On 26/04/2011 10:01 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>>
>> I shall not watch the ceremonies and I have little respect for
>> hereditary positions but I have to admit that William and Kate are an
>> attractive pair of young people and, even with a sense of foreboding,
>> I wish them a long and happy marriage.
>
> Compare them to the awkward strangers his parents were when they got
> engaged, it's a breath of fresh air. I wish them the best.
> It's certainly not their fault the media's gone mad over their wedding.


It never ceases to amaze me how much interest people have in that clan
if in-breds. What amazes me even more is how much more fascinated
Americans seem to be in the royals than Canadians. I get the media from
both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a lot more
time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 26/04/2011 10:01 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I shall not watch the ceremonies and I have little respect for
>>> hereditary positions but I have to admit that William and Kate are
>>> an attractive pair of young people and, even with a sense of
>>> foreboding, I wish them a long and happy marriage.
>>
>> Compare them to the awkward strangers his parents were when they got
>> engaged, it's a breath of fresh air. I wish them the best.
>> It's certainly not their fault the media's gone mad over their
>> wedding.
>
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how much interest people have in that clan
> if in-breds. What amazes me even more is how much more fascinated
> Americans seem to be in the royals than Canadians. I get the media
> from both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a
> lot more time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.

I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
interest.

nancy

Dave Smith > wrote in
om:

> I get the media from
> both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a
> lot more time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.

Crown envy. They regret having violently given the finger to their
legitimate ruler and make up for it at every opportunity :-)

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:4db6f91d
:

> it's just
> your everyday morning shows the people watch anyway

Broadcast starts at 2AM EST. Hardly an "every day morning show".

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

On 4/26/2011 10:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

> I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
> care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
> interest.
> nancy


The media would not be interested if they did not think readers and
viewers would not be.
--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message

> Dave Smith > wrote in
> om:
>
>> I get the media from
>> both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a
>> lot more time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.
>
> Crown envy. They regret having violently given the finger to their
> legitimate ruler and make up for it at every opportunity :-)

You have a point there. There are still a few Tories around who aren't too
sure that our Revolution was all that great an idea!

Felice

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in news:4db6f91d
> :
>
>> it's just
>> your everyday morning shows the people watch anyway
>
> Broadcast starts at 2AM EST. Hardly an "every day morning show".

Are you talking about the wedding itself? We're talking about the
coverage that's been going on for weeks now.

nancy

James Silverton wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 10:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
>> care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
>> interest.

> The media would not be interested if they did not think readers and
> viewers would not be.

Right. I think they believe we're hanging on every word for 2 hours
a day. Of course they made reservations to send contingents over
the instant the date was announced.

I'm interested, it's fun to see them getting married, I'll watch the
wedding (not likely in real time!). I just haven't been interested in all
the minutia they've filled their broadcasts with.

nancy

On Apr 26, 1:03*pm, "Felice" > wrote:
> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Dave Smith > wrote in
> . com:
>
> >> I get the media from
> >> both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a
> >> lot more time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.
>
> > Crown envy. *They regret having violently given the finger to their
> > legitimate ruler and make up for it at every opportunity :-)
>
> You have a point there. There are still a few Tories around who aren't too
> sure that our Revolution was all that great an idea!
>
> Felice

That's funny. ;-) Well, maybe not to a Tory, but still....

N.

On Apr 26, 1:13*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
> > On 4/26/2011 10:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
> >> care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
> >> interest.
> > The media would not be interested if they did not think readers and
> > viewers would not be.
>
> Right. *I think they believe we're hanging on every word for 2 hours
> a day. *Of course they made reservations to send contingents over
> the instant the date was announced.
>
> I'm interested, it's fun to see them getting married, I'll watch the
> wedding (not likely in real time!). *I just haven't been interested in all
> the minutia they've filled their broadcasts with.
>
> nancy

I think most of it is pretty interesting - all the retail shops who
have the "king's warrant," - such as the brolly (umbrella) shop which
sells proper silk ones at $1200 a pop (auto open and close on that
one!). Or the royal cobbler - no secret-telling there, he wouldn't
talk! It's kinda frivolous fun. ;-)

N.

On 26/04/2011 1:49 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave > wrote in
> om:
>
>> I get the media from
>> both sides of the border and it the American sources devote a
>> lot more time to the upcoming wedding than ours do.
>
> Crown envy. They regret having violently given the finger to their
> legitimate ruler and make up for it at every opportunity :-)
>

They could still have a king, but they blew it ;-) Like the rest of the
former colonies, they could be a member of the Commonwealth and have
gained their independence peacefully like we did.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in
. com:

> Are you talking about the wedding itself? We're talking about
> the coverage that's been going on for weeks now.

