DVDizzy Forum

I caught a little bit of it. And all I got to say is... wow! Pippa looked great! Ok the Royal couple did too.

UmbrellaFish wrote:The wedding was wonderful, and Kate's gown was beautiful.

I can't wait to see what the future has in store for this couple. I hope it's a happy one.

Yeah, I really hope the marriage doesn't flop. It seems like most famous people's marriages have to fail, like the late Princess Diana. And speaking of her, it's super sad of how she's not in the weddding because of that dumb accident! RIP Diana!

BTW: I want Kate's wedding gown and reception gown (look it up!) They're both gorgeous.

pap64 wrote:I just realized this...

People are already being cynical, silly, snarky and critical of this wedding. While that is to be expected, here's the thing...

Regardless of your beliefs on the concept of weddings, whether you think this is a legit event or one HUGE press event, whether you think the lovers are pure and honest or just hypocrites, it is wonderful to see the world united to celebrate something as great as love.

Think about it for a sec...

For months now, all we have been hearing are about earthquakes, tsunamis, destruction, death, corruption, bad economy and many other depressing events.

It's great for once to see such a positive coverage. Yes, the ideals of marriage have been tainted by green, hypocrisy and materialism. But there's no denying that despite what religious stands behind it, a wedding is a beautiful event where true love is celebrated. It is about an union of souls that vow to love each other till death do them part.

So again, whether you think this is legit or a sham, at least it's a POSITIVE world event rather than a negative event, and lord knows we have been getting too many of those as of late.

Yes, I am a hopeless romantic.

It think I found a quote that sums this up:

"You cannot help the world by focusing on the negative things. As you focus on the world's negative events, you not only add to them, but you also bring more negative things into your own life. " - Rhonda Byrne

jpanimation wrote:Maybe I'm out of the loop but why is everyone celebrating this abusive waste of taxpayer's money? Why does the Royal Family (monarchy) still exist? They're the largest welfare family on the planet and if anything, they should be giving all British citizens reparations for hundreds of years of tyranny. To me they're just a stark reminder that people were at one point stupid enough to believe that someone was divine and were willingly sacrifice their liberty to them for a false sense of security.

I just don't understand the excitement

Firstly, the Royal Family itself paid for between 70% and 80% of the ceremony. It wasn't a State event (unlike Charles and Diana's wedding for example). True there were other costs involved (such as policing and security) - but hey did you see the fuss caused when President Obama visited the UK? Every high-profile event, involving the monarchy or national elected officials has similar costs.

As for the tax payers paying money for the Royal Family in general, its hardly a lot (less than $1 per year per taxpayer). I think we can all live with that. It's really no different than our government (or your government) giving tax breaks to large successful businesses. The fact is the Royal family bring in more money per year than they cost.

Do you know how many people are estimated to have watched the Royal Wedding? Between 1.5bn and 2bn. Add in all the people who will see clips on their national or local news (but not the whole ceremony) and the number is expected to double! Think of the Royal Family as a "franchise" - you literally can't buy publicity like that at any cost.

Welfare family? Do you have any idea of what the Royal Family actually does? Apparently not. The Queen is in her mid-eighties and still attending and/or hosting as many royal functions and events as she was in her 40s.

Yes it mostly ceremonial engagements, but all civilised societies have people performing such roles - Presidents, Mayors, Ambassadors etc. The Royal Family is in no way an outdated or unmodern institution. Especially as head of the Royal Family does more than simply represent England, Britain or the UK. The Queen is also figurehead of the Commonwealth and the figurehead of the Church of England (and of course, the Church is seperate from any political state and/or party).

Not only is she hard working, but in all her years, not once has she been tarred by innuendo or scandal. As for their Civil List payments (taxpayers money) did you know that annual earnings from the family's private holdings are paid directly to the UK Treasury.

Although I have no proof, I think it's likely the money paid to the Royal Family is actually less than the estate earnings paid in - if not, once you add in the other benefits the Royal Family provide for the country, it most certainly is.

As for repression, yes no doubt such privileged dynasties did abuse their position. But you know what? It's not really relevant to today. Democratically elected leaders and self-imposed dictators have and are doing terrible things to their countries today. I see no point in raking over past history when current issues of much greater magnitude exist in the world today.

jpanimation wrote:I just don't understand the excitement

Neither do I. We all have our own lives. And I didn't realize collectively we had so much time to kill that we could go culturally gaga over something so irrelevant to so many people- though they choose to believe the opposite. This feels like another one of those sheepy bids for people to be in on something now and trendy. It's news today because it's a flashy show- so the media makes it news. And instead of going on with our lives, we actually press pause for something that means absolutely nothing to us. It actually means more to the networks broadcasting this stuff that a huge number of people are made to be interested.

