the summer of 1986, when Harry was two.

Says who?

Dionysus

If there really are people in this society who would watch this - *shudder* - perhaps the Sunday Independent should set up a TV station for such things.

It is a genuine shame of class and substance that RTÉ, the state-owned channel of this Irish republic, is lowering itself to covering such superficial, shallow, culturally vacuous trite as a British royal wedding. Who is running RTÉ now? Is Eoghan Harris back in charge? John Cadden? Joe "don't shake hands with Gerry Adams" Mulholland? Miriam Lord or Marian Finucane, the most shallow wannabe-cool Sunday Independent-obsessed grossly overpaid tabloid journalist in RTÉ?

All yesterday I was driving around West Cork - easily one of the most beautiful places in the world - paying a visit to Michael Collins's hometown, to Michael Collins's birthplace, to Tom Barry's hometown, to Crossbarry, to Kilmichael - to all those bastions of Ireland's struggle for freedom from the fanaticism of British imperialism. To those who fought against all the odds for our small country's freedom from the most avaricious empire in the recorded history of planet earth. How many Irish people here would want us to go back to the days before Collins wrote The Path to Freedom?

Náire ar RTÉ go léir.

Gordon Gecko

From all this hubbub you'd swear there wasn't a button to simply turn off the television!

mike65

Dionysus wrote: »

If there really are people in this society who would watch this - *shudder* - perhaps the Sunday Independent should set up a TV station for such things.

It is a genuine shame of class and substance that RTÉ, the state-owned channel of this Irish republic, is lowering itself to covering such superficial, shallow, culturally vacuous trite as a British royal wedding. Who is running RTÉ now? Is Eoghan Harris back in charge? John Cadden? Joe "don't shake hands with Gerry Adams" Mulholland? Miriam Lord or Marian Finucane, the most shallow wannabe-cool Sunday Independent-obsessed grossly overpaid tabloid journalist in RTÉ?

All yesterday I was driving around West Cork - easily one of the most beautiful places in the world - paying a visit to Michael Collins's hometown, to Michael Collins's birthplace, to Tom Barry's hometown, to Crossbarry, to Kilmichael - to all those bastions of Ireland's struggle for freedom from the fanaticism of British imperialism. To those who fought against all the odds for our small country's freedom from the most avaricious empire in the recorded history of planet earth. How many Irish people here would want us to go back to the days before Collins wrote The Path to Freedom?

Náire ar RTÉ go léir.

Is this a rhetorical rant?

Dionysus

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

From all this hubbub you'd swear there wasn't a button to simply turn off the television!

Would that we could also turn off the paychecks to the people in RTÉ who decide Irish people are so lacking in substance and culture that they'd be interested in their taxes and license fees being spent on this unadulterated ráiméis. The inferiority complex of it all is stultifying.

Dionysus

mike65 wrote: »

Is this a rhetorical rant?

Is this post number 64,288?

Ann22

kfallon wrote: »

Says who?

Their first meeting was recorded in many books and newspapers...you could be right that they'd met earlier but I still don't believe Harry's his.

mike65

Gnobe wrote: »

Well we do have 112,458 British citizens living here. They'll be happy I suppose. :cool:

I'll only be watching for the frocks. :pac:

mike65

Dionysus wrote: »

Is this post number 64,288?

and? Attack the poster, not the post count.















ah no, its attack the post - not the post count.

hardCopy

Ann22 wrote: »

He was with her for five years wasn't he? He told all the details in a book and wanted to sell letters she sent him. Think if Harry was his, he'd waste no time in broadcasting it. I personally don't think Harry does look like him. Hewitt has regular features wheras Harry has Charles' ears, the nose and the too close together eyes.

Maybe he's Camilla's?

:pac:

Phoenix Park

Delighted to read this shiite will be shown by our national broadcaster, now watch the sad bitter seethers living in the dark ages fume over nothing. If you don't want to watch it ( and i don't) just fcking do something else.
I might pop into the Player's Lounge if they have it on the big screen :pac:

Mike 1972

IIRC The Charles/Diana wedding was shown on RTE as well

kfallon wrote: »

And how did the Charles & Di one turn out? She was riding all round her on him,

As was he. What is your point exactly ?

jc84 wrote: »

Why is it such a big deal, they show britains got talent live in ireland, now that i can't understand

TBH I cant understand why they show it in Britain either :pac:

irish-stew wrote: »

I dont have the BBC where I live.

Tal der Ahnungslosen ? :pac:

(Seriously though get thyself freesat)

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Their persecution of Catholics is ongoing to this day, whereby a king:o or queen:o cant be a Catholic.

:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

With attitudes like those being displayed here it's no wonder people like that poor young policeman are still dying up North.

Folks it's a Wedding, a happy occasion and in any case you can switch channel if you don't want to watch it.

Out of curiosity how many of those objecting the Wedding being broadcast can say honestly they have never done one of the following

a.) watched a premiership match/supported a team

b.) watched a soap, english documentary/sitcom/film

c.) read an english magazine

d.) been friends or known an English person

e.) been to England

lecker Hendl

It's just a real version of Corrie or Eastenders.

Wheelie King

Kunle wrote: »

I was disgusted to read today that RTE ONE Television will have live coverage the royal wedding, Why are they doing this? Would they cover a royal wedding in Norway? What have those brits who were born with a sliver spoon in their mouth got to do with us? Why would us Irish want to watch that trash?

