Future Princess Kate & Prince William Finally Get It Together

My title was meant to be ironic, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't just a little bit miffed that this rich girl now stands poised to swoop in and snatch it away from me. Might be enough to finally get me to ask for a name change from Eileen, we'll see

May I suggest "The Artist Formerly Known As Princess Kate?"

dying

Haha, I was thinking I'd just abandon the pretense of royalty

Anyway, to keep this on topic: I wonder how the Brits feel knowing that they have to cough up untold millions of pounds to finance a royal wedding (and presumably, an eventual coronation) for some person just because some other person decided to marry her. In America, the costs associated with a Presidental inauguration at least come after a vote

The Monarchy raises more in Tourism income than they are paid.

The papers and news shows have been completely insufferable today, it's hilarious seeing politicians falling over themselves to offer the most sickeningly effusive praise possible in the hopes of getting an invite. Did anyone see Cameron saying he camped out on the Mall overnight for a good spec to see Charles and Di get married, what a tit.

I dont mind as long as we get a bank holiday to allow us ample oppurtunity to tug our forelocks and bow and scrape.

Kate, I believe Prince Harry, the ginger one, is still on the market...

Fixed that for you

Anyway, thanks but no thanks. The only royal bloodline I'd consider marrying into died out three hundred years before Christ

Please don't bring facts into the conversation, Mr Marshall*, The Princess does not appreciate those

*See what I did there?

Thank christ I'm not in the country anymore, I'd bet that my MA teacher is gnashing her teeth over the outpouring of coverage.

That is hardly a "fact". How can you prove that those tourists would not have gone to England if there was no monarchy? Are you talking about money made from tours of Buckingham palace, etc? Because if so, do you really think there would be no interest in those sites if QE2 got the boot? Does Versailles no longer generate tourist revenue since the French Revolution?

Anyway, as I've said all along on this issue: it's not the money, it's the lack of a voice in how your money is spent

Predition: this excellent point will be ignored because of who said it.

Good old Princess Kate, trying to show us oppressed masses the way of true, democratic, AMERICAN, enlightenment.

Might I suggest "KatetheGreat" like Alexander?

Seeing as that I might join your United Kingdom in Fall 2012, I say bring on the nuptials and huzzah to the couple! It's really fascinating how my mom and my grandmother are excited about this....There are a few generations of women who still....revere? Princess Diana so using her engagement ring has brought about a few raised eyebrows, but the majority of them think it's a sweet, touching gesture (and I think brilliant PR).

If Alexander banged half of Europe and Asia a la Genghis Khan, then you'd have several million men to choose from that are distantly linked to his bloodline.

According to Wikipedia, 8% of men within a large region of Asia (or 1 in 200 men worldwide) are descendants of Khan.

Alexander the Kate.

This is so stupid. How much more money do you think Graceland would take in if Elvis were still alive and living there? And that's not taking into account the MASSIVE boost in tourism/sales wherever the Queen or a member of the immediate Royal family makes an appearance, or the Royal merchandising, or the people who crowd into London each day to see the changing of the guard, and on and on and on.

It's wonderful to be lectured about the monarchy by Americans. If I were a pettier man I'd point out how our system seems to have produced a fairer country than yours, about how even our right-wingers seem like tree-hugging liberals next to your current crop of conservatives, about how our Queen at least cares deeply for our country's wellbeing compared to the retards and grafters constantly elected into power in the States.

But I'm way above that, so I won't.

None of this changes the fact that the coverage is goddamn insufferable, by the way.

Bless you Andrew.

If you don't like hearing it from an American (or, more likely, Princess Kate) then hear it from me. I'm British. I pay tax. I hate that we have a monarchy.

For me, it's barely even about the money because I think that some of our tourist income (though, as Kate says, not half as much as people like to think) does come from interest in the royal family. I object to it because I believe all people are equal and should be treated as such, and a system that elevates a few above all others purely because of an accident of birth is wrong. Obviously the children of rich families will always have more opportunities than those of poor families, there's little that can be done about that, but they do not have the same 100% guaranteed power, money and fame that a person born into the royal family has. That's wrong in my eyes.

Cleo / Princess Kate, have you paid any attention to the news the last 20 years? The Royal family is one of the most dysfunctional, fucked up families out there. Being born into that family is no guarantee of happiness. The majority of them either get divorced, have affairs or drink to excess. Or all of the above.

And by the way Kate, the British taxpayer won't pay for the entire thing. The Queen will fork out for a lot of it. As Spike said, it will generate tourism income, according to some research up to £620 million:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-the-bill.html

And I can understand the interest it, especially considering what William and Harry went through.

In terms of social evils and unfair advantages, going after the monarchy is the laziest, most obvious thing to do. In a world where being born on one side of a border instead of the other instantly raises your life expectancy and net worth to the most powerful people on Earth, kvetching about a single family being sponsored by the state to a)continue as figureheads for the country and b)generate huge amounts of revenue off of their existence is just silly.

I'm no Royalist. But millions of pounds are spent both here and all over the world every year to conserve cultural landmarks and historical artefacts. The Royal family are a part of that, and the Queen herself is a dignified and excellent abassador for this country. And ultimately they're harmless and powerless - they sell souvenirs, they sell newspapers, they bring in crowds, they sponsor and spearhead all sorts or charitable organisations and they don't affect the growth and evolution of this country one bit.

Incidentally, I'm beginning to understand how DaveB feels when faced with the blanket dismissal of ALL religion. I'm as lefty as they come, but to ignore the role that the monarchy has played in building this country, and the more symbolic role that they currently play, smacks of posturing rather than any serious devotion to the betterment of people's lives.

If you don't mind my asking, how do escorts go about paying their taxes Cleo? It seems like the definition of cash-in-hand work.

The upkeep of Versaille alone costs the French Tax Payers about 20 Million Euros a year, and there was a further 130 Million Euros spent on a seven year refurbishment project a few years back.

I'm with Merriweather on being a bleeding heart, leftie, liberal but still supporting the Monarchy as an institution.

As an Englishman, I cringe with embarrassment* over our media's slavish coverage of this announcement. The BBC news channel is currently showing live coverage of The Queen's visit to Sheffield, simply because it's her first official act after Monday's news.

*(thou after watching our footballers get mullered at home last night, it rather pails in comparison)

I get a voice in how the money is spent by (a) voting in Parliamentary elections and (b) having the choice to join the pressure groups and causing critical mass for a republic.

You tit.

There's zero guaranteed power, money and fame in being a member of the Royal family greater than being a scion of any inherited recently made or self made wealth - arguably less in my view. The only difference is public perception. And since public perception is unlikely to translate into a royalist coup, I think we're all pretty insulated from such inequality - perceived or real. However because of that (I'd still argue) majority public perception that it's quite nice having a Queen, Princes and Princesses knocking around the place, then it's reasonable to spend public money on it. And the amount spent is a total drop in the ocean.

The test of all of this is whether people in general are going to give a shit next year.

The civil list - taxpayers' money given to the royal family - is only £7.9 million. The same since 2000. So I don't see how Brits like Cleo can really complain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10391693

And as I said people will give a shit, especially after the trauma William & Harry went through.

To me the only weird thing is giving Middleton Diana's engagement ring. It's a nice thought, but it's a symbol of a failed marriage. They were both having affairs the majority of the time they were married.

I think it's quite touching, in it's own way. Plus you hope the Palace has learned to let the Prince chose the woman he loved for a wife, rather than one hand picked for him, as in the case with Diana.

From watching the interview both of them seem pretty down to earth to me.

And that is the one thing our Monarchy has going for it. It's future is some (resonably) sane people. Even Harry, who got a lot of flack for something most studients do on a regular basis is actually a pretty decent sort, fighting for his country and all.

I'm with my fellow Brits here, being a liberal but still in support of a Monarchy. Because given the choice between The Queen or Sarah Palin i'll take The Queen.

Cash in hand work is not tax free - though obviously it's easier for people to dodge their taxes if they're so inclined (though escorts are generally very careful about tax as we're under more scrutiny than most). I keep a record of payments and expenses and fill out a tax return like anyone else self employed.

So they've announced the date, 29th April, and we are getting a Bank Holiday out of it, hooray! That means we'll have two four day weekends in a row, if you book 26th - 28th off work you'll have 11 days off work using only 3 holidays, get in!

I imagine there will be no fucker left in the country to watch the wedding if this is the case.

My wife booked a hotel in Mayfair today for the dates, looks like im going to see the wedding then...

TAFKAPK!

Can we already pre-cog this as 2011's Most Over-reported Story?

April 29th. They will share an anniversary with Hitler and Braun as well as Burt and Loni.

The Bugle podcast (listen to it by the way, it's fucking great) had it right. Where is the patriotism? Where is the love of England? He's a damn prince for fuck's sake. Why is he marrying that nobody? He should do his patriotic duty and marry someone like Hu Jintao's daughter. Or Angela Merkel. Royal weddings are for forging alliances, not this nonsense.

That's Prince Harry's outfit sorted then?

I find it impossible to positively reconcile "fairer" with anything to do with the Tory/Conservative Party.

Yeah, New Labour was so fair.

Who, exactly, did New Labour fuck over so bad? Outside of the Iraqi people, of course.

I'm talking in general, a political system whereby a tenth of the corruption shown by U.S. politicians would result in those responsible being slaughtered by the press and drummed out of office. The amount of private interest money swilling around in the U.S. system is unforgivable.

Your moniker is saved!