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…89111314…49

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Clareboy wrote: »
    I am delighted to hear that RTE will be covering the Royal Wedding. I just love Royal Weddings! Such a sense of occasion with all the pomp and ceremony that the British are so good at. It will be ' a jolly good show'. Just can't wait.

    Here here. I've bought the commemorative dinner set that was only 10 easy installments of £99.99


  • Options
    #303
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    Clareboy wrote: »
    I am delighted to hear that RTE will be covering the Royal Wedding. I just love Royal Weddings! Such a sense of occasion with all the pomp and ceremony that the British are so good at. It will be ' a jolly good show'. Just can't wait.

    The wait is over!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAzgmQa-oFY


  • Options
    #304
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Oh_Noes wrote: »
    I would probably actually watch a Nigerian royal wedding just out of interest. We get so much British trash on Irish television already and I'd bet that the majority of people who are interested in this will already have British tv stations. Just more trashy noise from our noisy neighbour, I wish there weren't so many in our own country peeping out through the curtains at them. It's embarrassing.

    Dear Lord, what planet are you on :confused:

    Yeah, like I got my British tv stations like only forty five years ago, so I already have them, but maybe we should all just watch repeats of the Riordans on OOR T E and be like Dev's happy little insular Paddies, be-jasus keep those bloody outsiders from the neighbouring island away, they're soo feckin noisy!


  • Options
    #305
    Predator_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Predator_


    boards.co.uk
    >


  • Options
    #306
    Oh_Noes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Oh_Noes


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Dear Lord, what planet are you on :confused:

    Yeah, like I got my British tv stations like only forty five years ago, so I already have them, but maybe we should all just watch repeats of the Riordans on OOR T E and be like Dev's happy little insular Paddies, be-jasus keep those bloody outsiders from the neighbouring island away, they're soo feckin noisy!

    Or just watch the thing on British tv if you have it :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Dionysus wrote: »
    perhaps you could clarify what precisely you're talking about, Keith.

    Presumably he is referring to the country that is ......you know......Irish......and a Republic ?


  • Options
    #308
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Presumably he is referring to the country that is ......you know......Irish......and a Republic ?

    As a proper noun? I'm disappointed that one so professedly loyal to the English crown has difficulty with distinguishing between such remedial aspects of the Queen's English.

    It's a double standard to expect people to refer to the state of Northern Ireland by its internationally recognised name but refuse to refer to the state of Ireland by its internationally recognised name. There is no such state named the "Irish Republic". Fact.


  • Options
    #309
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Dionysus wrote: »
    As a proper noun? I'm disappointed that one so professedly loyal to the English crown has difficulty with distinguishing between such remedial aspects of the Queen's English.

    It's a double standard to expect people to refer to the state of Northern Ireland by its internationally recognised name but refuse to refer to the state of Ireland by its internationally recognised name. There is no such state named the "Irish Republic". Fact.

    I suppose it's because "Ireland" can refer to two things. "Northern Ireland" only refers to one.

    And it does feel a bit strange to talk about travelling from Northern Ireland to Ireland.


  • Options
    #310
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Dionysus wrote: »
    There is no such state named the "Irish Republic". Fact.

    And yet we all live in the Republic of Ireland (unless you live in Northern Ireland) Fact!


  • Options
    #311
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    LordSutch wrote: »
    And yet we all live in the Republic of Ireland (unless you live in Northern Ireland) Fact!

    Actually, those of us who live in the 26-county state live in the state named Ireland. There is no other name in Irish or international law for this state. Fact. Under the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, the state is described as the 'republic of Ireland". To claim that the "Irish Republic" is the name of the state is akin to claiming that the "British Constitutional Monarchy" is the name of the British state named the United Kingdom which is described as a constitutional monarchy.

    Simples, really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Dionysus wrote: »
    1. You explicitly equated opposition to British royalism with opposition to the British. This was an utterly retarded equation.

    2. Calling your post stupid, which it very definitely was for the above reason, is not the same as calling you stupid - cf.ad rem with ad hominem.

    3. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not - and clearly you don't - the head of the English monarchy has considerably more historical/political/colonial baggage than anything else in British (i.e. English) culture that you could mention.



    Clearly, you do. Or else your posts are being articulated in such a clumsy manner as to belie the views which you now claim you have.



    This is the sort of nonsense which undermines your posts. In 2011, Britain still claims rule over a part of Ireland. That is a present-day reality. It's not long ago since no fewer than 50,000 armed British personnel were being used in the last remnant of the British state in Ireland against the 700,000 Irish nationalists still living under British rule in Ireland. That's a ratio of 1:14, and a military occupation by any standards. That was the 1970s, which is not - no matter how much you seek to huff and puff and rewrite the past - "long since past".

    There are good reasons for the head of the British monarchy to visit Ireland, none of which revolve around the inferiority complex which marks your posts.