As for positive - vs - negative world events, just because we feel the need to reach out and say, "that's horrible," when a huge disaster happens - which is an understandable human thing we all feel - doesn't mean we're indebted to say anything about other manners of "world events." I reiterate: don't we also have our own lives? Some people simply live way too publically. Besides, if it's this sort of thing that cheers a world up, I'm even more disappointed in the human race today than I am usually.

Please note the sarcasm in this post and don't throw rocks!!!


Just because...
So Billy and Katey are getting married today, big freakin deal. How many homeless people could they have fed, clothed and given a nights stay at a Holliday Inn Express with the money they're putting into their wedding?

I rarely do this, but...

I agree with dvdjunkie.

dvdjunkie wrote:How many homeless people could they have fed, clothed and given a nights stay at a Holliday Inn Express with the money they're putting into their wedding?

But you can say that about any big event. Why shouldn't they have a wedding? Everyone else does. Their wedding is even boosting the economy, what with all the tourists and merchandise it's selling.

Another thing, this is the Monarchy. Everything is about tradition. Could you imagine the upheaval if they didn't have an extravagant wedding?

I see nothing wrong about getting excited, and being happy about the Royal Wedding. It's a happy occasion amidst many natural disasters and crimes. (And it really did more good than harm, money wise)

jpanimation wrote:Maybe I'm out of the loop but why is everyone celebrating this abusive waste of taxpayer's money? Why does the Royal Family (monarchy) still exist? They're the largest welfare family on the planet and if anything, they should be giving all British citizens reparations for hundreds of years of tyranny. To me they're just a stark reminder that people were at one point stupid enough to believe that someone was divine and were willingly sacrifice their liberty to them for a false sense of security.

I just don't understand the excitement

Let me just say this:


THANK YOU!


<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NvF0p ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NvF0p ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Lazario wrote:Seriously, this year and last year it's the same thing- I agree with Divinity, etc. A 'fact' like the one you seemed to've been harping on there clearly pressed the argument that women are stupid. Something I doubt someone as compassionate as you (can be) would ever want to argue.

Huh? How does anything I said signal to you that I think women are 'stupid'?! Was that really what you got out of my reply? If so, you must go back and read my reply again. What I said, was that people (or at least, men) are, biologically speaking, not made for monogamy. That's all I said. I dare you to find a biologist who disagrees with that premise.

Lazario wrote:

jpanimation wrote:I just don't understand the excitement

Neither do I. We all have our own lives. And I didn't realize collectively we had so much time to kill that we could go culturally gaga over something so irrelevant to so many people- though they choose to believe the opposite. This feels like another one of those sheepy bids for people to be in on something now and trendy. It's news today because it's a flashy show- so the media makes it news. And instead of going on with our lives, we actually press pause for something that means absolutely nothing to us. It actually means more to the networks broadcasting this stuff that a huge number of people are made to be interested.

As for positive - vs - negative world events, just because we feel the need to reach out and say, "that's horrible," when a huge disaster happens - which is an understandable human thing we all feel - doesn't mean we're indebted to say anything about other manners of "world events." I reiterate: don't we also have our own lives? Some people simply live way too publically. Besides, if it's this sort of thing that cheers a world up, I'm even more disappointed in the human race today than I am usually.

Scarred4Life wrote:I see nothing wrong about getting excited, and being happy about the Royal Wedding. It's a happy occasion amidst many natural disasters and crimes. (And it really did more good than harm, money wise)

I agree. I'm British and I have absolutely no problem with the Royal Family, though I know that many people in this country don't share that sentiment. In this case, the wedding of our future king, the coverage was always going to be huge as it was when Prince Charles married. For those who have noted the cost of the wedding, the Royal Family said months ago, just after the engagement was announced, that they would be paying the majority of the costs, between 70 and 80 % according to various media reports here. I understand why some see the monarchy as outdated but I personally don't see it that way; as Goliath has said, it is simply a part of tradition that goes back centuries in the history of this country and I can't imagine Britain without a Royal Family.

Goliath wrote:

Lazario wrote:Seriously, this year and last year it's the same thing- I agree with Divinity, etc. A 'fact' like the one you seemed to've been harping on there clearly pressed the argument that women are stupid. Something I doubt someone as compassionate as you (can be) would ever want to argue.

Huh? How does anything I said signal to you that I think women are 'stupid'?! Was that really what you got out of my reply? If so, you must go back and read my reply again. What I said, was that people (or at least, men) are, biologically speaking, not made for monogamy. That's all I said. I dare you to find a biologist who disagrees with that premise.

I meant to respond to this:

Goliath wrote:And it's different for men, because they can seperate 'love' from 'lust'. Unlike women

And I also meant for you to know that I am not speaking biologically. If you want to argue anything involving women not knowing what they think and feel, do me a favor: go out and say that to a bunch of different women and be sure to report back here. Tell us what they said, and did, to you afterward. Should make for a fun read.

For a second, I was reading this and was like, did I post in this thread? And then, oh yeah.

