[Johnny 1989]

Princess Beatrice appeared to have on her head a sculpture made from an obscure musical instrument melded with a dead cat - that was hilarious. She looked absolutely awful all round, her dress, or suit, or whatever it was, couldn't have been more frumpy if she had it designed and made by Frumpy Frumperson's Frumpy Sack Designers of Frumpington. Her sister Beatrice looked like she was wearing an eighteenth century corset in order to cram herself into the strange blue creation she was wearing too - those two girls need help.

To be fair their Mother is Sarah Ferguson who has had some, interesting fashion faux pars in the past (and I say that as someone who isn't a fashion expert)

[yummytummy]

No words

[Johnny 1989]

Funny thing is that Beatrice's looks photoshopped

[yummytummy]

Funny thing is that Beatrice's looks photoshopped

i was just going to say that

[VMPhil]

Haha, it's so easy to just edit that photo:

[yummytummy]

Haha, it's so easy to just edit that photo:

is that the orginal haha

[bmstinton93]

I actually really enjoyed it, even though i was constantly making jokes about it. And events like this really show how good Twitter is. It was so nice to see all the tweets about it. And hopefully Harry has traded numbers with Pippa...

[Yudster]

She looked VERY pleased with the arrangements when Harry was escorting her out of the Abbey....! He is a good looking lad, I think the Spencer/Hewitt mixture turned out prettier than the Spencer/Windsor mix. Having said that though. William is lovely too, even if he has been unfortunate enough to inherit his father and grandfather's hairline. Facially he looks more like Diana than anyone.

[catherine]

Ah it was sickening how amazingly perfect that wedding was. I'm bitter and jealous! Humph.

[foot-loose]

Harry would totally get it.

[Nicola_Red]

I only saw the pics of Beatrice & Eugenie last night - yep, some bizarre fashion choices there. The thing is they both looked lovely at the rehearsal dinner the night before:





I really dunno what went wrong on the actual wedding day.

[Johnny 1989]

My mate, who is a staunch anti-royalist, watched it but said it was an "embarrassment to the world" at how pompous it all was, he thinks we should have a president like France (no thanks), I pointed out how much the American's love the wedding and he claimed that "only the thick ones like it", I said to him how nice & unique it was for us to have ceremonies every so often like this & that I hate how "Americanised" we've become & he just disagreed & repeated the whole embarrassment argument again.

Truth be told his bollocks has made me even more Royalist than I ever was, I'd hate to this that these one off events would to be got rid off.

[Yudster]

An elected head of state would be hundreds of times more expensive and probably hundreds of times less effective. The Royal Family costs taxpayers less than 26p each per year or something stupid like that - an elected head of state would require a significant public contribution. Also, the British Monarchy is unique in the world - for all their republican noise America, France and the rest of the world are starkly jealous of it, even if they disapprove of it politically. Given that they have virtually no political or direct economic influence on the country, I simply don't understand why anyone would want to change it.

[Johnny 1989]

An elected head of state would be hundreds of times more expensive and probably hundreds of times less effective. The Royal Family costs taxpayers less than 26p each per year or something stupid like that - an elected head of state would require a significant public contribution. Also, the British Monarchy is unique in the world - for all their republican noise America, France and the rest of the world are starkly jealous of it, even if they disapprove of it politically. Given that they have virtually no political or direct economic influence on the country, I simply don't understand why anyone would want to change it.

Well my mate reckons they cost us loads each year in TAX (wrong) and it wouldn't effect the tourism at all as the royal family was done away with in France and they do fine, however I did point out that what might work for one country won't necessarily in our country. In the end he got in a huff & moved onto something else

[Yudster]

The old "they cost the taxpayer loads" was debunked years ago, Like I said, its pennies per person per year.

[Johnny 1989]

The old "they cost the taxpayer loads" was debunked years ago, Like I said, its pennies per person per year.

Oh I know that, sadly some still use that as an excuse to have a go at them, personally I'd rather see them on my TV than half of these so called "celebs" that keep appearing on trashy TV programmes, or in crappy magazines, etc.

[R94N]

The old "they cost the taxpayer loads" was debunked years ago, Like I said, its pennies per person per year.

Oh I know that, sadly some still use that as an excuse to have a go at them, personally I'd rather see them on my TV than half of these so called "celebs" that keep appearing on trashy TV programmes, or in crappy magazines, etc.

Definitely, completely agree with you there. I think the amount of money they make in tourism for our country makes it worth whatever they cost....and now I realise I probably don't know enough about the situation or make another valid point that hasn't been covered already...

[MK Chris]

I think the main thing for me is that, as Yudster says, they have no political clout. That is definitely a good thing and, I think, probably the secret of their success. I like The Queen, she's been a brilliant head of state, but sadly I don't think I'll be saying the same for Charlie when he gets the top job. I do think William will be a brilliant King though.

[Nicola_Red]

That is definitely a good thing and, I think, probably the secret of their success..

I like that, 'the secret of their success'. Makes them sound like they could be really crap, but they've worked hard at being more Royal than any other Royals. It made me smile

[ladbroke]

I think the main thing for me is that, as Yudster says, they have no political clout.

I think they have more political clout than people would think. On a day to day basis they are seen to be apolitical, and not get too involved. However there have been occasions in the past where political negotiations have broken down, and the Royal Family have stepped in to speak to heads of state etc. I think it's more a case of politically greasing the wheels as and when needed. I'm sure she can, and has, given a deathly stare and expressed her displeasure behind closed doors to the Prime Minister, which would send him away with his tail between his legs! In short I'm sure they're heavily involved when needed, if not publically.

[bmstinton93]

will-kate-bj.gif (112.78 KiB) Viewed 11262 times

[Nicola_Red]

Uh, look at the position of his belt and then of her head - is she licking his thighs?

[bmstinton93]

Maybe the royals have strange fetishes...

[DevilsDuck]

Like yuds

[Yudster]

I bet they do, and I bet they're not.