Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

AH royal wedding mega thread (no flaming queens)

Options
1…4344464849

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Agricola wrote: »
    People are interested in fairytale weddings. They are more interested because they are our next door neighbours. The fact that they are British royals isnt an issue for most people anymore.

    Well said.

    And, I don't know how anyone could find the actual occassion boring. The whole event was spectacular. Shows what we as humans can do as regards pomp and ceremony. What a show. They are English, get over it FFS.

    The Patrick's Day parade. Isn't that too an occasion, pomp and ceremony? I don't hear many
    slating that when it's on.


  • Options
    #1353
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    Does googling pippa middletons arse count as a royal wedding search?


  • Options
    #1354
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is there not a megathread for all this lower class, superficial, shallow tabloid dross promoting bullshit like fairytale weddings? What's the age level here, or dare I say the IQ or EQ level?

    Christ, can all this intellectually vacuous embarrassing scoria not be thrown into some children's forum or the Ladies Lounge or Fashion and Appearance?

    It's unbecoming of a society which is trying to sell itself as a - heaven forfend - "smart economy". :(
    Zip up there S. Your inferiority complex is showing. :P


  • Options
    #1355
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    orourkeda wrote: »
    Does googling pippa middletons arse count as a royal wedding search?

    Yes It Does. was it a nice arse ?


  • Options
    #1356
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    hondasam wrote: »
    Yes It Does. was it a nice arse ?

    Pippa to me is a nice looking girl, but no different at all to so so many others.
    I didn't see anything all that wow with her. It was Kate that had the wow factor, being the bride and all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Agricola wrote: »
    People are interested in fairytale weddings. They are more interested because they are our next door neighbours. The fact that they are British royals isnt an issue for most people anymore.

    Let's just say it out loud, when we talk about "most people": we're talking about most women here. I don't know of a single Irishman who's into it, except Brendan Courtney and he's, well, Brendan Courtney.

    These Irish women have put back the cause of Irish feminism by a hundred years. They are an embarrassment to early twentieth-century Irish feminists like Maud Gonne and Hannah Sheehy Skeffington who famously resisted the delusions of British royalist pomp and ceremony when it arrived on Ireland's shores.


  • Options
    #1358
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    walshb wrote: »
    Pippa to me is a nice looking girl, but no different at all to so so many others.
    I didn't see anything all that wow with her. It was Kate that had the wow factor, being the bride and all.

    kate is a natural beauty, she was stunning.


  • Options
    #1359
    mariebeth
    Registered Users Posts: 892 ✭✭✭mariebeth


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is there not a megathread for all this lower class, superficial, shallow tabloid dross promoting bullshit like fairytale weddings? What's the age level here, or dare I say the IQ or EQ level?

    What's the IQ level of the people who claim to be totally disinterested in the wedding and describe those who even show a passing interest in it as stupid/dumb/thick as pig**** etc? For people who claim to be disinterested, they are wasting an awful lot of time on threads giving out about the wedding. Bit ironic I would think, if I wasn't too busy being intellectually vacuous :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1360
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    mariebeth wrote: »
    I really don't understand why people feel threatened by the fact that other people have different interests to them :rolleyes:

    But but but, how would us boardsies survive without our massive superiority complex?


  • Options
    #1361
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Let's just say it out loud, when we talk about "most people": we're talking about most women here. I don't know of a single Irishman who's into it, except Brendan Courtney and he's, well, Brendan Courtney.

    These Irish women have put back the cause of Irish feminism by a hundred years. They are an embarrassment to early twentieth-century Irish feminists like Maud Gonne and Hannah Sheehy Skeffington who famously resisted the delusions of British royalist pomp and ceremony when it arrived on Ireland's shores.

    STFU plenty of men watched it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I am a man and I watched it and thought the whole event was amazing. It's not just a wedding. It's a whole show, event.

    What impressed me the most was the intricate details and attention
    to detail. The cultural and historical aspect, the etiquette and the
    military precision of the whole show. Of course, Wills and Kate were great and looked
    superb as well.


  • Options
    #1363
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is there not a megathread for all this lower class, superficial, shallow tabloid dross promoting bullshit like fairytale weddings? What's the age level here, or dare I say the IQ or EQ level?

    Christ, can all this intellectually vacuous embarrassing scoria not be thrown into some children's forum or the Ladies Lounge or Fashion and Appearance?

    It's unbecoming of a society which is trying to sell itself as a - heaven forfend - "smart economy". :(

    Are you seriously questioning the I.Q of the billion or so people who watched the royal wedding around the world? Or merely the I.Q of the Irish viewers?

