ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Stop kate middleton! (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166871)

Niamh. 17-11-2010 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arista (Post 3918451)
"It's odd that the rest of the world is so fascinated and enthralled with our Royal Family whilst here we have the curmudgeonly anti-monarchists in our midst who don't recognise a good thing when they see it."

Yes the Yanks Love the images
as they do not have Royal.

Fascinated and enthralled??:joker: eh not in Ireland anyway!

Sticks 17-11-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3918415)
Perhaps because they HAVE learnt from the mistakes of before - Prince Charles did not love Diana - it was a marriage of convenience, whereas William and Kate have known each other for almost a decade and have waited a long time to be sure of their feelings before making the commitment - it is a love match.

Andrew and Sarah?

Anne and Captain Mark Philips?

Edward and Mrs Simpson?

His Royal Highness Prince William is of royal blood, and as a Royal there are certain obligations.

Love matches have never been part of our monarchy, and if there was any love, it was incidental. Marriages amongst Royals are for political reasons only. Their position of royalty dictates that.

Harry! 17-11-2010 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3918407)
The Royal Family are of German descent:rolleyes: Does anyone on here know their history at all? In fact most of European Royalty is related, since that is how alliances were forged at one time, by marrying between themselves.

I am talking about Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson here....

Tom 17-11-2010 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks (Post 3918009)
She is not from a "Royal" family and so is classed as a commoner.

The track record has been that commoners are utter disasters for the monarchy, so why has nobody in the royal circle put a stop to this?

I grasp that, but shes still distinctly upper class and they're clearly a good match. Like it or not, these are just people too so deserve the same social rights as everyone. What would you have done if Prince Harry and TV presenter Caroline Flack ever came to be more than what they were?

What has gone before doesn't necessarily impact what will happen in the future and clearly the public have taken very well to Kate and the fact she will probably be our future Queen.

On the subject of what Kate looks like, shes like some weird kind of hybrid of Frankie from the Saturdays, Imogen from BB7 and even Mary from Corrie

MTVN 17-11-2010 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3918407)
The Royal Family are of German descent:rolleyes: Does anyone on here know their history at all? In fact most of European Royalty is related, since that is how alliances were forged at one time, by marrying between themselves.

Yeah it's fascinating really, just look at WWI. King George V, Tsar Nicholas II & Kaiser Wilhelm II; all cousins, and leading the 3 biggest powers in Europe into one of the deadliest wars of all time

Angus 17-11-2010 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks (Post 3918707)
Andrew and Sarah?

Anne and Captain Mark Philips?

Edward and Mrs Simpson?

His Royal Highness Prince William is of royal blood, and as a Royal there are certain obligations.

Love matches have never been part of our monarchy, and if there was any love, it was incidental. Marriages amongst Royals are for political reasons only. Their position of royalty dictates that.

But that is precisely why it has moved on and adapted to modern times - it's called self preservation - if the monarchy wants to survive they have to be able to progress and adapt as they have done throughout the ages. After all the Monarch once had absolute sovereignty and control over the country but now is a mere figurehead. These are different times and the legacy of Princess Diana is that the Royal Family is far more accessible and less constrained by rigid protocols.

Tom 17-11-2010 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3918757)
But that is precisely why it has moved on and adapted to modern times - it's called self preservation - if the monarchy wants to survive they have to be able to progress and adapt as they have done throughout the ages. After all the Monarch once had absolute sovereignty and control over the country but now is a mere figurehead. These are different times and the legacy of Princess Diana is that the Royal Family is far more accessible and less constrained by rigid protocols.

also just to add to that, the royal family have come under intense scrutiny in recent years and people are calling for abolition but this move reconnects the royal family with the public and somewhat blurs the boundary

Angus 18-11-2010 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malza (Post 3917569)
I couldn't care less about that wedding

You cared enough to come on a thread to tell us you couldn't care less:laugh2:

Ithinkiloveyoutoo 21-11-2010 04:14 PM

wow their story is like a novel. i didn't know william was such a playa:joker:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ss-PART-1.html

". As she walked in, William did a double-take. They danced and drank into the early hours, and when Arabella said goodnight to the guests, the Prince quietly slipped out of the room to follow her."

gwan prince!


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.