Author Topic: Poll: Do you hate the Royals? (Read 5519 times)

thundley4 · « **on:** April 29, 2011, 01:37:53 PM »

Quote

CJCRANE (1000+ posts)    Fri Apr-29-11 01:50 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do you hate the Royals?

Poll result (56 votes)
I hate the Royals    (12 votes, 21%)   Vote
I hate people who hate the Royals    (3 votes, 5%)   Vote
I hate people who hate people who hate the Royals    (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
I *am* a Royal    (8 votes, 14%)   Vote
I am a Royal ***hole    (6 votes, 11%)   Vote
I am a Royally Righteous Dude/Dudette    (1 votes, 2%)   Vote
I am due beer and travel money    (15 votes, 27%)   Vote
All of the above    (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
None of the above    (7 votes, 13%)   Vote
Other    (4 votes, 7%)   Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x987883

Go figure. Some would consider the royal family to be the ultimate leeches on society, something to be admired from a DUmmie POV. So many threads on the royal wedding at the DUmp today.

Ballygrl · « **Reply #1 on:** April 29, 2011, 01:54:46 PM »

LOL, I have the attitude "didn't we fight a war to get away from this"? yet there I was setting the alarm to watch the wedding and crying my eyes out quietly so as not to wake hubby up. I always cry at weddings, and Kate's a beautiful Bride.

Karin · « **Reply #2 on:** April 29, 2011, 02:04:18 PM »

You're such a hopeless romantic!

She is a beautiful bride, and I really like her taste.

That was pretty funny, with the beer and travel $$.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #3 on:** April 29, 2011, 02:04:44 PM »

I'm indifferent. I wish the couple well, of course.

15 DUmmies seem to be dangerously close to developing a sense of humor.

dandi · « **Reply #4 on:** April 29, 2011, 02:07:21 PM »

Quote

CJCRANE (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-29-11 01:50 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do you hate the Royals?

A quick tidbit for the lurking ****wits: Unlike little lord hussein's immaculation, the British taxpayers on on the hook for security only. The royal family is paying for everything else.

Anything cute to say for that, DUmbasses?

Evil_Conservative · « **Reply #5 on:** April 29, 2011, 02:12:00 PM »

Quote from: wasp69 on April 29, 2011, 02:07:21 PM

A quick tidbit for the lurking ****wits: Unlike little lord hussein's immaculation, the British taxpayers on on the hook for security only. The royal family is paying for everything else.

Anything cute to say for that, DUmbasses?

But didn't the taxpayer's get a day off for the event, even if they wanted/needed to work to get money to support their families?

dandi · « **Reply #6 on:** April 29, 2011, 03:01:36 PM »

Quote from: Evil_Conservative on April 29, 2011, 02:12:00 PM

But didn't the taxpayer's get a day off for the event, even if they wanted/needed to work to get money to support their families?

No clue.

Tucker · « **Reply #7 on:** April 29, 2011, 03:54:45 PM »

Quote from: Ballygrl on April 29, 2011, 01:54:46 PM

LOL, I have the attitude "didn't we fight a war to get away from this"? yet there I was setting the alarm to watch the wedding and crying my eyes out quietly so as not to wake hubby up. I always cry at weddings, and Kate's a beautiful Bride.

The war was fought by a minority of the citizenry, the true Patriots. A large segment(liberals) of the majority remained loyal to the crown. This anti American attitude has been passed down from generation to generation. There are many on DU, and liberal America as a whole, who wished we were still part of European rule.

Chris_ · « **Reply #8 on:** April 29, 2011, 03:58:47 PM »

Quote

Royal wedding fever divides along political boundaries

Applications for street parties to celebrate William and Kate's wedding appear noticeably higher in Tory-controlled areas, according to figures from the Local Government Association

UK Guardian

Interesting.

GOBUCKS · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2011, 04:02:09 PM »

Every time the royal family puts on a wedding, coronation, christening, birth, or funeral, the tourist dollars generated pay for the cost of maintaining the family many times over. The royal family is the most valuable and profitable generator of foreign exchange the UK has, with the possible exception of BP.

The only possible reason for anti-royalist animosity is class envy. But of course, that's the main reason the American democrat party exists.

LC EFA · « **Reply #10 on:** April 29, 2011, 04:14:26 PM »

Royal wedding mheh. Friday night football was on !!!

blitzkrieg_17 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2011, 04:19:26 PM »

I wasn't getting up at 5am to watch anyone's wedding. But I read the FR live thread and I wish the couple a happy life together.

bijou · « **Reply #12 on:** April 29, 2011, 04:48:57 PM »

Quote from: Evil_Conservative on April 29, 2011, 02:12:00 PM

But didn't the taxpayer's get a day off for the event, even if they wanted/needed to work to get money to support their families?

It was a Bank Holiday, obviously some people worked (retail, hotels etc) most people who had a day off will have either had paid vacation or can take a day off some other time. There is another Bank Holiday on Monday so most people have just taken another long weekend (last week was the same with Good Friday and Easter Monday)

compaqxp · « **Reply #13 on:** April 29, 2011, 05:17:54 PM »

Quote

I am a Royal ***hole (6 votes, 11%)

Well at least 6 are honest with themselves.