    What specious nonsense. Objecting to such archaic, anti-democratic, blood-based cults like British royalism is precisely the sort of injection of rationality and modernity which is needed. Your plea for those of us who reject it to in effect "shut up" is a recipe for tolerating the backward, sectarian and anti-democratic pre-contractarian institution that is the British monarchy. That culture, and those who worship it - "loyalists", mar dhea - are the danger to a modern civilised liberal democratic society.

    There are very many progressive voices in Britain which are opposed to the British monarchy. Perhaps you should tell them they are "hypocritical" for presumably liking other aspects of British culture while opposing the British monarchy.

    Oh get off your high horse will you!

    I'll say it again. I am not stupid, nor am I clumsy in my posting nor do I have an inferiority complex. I don't know where you got that from but you are completely wrong.

    The British monarchy, as it is today, have no more to do with the oppression or bloody wars of the past than todays IRA have to do with that of Michael Collins.

    There is, whether you want to see it or not, a lot of anti-English feeling in this thread at least and the Wedding is being used an outlet for it which I think is madness.

    As I said before that young policeman and others like him are still dying in the North because people, such as yourself, refuse to move on.

    Don't watch the Wedding if you don't want to but don't use the excuse that it is because the Royals are bloody,oppressive war mongers. They are not nor are the British in general.


  • Options
    #313
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    Predator_ wrote: »
    Yeah I agree, Nigeria never invaded us and committed countless crimes over a period of 800 years.

    Oh sweet jesus. That again!

    Facepalm!!


  • Options
    #314
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    There is, whether you want to see it or not, a lot of anti-English feeling in this thread at least and the Wedding is being used an outlet for it which I think is madness.

    Once again you are equating opposition to British royalism with opposition to Britishness generally. Please desist from the crass stupidity of equating both. It's a pathetic attempt to deride anybody who doesn't share your sympathy with the archaic cult that is British royalism.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    As I said before that young policeman and others like him are still dying in the North because people, such as yourself, refuse to move on.

    There you go again: "if you don't agree with my pro-British royalist sentiments you 'refuse to move on' and are culpable in the deaths of people". This is not very rational, to put it mildly.

    Meanwhile, should you stop trying to be more royalist than a British 'Hello!' reader, in Britain there is plenty of opposition to this royalist saturation of civic life. By your thinking, these British people must be "anti-British". :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #315
    CommuterIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭CommuterIE


    The Brits still occupy 1/5 of this nation... RTE are a disgrace in my opinion, selling out the Irish nation in persuit of profits from advertising... :mad:


  • Options
    #316
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Once again you are equating opposition to British royalism with opposition to Britishness generally. Please desist from the crass stupidity of equating both. It's a pathetic attempt to deride anybody who doesn't share your sympathy with the archaic cult that is British royalism.



    There you go again: "if you don't agree with my pro-British royalist sentiments you 'refuse to move on' and are culpable in the deaths of people". This is not very rational, to put it mildly.

    Meanwhile, should you stop trying to be more royalist than a British 'Hello!' reader, in Britain there is plenty of opposition to this royalist saturation of civic life. By your thinking, these British people must be "anti-British". :rolleyes:
    That is not opposition. Just people who don't really care. Same im sure with many people here. I too ain't going to sit infront of the TV all day and watch it either.


  • Options
    #317
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Once again you are equating opposition to British royalism with opposition to Britishness generally. Please desist from the crass stupidity of equating both.

    I know where you are coming from, but I think it is naive in the extreme to think they are not tightly linked, and that a large number of people on this thread are not just using opposition to the royal wedding to vent their hatred of Britishness (or maybe you are new to boards.ie!!!!)


  • Options
    #318
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    CommuterIE wrote: »
    The Brits still occupy 1/5 of this nation... RTE are a disgrace in my opinion, selling out the Irish nation in persuit of profits from advertising... :mad:

    De Brits occupy none of your nation. 1/5 of the island of Ireland, possibly. 1/5 of the state? Simply untrue.

    The United Kingdom and Ireland are both sovereign states in their own right, recognised by the United Nations.


  • Options
    #319
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    I might watch the start of it with Sam, Jimmy Sloan and McCann ;)


  • Options
    #320
    CommuterIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭CommuterIE


    LondonIrish90 wrote: »
    De Brits occupy none of your nation. 1/5 of the island of Ireland, possibly. 1/5 of the state? Simply untrue.

    The United Kingdom and Ireland are both sovereign states in their own right, recognised by the United Nations.

    Ahhh but they do! The brits have no cop on, lethal violence will continue until the statelet up there become part of the Republic... I don't agree with violence one bit... so by democratic choice it will become a united Ireland eventually


  • Options
    #321
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Once again you are equating opposition to British royalism with opposition to Britishness generally. Please desist from the crass stupidity of equating both. It's a pathetic attempt to deride anybody who doesn't share your sympathy with the archaic cult that is British royalism.



