egafd.com

"I'm really not interested in debating with you".

"I don't have a copious amount of time as you do to do this even if was interested in having everything I said analysed to destruction by somebody who never ever says 'I see what you mean' even if they disagree."

Turanhosting, I always did "see what you mean". However, you were wrong in the underlying message of your post about the overall cost impact of the wedding. My point was straighforward. It was you that used the Telegraph figures as the basis of your argument.

The fact that you resort to spewing out insults such as "get yourself a woman David" and "old Stalinist" as opposed to having a sensible debate says more about you than the subject under discussion.

Cheers
D

"Once again you resort to an hysterical response, nothing to do with what I was saying at all"

Hysterical? It was you that stated "You can have a small scale wedding which would still look good. But what we saw on Friday was a full-on feudal extravaganza which made no attempt to connect with ordinary people or the times but at the same time pretended to connect with the public while spending their money.

In your terms if you want to connect to "ordinary people" than the wedding should take place in "ordinary people's" wedding locations which is a registry office or the local parish church. Surely? You can't have the wedding in a castle or a cathedral because that would obviously have "feudal" undertones.

"When princess Victoria of Sweden married last year the wedding cost ?1.6 million which the royals there paid half of. Despite the quite modest cost to the tax payer it provoked quite fierce republican sentiments there."

Princess Victoria of Sweden got married? I missed that one. Did the marriage have a million people on the streets and all the resulting expenditure that entails in terms of transport, food/restaurant, hotels etc etc? Did it have a 1 billion TV audience and the estimated ?2 billion tourist expenditure as spinoffs?

"The essential delusion which the establishment and the media are trying to foist on the public is that we are still living in 1977 and the royals are quite popular."

So the million people on the streets were all delusional are they? And the estimated billion people watching it on TV are all deciding to watch instead of doing a hundered other things because the royals are not popular?

"They have not been popular for a good 20 years now, people have seen through them "

Which is why a 1million turned up to watch, presumably to chant "we have seen through you". In addition, 25 million UK people tuned in to watch the wedding instead of sunbathing/going shopping/doing diy/ go somewhere with the kids etc etc just so they could shout at their tele sets "we have seen through you". Is that how it works?

Cheers
D

Turan.....you are out-argued by David Johnson and I think you know it !
He has said - especially in his first long reply at top of these blogs - all
that needs to be said to refute your republican sentiments, especially
those regarding costs.
In your latest reply to him I too would dispute your reference to the
popularity of the monarchy. We are not living anymore in the Queen`s
annus miraballis year of despondency or that of Lady Di`s death. What
you are witnessing, old sport, is something peculiarly British which is the
re-generation of the monarchy through youth and fresh blood ! George
IV was more unpopular in his day than any monarch in the past 150 years.
William IV was thought a bore. It was Victoria who re-generated the
family, just as I suspect Catherine and William will do if they retain the
respect of the vast majority of Britons.

Duke Of Edinburgh is German

The royals made their political allegiances clear(as if we didnt know what they were anyway) by not inviting the two most recent Labour leaders yet inviting Thatcher and Major. If people are stupid enough to get out there and wave flags for the biggest tories in the land bigger fool them.

Fantastic - first blood, quite unambiguously, drawn by David.

I don't share David's patience, sadly, but respectfully suggest all those concerned with Mr Hosting's posts give consideration to a collection in order to repatriate the chap to a republic just 30 convenient miles (50km) from the Kentish coast. Note, at ?70, this is not an expensive enterprise (I suspect there is no 'significant other' / Mrs Hosting to concern ourselves with here). Indeed, I'm sure Mr & Mrs Hosting senior will welcome the return of their second bedroom.

Being an altruistic sort of chap, I'm more than happy to offer Turan assistance packing.

The myriad advantages of repatriating Turan to a republic such as France include his potential for reassessing his - tortured (and mutually disappointing) - relationship with the world and the fact that, in their retreat from empire, France suffers a multitude of social problems which, doubtless, Mr Hosting Jnr would enjoy incoherently ranting over (as surrogate in the absence of being usefully employed).

Just a thought!