Blair and brown not invited to royal wedding, well that shows what side they are on!

[Amorphos]

Blair and brown not invited to royal wedding, well that shows what side they are on!

As if we didn’t already know the royals are tories, they go and pull a stunt like this, surely they should be unbiased.

I wonder how much this Nazi parade costs us, £50 mil perhaps? …not a state occasion???

I just don’t understand why we have a monarchy, or why people love them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ap...ub-blair-brown



.

[removeduser_487563287433]

this Nazi parade

Stopped reading.

[Helm]

surely they should be unbiased.

They're biased toward the Torries they just can't vote for them. You're not going to see the aristrocracy rubbing shoulders with the proletariat. Anyway I'm sure there quite a lot of ex-priministers they're not inviting.

[mp0295]

Surprise surprise, the human Royals have opinions, I would have never guessed. They stay politically neutral in practice, that's what matters. If you want to get worked up like a teenage girl over party invitations, go ahead, but I think you're thinking over it a bit to much.

[Menelik_I]

Surprise surprise, the human Royals have opinions, I would have never guessed. They stay politically neutral in practice, that's what matters. If you want to get worked up like a teenage girl over party invitations, go ahead, but I think you're thinking over it a bit to much.

^This.

@OP:

Take a break.

[Thorn777]

^So not inviting the last two Labour prime ministers inst "practice"?

@OP

I heard on a docu the queen had more affiliation with Labour actually, but her husband on the Torie side. All the sons and sons of sons seem the dandy rightwing types too.

[JP226]

I think the Royals should dissolve parliament and retake control of the entire country once again. Screw everything else.

All hail King Charles III

[Lützower]

All hail King Charles III

You've got no idea, colonial!

For sure Charles will never be king, William will be the successor to the throne after Elizabeth II. Charles will be skipped as heir.

[Ahlerich]

For sure Charles will never be king, William will be the successor to the throne after Elizabeth II. Charles will be skipped as heir.

unless charles will take the throne by force or dogy assasination!

[Amorphos]

Being so obviously bias when they have so many followers surely has an effect on what those followers think [politically]. ..thats not unbias in practice.

Apart from which having royalty is a disgrace in the 21rstC. Ok so kate is ‘normal’ but they wont ever let her be queen nor I expect their children, so what does that say about the royal politics? If they were all ‘normal’ what would it mean to be a royal, ~ really that’s all they are anyway. The whole idea has no basis.

[Sphere]

I am looking forward to ~30 year period when this Guy represents the the people of the UK

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have a feeling he might cause the Britian to turn Republican before his reign is over.

[nemgod]

I am looking forward to ~30 year period when this Guy represents the the people of the UK

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have a feeling he might cause the Britian to turn Republican before his reign is over.

TBH 90% of the flack he gets is because he dared to divorce the darling of the media Diana (Forgetting that Diana was having affairs even before she was pregnant with Harry). But in a way it is quite likely that Charles won't be king. Basically in the family women tend to live 20-30 years longer than the men do. Remember the Queen mother died after she reached 100 years. The Queen herself in her 80s is still (at least looking) very healthy.

[Armenum]

Don't understand why people get so worked up about this. It's just a wedding that has cultural significance to the British, obviously no political implications (any more). It happens usually once in a generation and naturally there will be a lot of hype about it given the long history and traditions of this wedding.

[Sebidiah]

Thatcher and John Major are members of the Order of the Garter, Brown and Blair are not. Also, "John Major has a personal connection to Prince William, as he was appointed guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry following the death of the late Diana". therefore his attendance is more understandable.

Full article from where quote came from.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13221426

About republicism, the royal family has negligible power pull and they only cost us 1 pound per capita so I don't know whats the bit deal

I wonder how much this Nazi parade costs us, £50 mil perhaps

It is and will bring in more money they it will cost to us tax players.

Yes I'm pro monarchy, I don't like the idea of Mister President Blair :L

[Poach]

I find it hard to imagine the average Labour voter switching to Conservative because the Royals didn't invite Blair and Brown to the Royal Wedding, to be honest. The middle class has always been largely conservative, the working class has always been largely Labour: there's a reason the post-Industrial North of England and Scottish Central Belt are Labour's traditional strongholds.

And, indeed: the wedding as a whole is expected to generate more money than it costs.

[Armenum]

I'm sure Oliver Cromwell would attend if he could......

[Amorphos]

About republicism, the royal family has negligible power pull and they only cost us 1 pound per capita so I don't know whats the bit deal

I think they have a great deal of influence. As for costs well if you have all the assets they got [often by dubious methods in the past e.g. lands of tortured and killed heretics went to the crown] e.g. duke of Edingbrough is the largest land owner in Britain, then you don’t need to take from the taxpayer. I am unsure if they pay for the horse guards n all that, which is probably in the armies budget?

Its banal and inane, I don’t know why people think they are special, or more special than anyone else. What does royal mean?

...may have been a case for it in the past, but not now.

[Poach]

I think they have a great deal of influence. As for costs well if you have all the assets they got [often by dubious methods in the past e.g. lands of tortured and killed heretics went to the crown] e.g. duke of Edingbrough is the largest land owner in Britain, then you don’t need to take from the taxpayer. I am unsure if they pay for the horse guards n all that, which is probably in the armies budget?

Its banal and inane, I don’t know why people think they are special, or more special than anyone else. What does royal mean?

...may have been a case for it in the past, but not now.

The Duke of Edinburgh is nowhere near the largest land owner in the UK. Several other aristocrats own more land than he does.

In fact, the only truly Royal possession to make the list is the Crown Estate, whose revenue goes directly to the Government, not Royalty.

So here's the deal: we give the Queen back all the revenue she's meant to receive but gives to the Treasury (the Crown Estate generated some £210 million profit in 2010) and we can expect them to pay for this stuff in future. Agreed?

[Karklos]

I think they have a great deal of influence. As for costs well if you have all the assets they got [often by dubious methods in the past e.g. lands of tortured and killed heretics went to the crown] e.g. duke of Edingbrough is the largest land owner in Britain, then you don’t need to take from the taxpayer. I am unsure if they pay for the horse guards n all that, which is probably in the armies budget?

Its banal and inane, I don’t know why people think they are special, or more special than anyone else. What does royal mean?

...may have been a case for it in the past, but not now.

You are completely mad - the Duke of Edinburgh is not the largest landowner in Britain.

I think yu might be thinking of the duke of Westminster - not a member of the royal family.

[Gromovnik]

Why should they invite some random people to their wedding?