[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:
I suppose I didn’t really have a problem with it until I found out that most of the expense comes out of the taxpayers’ wallet… that idea just seems ridiculous to me. What did the total expense billed to the people come out to? Wasn’t the grand total something like 30 million pounds?
Honestly, I feel pretty bad for those of you over the pond for this tradition.
Edit: and in relation to presidential campaigns, this isn’t “on par.” Campaigns are not funded by taxpayer dollars.[/quote]
Actually, they can be. But the funding is limited (if you count 50 million dollars limited).
[quote]Soulja874 wrote:
We have bigger concerns than the glamorized wedding of an allied country. Congrats to the couple but I don’t see why the American public should care unless you have some kind of royalty fetish.
I will say that I do love English women (it’s the accent) a la Scary Spice, Marsha Ambrosius, and Keira Knightley.[/quote]
Scary spices accent? Seriously? Northern accents are filth.[/quote]
She’d get on my nerves eventually but I’d put up with it for a weekend of fun.
[quote]redstar144 wrote:
Couldn’t give a fuck about the wedding. Her sister is hot though has a website dedicated to her ass. http://pippasass.com/[/quote]
This.
The casual observer wouldn’t be able to tell much in that dress, but the true ass afficiando KNOWS there’s a pair of the peachiest cheeks under there.
^^ I’m not kidding but I can tell if a woman has a nice rump even when she’s heading towards me. And I don’t mean her ass is so big it’s spilling to the left and right either.
People complaining about a wedding using taxpayer money are a bit short-sighted - I am willing to bet the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the wedding will greatly pale in comparison to the amount of revenue that event brought in for the country. Not only did thousands of foreigners come to England for the event, but you can be certain that out of the 33% of the world’s population that supposedly watched the wedding, at least a few people will want to take a trip to London or England in general now.
A fairly viable comparison is that Australia fronted some $3-$4 million dollars to sponsor Oprah’s fan trip to Australia, simply because they thought that showcasing their country’s attractions for 4 hours on the Oprah show would more than pay for itself in increased tourism to the country. Some 5-7 million people in the US watch Oprah each day… maybe a few more million around the world.
Compare that to the 100s of hours of press across dozens of sources that the royal wedding generated across what seemed like weeks or even months, and the 2+ billion people that supposedly tuned in, and I think the British gov’t really seems like they are getting a “steal” at 30 million given just how much attention they can draw to their country and tourist attractions. A quick visit to oprah.com even shows that the royal wedding is the top story - Australia spent millions for what the UK is getting in free coverage.
Tourism isn’t the only way Britain stands to benefit - can’t discount all the positive national press that the event generated for the country. I don’t think you can put a price tag on that sort of thing but I’d like to think the US would spend much more than $30 million to get that kind of positive press going about the country.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
People complaining about a wedding using taxpayer money are a bit short-sighted - I am willing to bet the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the wedding will greatly pale in comparison to the amount of revenue that event brought in for the country. Not only did thousands of foreigners come to England for the event, but you can be certain that out of the 33% of the world’s population that supposedly watched the wedding, at least a few people will want to take a trip to London or England in general now.
A fairly viable comparison is that Australia fronted some $3-$4 million dollars to sponsor Oprah’s fan trip to Australia, simply because they thought that showcasing their country’s attractions for 4 hours on the Oprah show would more than pay for itself in increased tourism to the country. Some 5-7 million people in the US watch Oprah each day… maybe a few more million around the world.
Compare that to the 100s of hours of press across dozens of sources that the royal wedding generated across what seemed like weeks or even months, and the 2+ billion people that supposedly tuned in, and I think the British gov’t really seems like they are getting a “steal” at 30 million given just how much attention they can draw to their country and tourist attractions. A quick visit to oprah.com even shows that the royal wedding is the top story - Australia spent millions for what the UK is getting in free coverage.
Tourism isn’t the only way Britain stands to benefit - can’t discount all the positive national press that the event generated for the country. I don’t think you can put a price tag on that sort of thing but I’d like to think the US would spend much more than $30 million to get that kind of positive press going about the country.[/quote]
[quote]challer1 wrote:
People complaining about a wedding using taxpayer money are a bit short-sighted - I am willing to bet the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the wedding will greatly pale in comparison to the amount of revenue that event brought in for the country. Not only did thousands of foreigners come to England for the event, but you can be certain that out of the 33% of the world’s population that supposedly watched the wedding, at least a few people will want to take a trip to London or England in general now.