    Yes, British royalism. Not royalism, British royalism.

    Make a thread attacking royalism if thats what you want to discuss. Why do you care so much about the constitutional monarchy of the UK? Its not your country, you don't have to have anything to do with it. As it goes, the British people in general don't have much against the way the country is run. If they did, the monarchy simply wouldn't exist. Its strange that there are dozens of Irish people attacking the crown (and not the nation, if you are to be believed) when those who live under it don't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Once again you are equating opposition to British royalism with opposition to Britishness generally. Please desist from the crass stupidity of equating both. It's a pathetic attempt to deride anybody who doesn't share your sympathy with the archaic cult that is British royalism.



    There you go again: "if you don't agree with my pro-British royalist sentiments you 'refuse to move on' and are culpable in the deaths of people". This is not very rational, to put it mildly.

    Meanwhile, should you stop trying to be more royalist than a British 'Hello!' reader, in Britain there is plenty of opposition to this royalist saturation of civic life. By your thinking, these British people must be "anti-British". :rolleyes:

    Ah now I see. Your problem with me is not my opinion on the Wedding itself, it is the fact that I am Irish but have no problem with the British Monarchy or Britain in general.

    Look if you want keep clinging to the past go ahead. Personally I am quite happy to accept that the past is the past and most people North and South as well as across the water have moved on. Call me a Royalist, irrational etc if you want. It's yourself you're fooling.


  • Options
    #323
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    CommuterIE wrote: »
    Ahhh but they do! The brits have no cop on, lethal violence will continue until the statelet up there become part of the Republic... I don't agree with violence one bit... so by democratic choice it will become a united Ireland eventually

    So, your government have it wrong, my government have it wrong, the EU have it wrong, Nato have it wrong, and the UN have it wrong. Yet, you have it correct?

    If you say so.


  • Options
    #324
    rednik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭rednik


    Three women will be watching in this house. I on the other hand will be cutting the grass.


  • Options
    #325
    easyeason3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,104 ✭✭✭easyeason3


    I'll be watching it but probably not on RTE, I assume the BBC or Sky will provide better coverage of the day.

    I really don't see the problem with RTE showing it. It will be an international news story & an event that many people will want to see whether they want to ridicule it, enjoy it or just be able to say they watched a few minutes of it.


  • Options
    #326
    dartbhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭dartbhoy


    Definitely won't be watching this! Also in my opinion a waste of money by RTE showing this! If Irish people want to watch this they can tune into BBC which is in the majority of Irish homes.


  • Options
    #327
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dartbhoy wrote: »
    Definitely won't be watching this! Also in my opinion a waste of money by RTE showing this! If Irish people want to watch this they can tune into BBC which is in the majority of Irish homes.
    Is RTE an Irish only broadcaster now? :confused:


  • Options
    #328
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    easyeason3 wrote: »
    I'll be watching it but probably not on RTE, I assume the BBC or Sky will provide better coverage of the day.

    I really don't see the problem with RTE showing it. It will be an international news story & an event that many people will want to see whether they want to ridicule it, enjoy it or just be able to say they watched a few minutes of it.

    I have to say, it seems that the place with the least interest in this wedding is Britain! I won't be making a concious effort to watch it, may flick over to have a look at the crowds/soldiers and so on, but cant say I'm too bothered otherwise.

    Was having a look at the CNN website earlier, and they have their own Royal Wedding section! As do a couple of german news sites, so I'm told :eek:


  • Options
    #329
    easyeason3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,104 ✭✭✭easyeason3


    LondonIrish90 wrote: »
    I have to say, it seems that the place with the least interest in this wedding is Britain! I won't be making a concious effort to watch it, may flick over to have a look at the crowds/soldiers and so on, but cant say I'm too bothered otherwise.

    Was having a look at the CNN website earlier, and they have their own Royal Wedding section! As do a couple of german news sites, so I'm told :eek:


    When I say I'll be watching it I mean I'll flick onto it whenever I'm in front of the tv or if nothing else is on. I won't be setting myself up with water, snacks & a pot to piss in for fear I'll get the call of nature & can't tear myself away for all of 60 seconds.

    Love or hate the royal family it is a major story.


  • Options
    #330
    dartbhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭dartbhoy


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Is RTE an Irish only broadcaster now? :confused:
    The majority of Irish people that will watch this will do so on BBC or SKY as so have many stated on this thread. We're forever hearing about the difficult financial position RTE are in due to the recession so it's ridiculous to be wasting money covering this live.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dartbhoy wrote: »
    The majority of Irish people that will watch this will do so on BBC or SKY as so have many stated on this thread. We're forever hearing about the difficult financial position RTE are in due to the recession so it's ridiculous to be wasting money covering this live.
    There could be a demand for it you know on RTE? RTE are a big channel. You can bet anything if they didn't show it, people would question RTE and say why didn't you have that? When everyone else has it.


Advertisement