Yes, the wedding. I don't watch morning television, and if I were
to, I certainly wouldn't watch US morning television when the local
stuff (excluding the Conservative Televisual Vortex channel) is
more informative, so I assumed you meant the fact that British
royal weddings start broadcasting at 2AM.

Not apologizing :-)

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

Dave Smith > wrote in
news
>> Crown envy. They regret having violently given the finger to
>> their legitimate ruler and make up for it at every
>> opportunity :-)
>
> They could still have a king, but they blew it ;-) Like the
> rest of the former colonies, they could be a member of the
> Commonwealth and have gained their independence peacefully
> like we did.

Or India.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

On 2011-04-26, Dave Smith > wrote:

> They could still have a king, but they blew it ;-) Like the rest of the
> former colonies, they could be a member of the Commonwealth and have
> gained their independence peacefully like we did.

.....and kisses the ass of some old shriveled up hag queen while a 1/4
of the country blows ya' all off by unoffically succeeding to France?
Yeah, you guys are on top of it! LOL....

nb

notbob > wrote in
:

>> They could still have a king, but they blew it ;-) Like the
>> rest of the former colonies, they could be a member of the
>> Commonwealth and have gained their independence peacefully
>> like we did.
>
> ....and kisses the ass of some old shriveled up hag queen
> while a 1/4 of the country blows ya' all off by unoffically
> succeeding to France? Yeah, you guys are on top of it!

I don't recall kissing the Queen Mother when she came to Ottawa and
we were lined up as Cubs and Scouts to line the driveway to
Government House. Nor are kisses required. Curtsies for the
ladies, yes, and salutes for the men in uniform, yes. Otherwise,
formality is considerably reduced these days. I certainly have no
objection to a monarch as head of state, as long as said monarch
enforces and does not transgress on 250 years of Canada's
Constitution.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
> . com:
>
>> Are you talking about the wedding itself? We're talking about
>> the coverage that's been going on for weeks now.
>
> Yes, the wedding. I don't watch morning television, and if I were
> to, I certainly wouldn't watch US morning television when the local
> stuff (excluding the Conservative Televisual Vortex channel) is
> more informative, so I assumed you meant the fact that British
> royal weddings start broadcasting at 2AM.
>
> Not apologizing :-)

(laugh) I wouldn't expect you to. Still, you were talking about
the wrong thing.

Harrr. nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:4db75333
:

> (laugh) I wouldn't expect you to. Still, you were talking about
> the wrong thing.

You say potayto and I say pomme parmentier.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

On 4/26/2011 2:13 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> I'm interested, it's fun to see them getting married, I'll watch the
> wedding (not likely in real time!). I just haven't been interested in all
> the minutia they've filled their broadcasts with.

Same here. I haven't paid attention to the hoopla but I will watch the
wedding, the same as I watched his parents get married. I was only a
couple of years younger than Diana and I thought it was all very exciting.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> They could still have a king, but they blew it ;-) Like the rest of the
> former colonies, they could be a member of the Commonwealth and have
> gained their independence peacefully like we did.

If we had done that, we wouldn't be
on top of the heap right now!

"Nancy Young" > wrote

>
> I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
> care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
> interest.
> nancy

And many millions that do want to watch.
I heard they expect to have a Billion viewers word wide. Seems like a lot
of people are interested. One of my workers is taking off Friday so she can
get up to watch at 4 AM. At least three networks will be broadcasting, NBC,
CNN, TLC.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:43:44 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
> >
> > I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
> > care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
> > interest.
> > nancy
>
> And many millions that do want to watch.
> I heard they expect to have a Billion viewers word wide. Seems like a lot
> of people are interested. One of my workers is taking off Friday so she can
> get up to watch at 4 AM. At least three networks will be broadcasting, NBC,
> CNN, TLC.

I guess you'll have to watch something else on your computer.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>
>> I'm sure there are millions and millions of Americans who could not
>> care less about it. You're confusing the media interest with viewer
>> interest.

> And many millions that do want to watch.
> I heard they expect to have a Billion viewers word wide. Seems like
> a lot of people are interested. One of my workers is taking off
> Friday so she can get up to watch at 4 AM. At least three networks
> will be broadcasting, NBC, CNN, TLC.

Definitely. I'm not talking about the wedding itself. I know people
are much more interested in the actual wedding. Even me!

nancy

Mark Thorson > wrote in news:4DB7703E.6BB212C6
@sonic.net:

> If we had done that, we wouldn't be
> on top of the heap right now!

And on the downslope...one of the nasty side effects of "being on
top" is that you have to relinquish the spot eventually.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

Mark Thorson > wrote in
:

>> And on the downslope...one of the nasty side effects of
>> "being on top" is that you have to relinquish the spot
>> eventually.
>
> Rome held it comfortably long. And we're just
> getting started.