A fairly viable comparison is that Australia fronted some $3-$4 million dollars to sponsor Oprah’s fan trip to Australia, simply because they thought that showcasing their country’s attractions for 4 hours on the Oprah show would more than pay for itself in increased tourism to the country. Some 5-7 million people in the US watch Oprah each day… maybe a few more million around the world.
Compare that to the 100s of hours of press across dozens of sources that the royal wedding generated across what seemed like weeks or even months, and the 2+ billion people that supposedly tuned in, and I think the British gov’t really seems like they are getting a “steal” at 30 million given just how much attention they can draw to their country and tourist attractions. A quick visit to oprah.com even shows that the royal wedding is the top story - Australia spent millions for what the UK is getting in free coverage.
Tourism isn’t the only way Britain stands to benefit - can’t discount all the positive national press that the event generated for the country. I don’t think you can put a price tag on that sort of thing but I’d like to think the US would spend much more than $30 million to get that kind of positive press going about the country.[/quote]
Some interesting facts to go along with this: the wedding cost each British tax payer $0.75 of their yearly taxes, and generated around $85 million dollars simply through tourism and related items for that SINGLE day (so this does not include any money generated before or after the day of the wedding).
Just thought that was pretty interesting, NPR was my source.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
People complaining about a wedding using taxpayer money are a bit short-sighted - I am willing to bet the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the wedding will greatly pale in comparison to the amount of revenue that event brought in for the country. Not only did thousands of foreigners come to England for the event, but you can be certain that out of the 33% of the world’s population that supposedly watched the wedding, at least a few people will want to take a trip to London or England in general now.
A fairly viable comparison is that Australia fronted some $3-$4 million dollars to sponsor Oprah’s fan trip to Australia, simply because they thought that showcasing their country’s attractions for 4 hours on the Oprah show would more than pay for itself in increased tourism to the country. Some 5-7 million people in the US watch Oprah each day… maybe a few more million around the world.
Compare that to the 100s of hours of press across dozens of sources that the royal wedding generated across what seemed like weeks or even months, and the 2+ billion people that supposedly tuned in, and I think the British gov’t really seems like they are getting a “steal” at 30 million given just how much attention they can draw to their country and tourist attractions. A quick visit to oprah.com even shows that the royal wedding is the top story - Australia spent millions for what the UK is getting in free coverage.
Tourism isn’t the only way Britain stands to benefit - can’t discount all the positive national press that the event generated for the country. I don’t think you can put a price tag on that sort of thing but I’d like to think the US would spend much more than $30 million to get that kind of positive press going about the country.[/quote]
thats all probably true. the point is though that we dont get any choice in the matter. We will pay them money each year, they will bring in the tourist dollar, but we cant stop the cycle even if we wanted to.
Also, to anyone labouring under the delusion that the queen/monarch would ever say no to a request of a certain party to form government, it would never happen.
And if the monarch ever dared to say no, they’d get laughed the fuck out of here and the whole operation shut down. It is merely a formality. We like to hark back to the old days when our monarchs traipsed around the world rape-fucking whole countries, without admitting that we actually did that shit.
So we take the best bits (the stupid pageantry, blinged-out-of-this-world suits and pointless yet awesome historic cathedrals) and try to turn our dreary lives into a party for just one day.
NOTE: Not a fan of the concept of monarchy. Also used to live with a guy at university who had attended school with Harry, and he told me that the guy could be an utter prick. He is ginger after all.
I saw a bit here or there. The bride looked very pretty.
Apparently they ride a Norton to go the pub, which is cool.
The highlights I saw had a deaf lip reader reading the comments, the groom looked over to the father-of-the-bride (who apparently is just a normal business guy) after they go past all the hoopla and quipped (“Just a small family affair.”),
I respect both boys for defending their nation, when they could sit on their ass and be useless.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
In America, The Royal Wedding is actually called the Quarter-Pounder Wedding. It has something to do with the metric system.[/quote]
LOL!
I wish you’d said this on Friday so I could’ve stolen it and used it as my status update.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
In America, The Royal Wedding is actually called the Quarter-Pounder Wedding. It has something to do with the metric system.[/quote]
LOL!
I wish you’d said this on Friday so I could’ve stolen it and used it as my status update.[/quote]