I can't really connect what he meant--he can explain himself well enough--but I think he was commenting on your statement that "unlike women, men can separate lust from love." edit: Guess I was right.

Anyway, going back, couldn't resist.

Goliath wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't really believe that, tbh. At heart, people are emotional/psychological beings (yes, that includes men), and when you’re willing to have sex with someone on the spot, it, imo, only represents a deeper problem, either with the person or the relationship or with how the person feels about/views the relationship.

Well, that may be your 'opinion', but biology and evolution contradict everything you said. I'm sorry.

Biology doesn't in any way contradict the fact that people are psychological beings.

More importantly, I do think adultery is an action that deserves a value-judgment, simply because human beings are rational animals who can control their instincts. Disliking adulterous behavior is, imo, no different than disliking lateness, irresponsible driving (me --though I don't do it consistently), or gossiping. Unless most people have been uncontrollably crapping their pants without my knowledge (another instinct).

And I would agree, people aren't necessarily made for monogamy. But when you enter a marriage, you agree to be monogamous in knowledge of that fact. If you can't handle the terms, get out or don't enter at all.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Goliath wrote:Well, that may be your 'opinion', but biology and evolution contradict everything you said. I'm sorry.

Biology doesn't in any way contradict the fact that people are psychological beings.

More importantly, I do think adultery is an action that deserves a value-judgment, simply because human beings are rational animals who can control their instincts. Disliking adulterous behavior is, imo, no different than disliking lateness, irresponsible driving (me --though I don't do it consistently), or gossiping. Unless most people have been uncontrollably crapping their pants without my knowledge (another instinct).

And I would agree, people aren't necessarily made for monogamy. But when you enter a marriage, you agree to be monogamous in knowledge of that fact. If you can't handle the terms, get out or don't enter at all.

I think you're right. What you said makes sense.

Lazario wrote:And I also meant for you to know that I am not speaking biologically. If you want to argue anything involving women not knowing what they think and feel, do me a favor: go out and say that to a bunch of different women and be sure to report back here. Tell us what they said, and did, to you afterward. Should make for a fun read.

You need to stop taking everything so seriously and act like everything I write is meant to be taking literally. You're smart enough to know what I meant with that statement. I think we can safely assume that a far bigger percentage of women don't seperate 'love' from 'sex', than men. And yes, I'll add I'm speaking about heterosexual men... before I get criticised for it again!

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:For those who have noted the cost of the wedding, the Royal Family said months ago, just after the engagement was announced, that they would be paying the majority of the costs, between 70 and 80 % according to various media reports here.

But that's *still* taxpayers' money! They have never earned that money themselves! They're making themselves look good by paying for the wedding by money they didn't earn --and people are buying it!!

Disney's Divinity wrote:Biology doesn't in any way contradict the fact that people are psychological beings.

That's true, but it does contradict monogamy.

Disney's Divinity wrote:More importantly, I do think adultery is an action that deserves a value-judgment, simply because human beings are rational animals who can control their instincts. [...]

Note that I'm not favoring or advocating adultery. I simply think we, as a species, are still way more bound to biological and evolutionary 'instincts' than most people are willing to admit.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I would agree, people aren't necessarily made for monogamy. But when you enter a marriage, you agree to be monogamous in knowledge of that fact. If you can't handle the terms, get out or don't enter at all.

I agree (I would never get married), but we have to remember that the institution of marriage was never supposed to be about love or even monogamy. That's really just a relatively new idea, being around for just the last 100 years or so. (And in many cultures, marriage still has nothing to do with love!) Marriage was originally meant to accumulate wealth (land); secure a woman's future (making sure she was being taken care of), in exchange for legitimate heirs who could take over the family's possessions. Marriage was a contract that had nothing to do witj love for most of (Western) history.

It's just that we haven't grown up with those notions, and we have been thaught marriage is about love and a committed relationship, which make us confuse relatively new societal standards with historic and biological facts.

Did you know the 'lovely' Royal Family has censured comedy programs by forbidding them to use footage from the wedding for comedic purposes? Jon Stewart pointed it out in Tuesday's episode of The Daily Show. Of course, Jon found a way around it and presented a computer-animated version of a 'slightly' alternate version of the royal wedding!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-m ... uncensored

Royal wedding was amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love European History and this was the perfect event for me! I hope William and Catherine live happily ever after!

BTW, before the wedding, I watched a few "Cinderella" films to prepare for the occasion. Yep, I'm a dork and I love it!

I prepared for the wedding too. I went out, got drunk, went home with a guy, let him chain me up in his house, he beat me senseless, forced me to clean the place 'til it was spotless, and every night he nearly kills me because I'm 3 minutes late with his dinner. He likes a home cooked meal. And God help me if it isn't warm enough. I can't go out in public anymore because of the bruises. And every time he hits me, it feels like a kiss. How did I ever get so lucky? Just think, I could have wound up marrying a woman.

And the weirdest thing... I watched the Cinderella Franchise before the wedding too!