What a waste of the licence fee imo.

mconigol

Yeah what are they doing showing the wedding of the future king of our closest neighbour :rolleyes:

Show something historic and world changing like an episode of CSI instead god dammit :pac:

My name is URL

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

With attitudes like those being displayed here it's no wonder people like that poor young policeman are still dying up North.

Folks it's a Wedding, a happy occasion and in any case you can switch channel if you don't want to watch it.

Out of curiosity how many of those objecting the Wedding being broadcast can say honestly they have never done one of the following

a.) watched a premiership match/supported a team

b.) watched a soap, english documentary/sitcom/film

c.) read an english magazine

d.) been friends or known an English person

e.) been to England

That's a weak argument Audrey. Firstly, it's unfair to equate not wanting our state-owned broadcaster to show the wedding; to the terrible things that have happened in the North. One does not go hand in hand with the other.

Are all people who have ever watched a premiership match or read a British magazine required to be supportive of the Monarchy and partake in its customs or celebrations?

Yes, people can turn off the TV or change the station.. but they can also air their disagreement to it being shown in the first place. Can you honestly say that you have never shared a negative opinion about anything on TV? I don't think there has ever been a day where I have been on Boards and not seen someone criticising RTE or any of its content.

Thousands of weddings take place every day, and to me at least; they are all about as important or joyous as the one being discussed in this thread.

ceegee

So RTE were faced with the option of

1) showing an event that will attract a sizable audience, has low production costs and has been publicised for months in advance

or

2) stick to the usual friday morning schedule of reruns of Dr Phil, shortland street etc.

Must have been a tough decision for the chap responsible for figuring out which would turn more profit. It always amuses me when people complain about license fee costs while berating RTE for showing something which will be self-funding

Dudess

Lots of people want to see it - celeb gossip junkies and the like. Can't understand the appeal myself, but if RTE can make money out of it, they may as well. They're probably not too flush at the minute.

R0ot

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps that's the question you want to ask. RTE are showing it because people want to watch it.

Your statement only stands up if you agree that RTE shows stuff that people want to watch and for this I divert your attention to Pat Kenny.

Dionysus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

With attitudes like those being displayed here it's no wonder people like that poor young policeman are still dying up North....Out of curiosity how many of those objecting the Wedding being broadcast can say honestly they have never done one of the following

a.) watched a premiership match/supported a team

b.) watched a soap, english documentary/sitcom/film

c.) read an english magazine

d.) been friends or known an English person

e.) been to England

Oh, so let me see: if you know and like an English person you must accept this display of English British royalism or else you're a hypocrite? For God's sake, this makes millions upon millions of English people who reject that monarchy hypocritical. Talk about brainwashingly equating Englishness with a sectarian British monarchy from the 1690s. Cringeworthy.

Jesus! Is there any hope with such thinking. I have (many years ago) 1) watched British soccer and 2) watched British soaps - that is why I know they have no appeal to me. I find them boring beyond words, and the saturation of these to be the decisive factor in my avoidance of all but the most informative documentary on tv.

I have read many British (and French, American etc) magazines, if you include the New Statesman and a variety of historical, scientific, economic and political journals. What, pray tell, is the intellectual, emotional or rational connection between this and watching something as tabloidesque and nationalistic as a British royalist celebration? Because I read, for instance, The Economist, I am being hypocritical in rejecting tabloid royalist culture in your eyes? Just what sort of straitjacket are you trying to put everybody into?

Your post, with all due respect, is abjectly devoid of rationality. I await to hear it being rationally defended by those who thanked it.

Thank you.

Fratton Fred

Ann22 wrote: »

He was with her for five years wasn't he? He told all the details in a book and wanted to sell letters she sent him. Think if Harry was his, he'd waste no time in broadcasting it. I personally don't think Harry does look like him. Hewitt has regular features wheras Harry has Charles' ears, the nose and the too close together eyes.

Harry is also a dead ringer for Diana's brother. Although I'm sure people will claim she was riding him as well.

Sofiztikated

Dionysus wrote: »

Oh, so let me see: if you know and like an English person you must accept this display of English British royalism or else you're a hypocrite? For God's sake, this makes millions upon millions of English people who reject that monarchy hypocritical. Talk about brainwashingly equating Englishness with a sectarian British monarchy from the 1690s. Cringeworthy.

Jesus! Is there any hope with such thinking. I have (many years ago) 1) watched British soccer and 2) watched British soaps - that is why I know they have no appeal to me. I find them boring beyond words, and the saturation of these to be the decisive factor in my avoidance of all but the most informative documentary on tv.

I have read many British (and French, American etc) magazines, if you include the New Statesman and a variety of historical, scientific, economic and political journals. What, pray tell, is the intellectual, emotional or rational connection between this and watching something as tabloidesque and nationalistic as a British royalist celebration? Because I read, for instance, The Economist, I am being hypocritical in rejecting tabloid royalist culture in your eyes? Just what sort of straitjacket are you trying to put everybody into?

Your post, with all due respect, is abjectly devoid of rationality. I await to hear it being rationally defended by those who thanked it.

Thank you.

I think her point is get over the hatred of all things English.

Dionysus

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I think her point is get over the hatedred [sic] of all things English.

If that's the case, her equation of objections to RTÉ covering a British royal wedding being the same as hating the English is obtuse in the extreme. So obviously retarded, in fact.

That you thanked it isn't looking well for you either, it must be said.

desertcircus

Dionysus wrote: »

I have read many British (and French, American etc) magazines, if you include the New Statesman and a variety of historical, scientific, economic and political journals.

I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany...