What is wrong with these people?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • #26
149
0
Really?

Bear in mind the army will be there as well anyway.

Would his bodyguards be allowed to carry weapons?

Aside from that, I can't see them doing much more.
I guess we'll never know?:smile:
 
  • #27
100
1
i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.
 
  • #28
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.
You realise that the invitees include most ambassadors, the entire royal family, the prime minister and several MPs. You think that the security is lax, or that it would be greatly enhanced if your president was invited? Please, don't be so arrogant.

i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.
So, because you don't appreciate the royal family, or enjoy royal weddings, anyone who does must be nuts? That's a very narrow minded view.
 
  • #29
149
0
You realise that the invitees include most ambassadors, the entire royal family, the prime minister and several MPs. You think that the security is lax, or that it would be greatly enhanced if your president was invited? Please, don't be so arrogant.
The focus of this thread is security concerns. The US Secret Service would have added another layer to the existing security - and (perhaps I shouldn't have said "greatly"?) enhanced it.

In an effort not to be "arrogant" - I'll take away the word "greatly". However, I do maintain the US Secret Service would have enhanced security.
 
  • #30
2,685
20
The focus of this thread is security concerns. The US Secret Service would have added another layer to the existing security - and (perhaps I shouldn't have said "greatly"?) enhanced it.

In an effort not to be "arrogant" - I'll take away the word "greatly". However, I do maintain the US Secret Service would have enhanced security.
The home office doesn't allow people who visit the UK to carry firearms, or more specifically, they wouldn't allow anyone but the closest to the president to be armed.

The majority of security won't be armed on the day (this includes UK police), there will be armed squads there and of course royal security. Out of all of them, the royal security officers (there's a name for them, some police squad) will be covering the main event, close to all 'high value' targets.

Outside of those few, there wouldn't be much more in the way of security, unless you consider a bunch of guys in well pressed suits to be a significant improvement.

The UK services will be dealing with security, outside 'forces' will only be allowed to act with their permission and where they say - so aside form extra man power, it's not going to add much to what's already there.

There certainly wouldn't be a swarm of secret service officers covering the site like a US event.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
100
1
So, because you don't appreciate the royal family, or enjoy royal weddings, anyone who does must be nuts? That's a very narrow minded view.
very well. what is the appeal? i'm sure there must be an intelligent reason.
 
  • #32
2,685
20
very well. what is the appeal? i'm sure there must be an intelligent reason.
What exactly do you have against them?

If nothing else (and for me), they make a nice amount of money for the UK. Surely a yank understands the appeal from that viewpoint?

They're part of our history and heritage. Unfortunately, we're not all from America where history only goes back a few hundred years, so these things are well ingrained for us.
 
  • #33
100
1
What exactly do you have against them?

If nothing else (and for me), they make a nice amount of money for the UK. Surely a yank understands the appeal from that viewpoint?

They're part of our history and heritage. Unfortunately, we're not all from America where history only goes back a few hundred years, so these things are well ingrained for us.
so it's entertainment? i would understand it more if they danced or sang or acted.

i don't so much have anything against the brits and their royal adoration, i just don't want my television flooded with that mess here in the US.
 
  • #34
2,685
20
so it's entertainment? i would understand it more if they danced or sang or acted.

i don't so much have anything against the brits and their royal adoration, i just don't want my television flooded with that mess here in the US.
Don't take my last post as support of them. For me, they're only useful when the cash is flowing. Otherwise they're just waste money.

Yep, pretty much entertainment these days.

Your television! We have "a day of live coverage" non-stop on one channel.

To quote an old lady a reporter was trying to interview on the subject:
It's a young couple getting married, so what?
 
  • #35
100
1
if it were confined to one channel, i would have no quarrel.
 
  • #36
2,685
20
if it were confined to one channel, i would have no quarrel.
Oh no, it's everywhere. It's just one channel have decided to really go for it.

I notice it's even live on YouTube.
 
  • #37
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73
i don't so much have anything against the brits and their royal adoration, i just don't want my television flooded with that mess here in the US.
Well, sorry, but your major networks bought the rights for a reason. Presumably lots of Americans and people around the world love the ceremony of the occasion, maybe because it's steeped in history that a lot of countries don't have (e.g. Westminster Abbey, which has been hosting royal weddings for a thousand years).

For the Brits themselves, it's an excuse to celebrate being British. We don't have a July 4th, or an independence day (for obvious reasons), so waving a union flag is something that is rarely done.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
100
1
Well, sorry, but your major networks bought the rights for a reason. Presumably lots of Americans and people around the world love the ceremony of the occasion, maybe because it's steeped in history that a lot of countries don't have (e.g. Westminster Abbey, which has been hosting royal weddings for a thousand years).

For the Brits themselves, it's an excuse to celebrate being British. We don't have a July 4th, or an independence day (for obvious reasons), so waving a union flag is something that is rarely done.
don't you celebrate the magna carta or something?
 
  • #41
Alfi
Sure glad none of the OP threats of doom and gloom came to pass for the bride and groom.


No one should have to be worried about riding in an open carriage.
 
  • #42
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
  • #43
2,685
20
Wow, I'm surprised - you really should celebrate it! I mean, it's kind of a big deal!
Nah, just part of the daily routine for us Brits!

Wouldn't want to let something as benign as gaining some rights get in the way of things.

We have enough bank holidays as it is.
 
  • #44
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
Wow, I'm surprised - you really should celebrate it! I mean, it's kind of a big deal!
I think the UK has a different sense of "history" from the US - probably because we have a lot more of it.

We tend to celebrate things like Magna Carta on a fairly big scale when their 100 year anniversaries comes around (so watch out for 2015). If we had annual "days" for everything significant that has happened since 1066, we would never get any work done.

For example there was quite a big celebration of the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588) in 1988 - re-enacting the chains of signal bonfires that carried the news across the country, etc.

Even what happened between 55BC and 1066 has still left quite a lot of marks on the landscape - for example a lot of the main roads in the UK still follow the routes where the Romans first built them, and many of the little clumps of trees that the Romans planted next to the road at the top of hiills, so they could climb them and use them for look-out posts, are still there 2000 years on...
 
  • #45
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,527
28
i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.
I liked the hat parade, especially this one:

wedding_hats_01.jpg
 
  • #46
100
1
I liked the hat parade, especially this one:

wedding_hats_01.jpg
looks like something out of japanese animation.
 
  • #47
180
1
I liked the hat parade, especially this one:

wedding_hats_01.jpg
It appears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidward_Tentacles" [Broken]is no longer working on the set of SpongeBob SquarePants.

Interestingly, I read that in less than 24 hours, this design alone went viral, in a very negative way, on some Facebook site. That fact was reported on http://royalwedding.yahoo.com/blogs/beatrice-and-eugenie-arrive-at-royal-wedding-7858" [Broken] and many other sites.

Were there no quality control commission in place for the principle guests? I'll bet there will be the next time a British royal marries!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
180
1
As for the wedding itself, I watched a one-hour special last night which covered the highlights, and found it quite wonderful! It's nice to see the British Royal Family in a wedding where the Bride and Groom really love one another. I thought the Aston Martin departure from the Palace was a nice touch. :)
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on What is wrong with these people?

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
163
Views
18K
Replies
358
Views
37K
  • Last Post
13
Replies
308
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
60
Views
7K
Top