    These Irish women have put back the cause of Irish feminism by a hundred years. They are an embarrassment to early twentieth-century Irish feminists like Maud Gonne and Hannah Sheehy Skeffington who famously resisted the delusions of British royalist pomp and ceremony when it arrived on Ireland's shores.

    What in hell has watching Will & Kate getting married got to do with feminism? You need to chill out and go back to watching The History Channel and revelling in the glorious old days of republicanism.

    The casual sexism displayed in your post is verging on offensive, by the way. You clearly have no clue about what constitutes feminism.


  • Options
    #1364
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    hondasam wrote: »
    STFU plenty of men watched it.

    "STFU" yourself. What sort of "men"? I can imagine a guy enduring it if he thought he'd get sex at the end of it from the bird by playing along. That's rational, even if there are easier ways to achieve the same end. Other than that, the only men I can envisage watching that drivel are like the two from that Eircom handsfree phone ad years ago with Queen's "I want to break free" playing in the background as they jumped into their wives clothes when they had left the house. :D


  • Options
    #1365
    WolfForager
    Registered Users Posts: 4,532 ✭✭✭WolfForager


    Seanchai wrote: »
    "STFU" yourself. What sort of "men"? I can imagine a guy enduring it if he thought he'd get sex at the end of it from the bird by playing along. That's rational, even if there are easier ways to achieve the same end. Other than that, the only men I can envisage watching that drivel are like the two from that Eircom handsfree phone ad years ago with Queen's "I want to break free" playing in the background as they jumped into their wives clothes when they had left the house. :D

    I watched it, as did a good many of my friends. But then again i was procrastinating from studying.


  • Options
    #1366
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Seanchai wrote: »
    "STFU" yourself. What sort of "men"? I can imagine a guy enduring it if he thought he'd get sex at the end of it from the bird by playing along. That's rational, even if there are easier ways to achieve the same end. Other than that, the only men I can envisage watching that drivel are like the two from that Eircom handsfree phone ad years ago with Queen's "I want to break free" playing in the background as they jumped into their wives clothes when they had left the house. :D

    Did you get sex ?

    Did you wear a dress?


  • Options
    #1367
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Seanchai wrote: »
    "STFU" yourself. What sort of "men"? I can imagine a guy enduring it if he thought he'd get sex at the end of it from the bird by playing along. That's rational, even if there are easier ways to achieve the same end. Other than that, the only men I can envisage watching that drivel are like the two from that Eircom handsfree phone ad years ago with Queen's "I want to break free" playing in the background as they jumped into their wives clothes when they had left the house. :D
    lets cut to the chase,you are saying that you object to any irish person watching a BRITISH royal wedding,


  • Options
    #1368
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Are you seriously questioning the I.Q of the billion or so people who watched the royal wedding around the world? Or merely the I.Q of the Irish viewers?

    Yes indeed. There are 7 billion people on the planet. It's more than probable that one-seventh of them are not the sharpest tools in the box.

    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.


    dark crystal wrote: »
    The casual sexism displayed in your post is verging on offensive, by the way.

    It is a fact that women dominate the viewership of this event, just as it is, for instance, a fact that young males are the cause of more deaths on the road than young females. What's your problem?


  • Options
    #1369
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I think the viewing figures were closer to 30 million. BBC got about 20 Million.
    Anyway, that is a whole whole lot. Of course many won't watch, that is called
    taste??:rolleyes:

    Many many never watched the world cup soccer final too.


  • Options
    #1370
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Yes indeed. There are 7 billion people on the planet. It's more than probable that one-seventh of them are not the sharpest tools in the box.

    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.





    It is a fact that women dominate the viewership of this event, just as it is, for instance, a fact that young males are the cause of more deaths on the road than young females. What's your problem?

    You do know that the wedding is finished, right??? You are more obsessed with it than the people who watched it!


  • Options
    #1371
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    getz wrote: »
    lets cut to the chase,you are saying that you object to any irish person watching a BRITISH royal wedding,

    Well, I have little respect for any person who is into pomp or ceremony when there's a real world out here. I hold them with the same respect as I hold somebody who reads tabloids, reads magazines like Hello! or is nationalistic and aroused by state-promoted "commemorations" of war and other things to keep one group in power and another group going around supporting them. It's a mentality from medieval serfdom.

    As part of that, any Irish person facilitating and encouraging this sort of cult has forgotten what that very same class and ethnic group inflicted upon the Irish people for centuries. The last thing any rational Irish person would want is a return to the cap-tipping inferiority complex gombeen mentality which marks people fascinated by royalty.