Evil_Conservative · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:03:06 PM »

Quote from: bijou on April 29, 2011, 04:48:57 PM

It was a Bank Holiday, obviously some people worked (retail, hotels etc) most people who had a day off will have either had paid vacation or can take a day off some other time. There is another Bank Holiday on Monday so most people have just taken another long weekend (last week was the same with Good Friday and Easter Monday)

Thanks! I thought I read some where that the whole city was shutting down. Which of course would have forced people to not be able to work. Got it.

franksolich · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:16:12 PM »

Well, franksolich is rather enamoured of H.M. the Queen--the others not so much; a little bit, but not so much--to where he has five custom-framed portraits of H.M. the Queen in this place (although not any taken after 1977, as I really dislike seeing heroes grow old and grey).

The primitives can shove that up their rectal apertures and smoke it.

thundley4 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:18:46 PM »

Quote from: franksolich on April 29, 2011, 06:16:12 PM

Well, franksolich is rather enamoured of H.M. the Queen--the others not so much; a little bit, but not so much--to where he has five custom-framed portraits of H.M. the Queen in this place (although not any taken after 1977, as I really dislike seeing heroes grow old and grey).

The primitives can shove that up their rectal apertures and smoke it.

Just out of curiosity, are any of them autographed? You seemed to have met a few people and all.

franksolich · « **Reply #17 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:24:30 PM »

Quote from: thundley4 on April 29, 2011, 06:18:46 PM

Just out of curiosity, are any of them autographed? You seemed to have met a few people and all.

H.M. the Queen doesn't do autographs, no way.

The first photograph I ever got was the official Canadian photograph of H.M. the Queen, 1976; the usual and standard photograph that hung in governmental buildings at the time.

Then I got the official Australian photograph of H.M. the Queen, taken a year earlier than that, in 1975, the usual and standard photograph that hung in governmental buildings at the time.

New Zealand was a pain, because at the time (late 1970s, early 1980s), New Zealand didn't have an official photograph, but I finally found the official photograph as used by the Royal New Zealand Navy, courtesy those guys.

And then there's one that hung in the governmental buildings of Mauritius and Jamaica.

They're all different, of course, but dating from 1976 to 1983.

But seriously, no; H.M. the Queen autographs for no one. Her and the Pope.

franksolich · « **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:33:25 PM »

I can't slip them out of the custom-made frames, but here's one, H.M. the Queen and H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh at the New Zealand Parliament, 1977:

New Zealand must have a pretty small Parliament.

Chris_ · « **Reply #19 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:36:56 PM »

I've been seeing advertisements of a DVD for sale that has Queen Elizabeth's coronation on it. I don't care for any of it outside of a historical curiosity, but it would be nice to have a copy of.

franksolich · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:38:14 PM »

H.M. the Queen and H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh meeting with a bunch of Australians, somewhere in Australia, sometime during the earlier 1970s:

thundley4 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:42:41 PM »

Quote from: franksolich on April 29, 2011, 06:24:30 PM

H.M. the Queen doesn't do autographs, no way.

The first photograph I ever got was the official Canadian photograph of H.M. the Queen, 1976; the usual and standard photograph that hung in governmental buildings at the time.

Then I got the official Australian photograph of H.M. the Queen, taken a year earlier than that, in 1975, the usual and standard photograph that hung in governmental buildings at the time.

New Zealand was a pain, because at the time (late 1970s, early 1980s), New Zealand didn't have an official photograph, but I finally found the official photograph as used by the Royal New Zealand Navy, courtesy those guys.

And then there's one that hung in the governmental buildings of Mauritius and Jamaica.

They're all different, of course, but dating from 1976 to 1983.

But seriously, no; H.M. the Queen autographs for no one. Her and the Pope.

I knew about The Pope, but not the Queen.

franksolich · « **Reply #22 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:46:57 PM »

Quote from: chris_ on April 29, 2011, 06:36:56 PM

I've been seeing advertisements of a DVD for sale that has Queen Elizabeth's coronation on it. I don't care for any of it outside of a historical curiosity, but it would be nice to have a copy of.

That was probably the last one that'll be of historical significance, given how the succeeding generations have cheapened the whole deal.

I've never seen a film of the 1953 coronation, but I have of the 1937 coronation (H.M. George VI and H.M. Elizabeth, parents of H.M. the Queen), and it is awesome.

"George VI, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, King; Emperor of India; Defender of the Faith"; I can't hear it, but I bet the Archbishop of Canterbury did a great job pronouncing that title.

H.M. the Queen and H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh; their Silver Wedding Anniversary photograph as taken for Canada, in 1972.

Chris_ · « **Reply #23 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:47:07 PM »

Quote from: franksolich on April 29, 2011, 06:33:25 PM

I can't slip them out of the custom-made frames, but here's one, H.M. the Queen and H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh at the New Zealand Parliament, 1977:

New Zealand must have a pretty small Parliament.

Interesting. That's probably the first time I've seen a picture of the inside of the New Zealand Parliament. It reminds me of the Irish Dail... a small, cramped place full of history.

BlueStateSaint · « **Reply #24 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:51:19 PM »

Quote from: compaqxp on April 29, 2011, 05:17:54 PM

Well at least 6 are honest with themselves.

An H5 for the observation.

(We're turning him! Slowly, but we're turning him!)

News:

Author Topic: Poll: Do you hate the Royals? (Read 5519 times)