    Nobody who has a life of their own and is achieving something of their own would have time to be obsessed with the lives of "celebrities", people they don't even know. It's a sure sign of loserdom, lack of personal achievement and indeed personal failure when they are living vicariously through people they don't even know and perceive to be above them. The truth hurts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Seanchai wrote: »
    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.
    lol


    Your seriously trying to claim that 24.5 million watching means that nobody was interested. That viewing figure was only beaten by the likes of Charles+Di and Den giving divorce papers. Plenty of other channels for people to be watching, but I think they were saying that the combined viewing totals for the rest of the UK channels was 0.00million. Basically anyone that was watching telly was watching the BBC coverage, apart from a couple of people watching SKy or ITV.


  • Options
    #1373
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Yes indeed. There are 7 billion people on the planet. It's more than probable that one-seventh of them are not the sharpest tools in the box.

    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.

    It's called having a choice. Some people will wish to watch the event, others will not. To paint all those who chose to watch as having a lower than average I.Q to those who chose not to, is both condescending and factually incorrect.



    It is a fact that women dominate the viewership of this event, just as it is, for instance, a fact that young males are the cause of more deaths on the road than young females. What's your problem?

    You decry these women viewers as putting back feminism (although, going by your example, I suspect you are getting feminism mixed up with nationalism), yet you fail to provide any evidence of the fact that they were any more or less interested in the event than men, let alone that this has any bearing on feminism whatsoever.

    Why can't you accept that others may be interested in watching something you have no regard for, rather than merely painting them all as simple-minded airheads?


  • Options
    #1374
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Nobody who has a life of their own and is achieving something of their own would have time to be obsessed with the lives of "celebrities", people they don't even know. It's a sure sign of loserdom, lack of personal achievement and indeed personal failure when they are living vicariously through people they don't even know and perceive to be above them. The truth hurts.

    And yet here you are...


  • Options
    #1375
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    robinph wrote: »
    lol Your seriously trying to claim that 24.5 million watching means that nobody was interested

    Is English your first language, or even your eighth language? Seriously. I stated that 24.5 million people watched it there and you respond with that. :o


  • Options
    #1376
    Dozen Wicked Words
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    Seanchai wrote: »

    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.

    Those stats show that 70% of people who watched Television watched the wedding in the UK. There are always ways to skew the stats the way you want them. The article also states the 34 million watched at least part, on the BBC alone, this is without Sky viewing figures added in.

    FWIW, I personally think it was a total waste of time, didn't watch it and dislike the royal family intensely, but if I lived in the UK, I would be in the minority.


  • Options
    #1377
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    sock puppet wrote: »
    And yet here you are...
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1378
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Well, I have little respect for any person who is into pomp or ceremony when there's a real world out here. I hold them with the same respect as I hold somebody who reads tabloids, reads magazines like Hello! or is nationalistic and aroused by state-promoted "commemorations" of war and other things to keep one group in power and another group going around supporting them.

    .

    Didn't you yourself mention Maud Gonne and Hannah Sheehy Skeffington? This makes you nationalistic.

    By the way, Gonne was British by birth.


  • Options
    #1379
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is English your first language, or even your eighth language? Seriously. I stated that 24.5 million people watched it there and you respond with that. :o

    Yet you are using these word in your posts. :confused:
    Seanchai wrote: »
    PS: According to the BBC only 24.5 million people in the UK watched their royal wedding - that is, 24.5 million out of a population of 62 million. In other words, not even 40% of the UK population watched it, even though it was a day off. Despite all the royalist propaganda, it was a minority interest even in the UK. Fact.

    You claim that it was a minority interest, I say that it wasn't.

    Which bit are you not getting. It was very far from being a minority interest and only a very strange understanding of the viewing figure numbers could lead you to claim it was.


  • Options
    #1380
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is English your first language, or even your eighth language? Seriously. I stated that 24.5 million people watched it there and you respond with that. :o
    it was a bank holliday in the UK,the only people who close down on bank hollidays now are banks/factories/schools and offices but shops/supermarkets/pubs/public services like transport/hospitals/policing ect still have to work.[my wife was one of them] and they are the countries biggest employers,aswell as being in holliday season,near me blackpool was packed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Didn't you yourself mention Maud Gonne and Hannah Sheehy Skeffington? This makes you nationalistic.

    By the way, Gonne was British by birth.

    In the same post you've just contradicted yourself; I mentioned a British and an Irish woman as two people who rejected the pomp and ceremony of royalism. It's unlikely that I was making a nationalist point. I know precisely who Maud was; I've just finished reading her biography which was entitled, mind you, Servant of the Queen (the title being a pun on her opposition to her native country's queen)


Advertisement