Rome had no effective competition, like China on its ass. I give
the US another ten years, tops. And I'm being generous.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson > wrote in news:4DB7703E.6BB212C6
> @sonic.net:
>
> > If we had done that, we wouldn't be
> > on top of the heap right now!
>
> And on the downslope...one of the nasty side effects of "being on
> top" is that you have to relinquish the spot eventually.

Rome held it comfortably long. And we're just
getting started.

On Apr 26, 5:21*pm, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote s.com:
>
> > Are you talking about the wedding itself? *We're talking about
> > the coverage that's been going on for weeks now.
>
> Yes, the wedding. *I don't watch morning television, and if I were
> to, I certainly wouldn't watch US morning television when the local
> stuff (excluding the Conservative Televisual Vortex channel) is
> more informative, so I assumed you meant the fact that British
> royal weddings start broadcasting at 2AM.
>
> Not apologizing :-)
>
> --
>
> The Bible! *Because all the works of science cannot equal the
> wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
> animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
> Noah's house.

BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. I think. I'll have to
check. I wish one of the channels would do a commercial-free
broadcast.

N.

Nancy2 > wrote in

s.com:

> BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. I think. I'll
> have to check. I wish one of the channels would do a
> commercial-free broadcast.

You might be able to stream the feed from the Beeb directly.

http://www.bbc.com/royalwedding

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:03:51 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Definitely. I'm not talking about the wedding itself. I know people
> are much more interested in the actual wedding. Even me!

I'm so confused - the actual wedding, not the wedding. There are two?
I figure I'll catch the highlights on the news. I want to see her
enter and exit, I don't need to see them exchange vows.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Apr 27, 11:42*am, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> Nancy2 > wrote
> s.com:
>
> > BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. *I think. *I'll
> > have to check. *I wish one of the channels would do a
> > commercial-free broadcast.
>
> You might be able to stream the feed from the Beeb directly.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/royalwedding
>
> --
>
> The Bible! *Because all the works of science cannot equal the
> wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
> animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
> Noah's house.

Thanks. ;-)

On another note: Kate's grandmother was a twin. Twins skip a
generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. I'm
not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. It would be
wonderful if she could do that with one swoop - twins! LOL.

N.

On 4/28/2011 9:21 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> On another note: Kate's grandmother was a twin. Twins skip a
> generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general.

I know you said "in general", but an interesting thing is that my
brother and sister are twins, and sister had girl/boy twins, too. So
two generations in a row!

On Apr 28, 9:21*am, Nancy2 > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:42*am, Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nancy2 > wrote
> > s.com:
>
> > > BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. *I think. *I'll
> > > have to check. *I wish one of the channels would do a
> > > commercial-free broadcast.
>
> > You might be able to stream the feed from the Beeb directly.
>
> >http://www.bbc.com/royalwedding
>
> > --
>
> > The Bible! *Because all the works of science cannot equal the
> > wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
> > animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
> > Noah's house.
>
> Thanks. ;-)
>
> On another note: *Kate's grandmother was a twin. *Twinsskip a
> generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. *I'm
> not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
> part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
> heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. *It would be
> wonderful if she could do that with one swoop -twins! *LOL.
>
> N.

If it skips a gen, then wouldn't it be KATE'S gen to show a set of
twins?

On Apr 30, 1:48*pm, Cheryl > wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 9:21 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> > On another note: *Kate's grandmother was a twin. *Twinsskip a
> > generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general.
>
> I know you said "in general", but an interesting thing is that my
> brother and sister aretwins, and sister had girl/boytwins, too. *So
> two generations in a row! *

Are these boy-girl twins fraternal or identical? I know nada about
twin-ness. ( Did not do well in biology.)

On 4/30/2011 9:25 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:48 pm, > wrote:
>> On 4/28/2011 9:21 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>>> On another note: Kate's grandmother was a twin. Twinsskip a
>>> generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general.
>>
>> I know you said "in general", but an interesting thing is that my
>> brother and sister aretwins, and sister had girl/boytwins, too. So
>> two generations in a row!
>
> Are these boy-girl twins fraternal or identical? I know nada about
> twin-ness. ( Did not do well in biology.)

All boy/girl twins are fraternal.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 06:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> On another note: Kate's grandmother was a twin. Twins skip a
> generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. I'm
> not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
> part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
> heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. It would be
> wonderful if she could do that with one swoop - twins! LOL.

What I like about them shacking up and waiting so long to get married
is that you know they're ready for the whole shooting match, which
includes children, ASAP. That's the way young people these days roll.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf > wrote in
news
> What I like about them shacking up and waiting so long to get
> married is that you know they're ready for the whole shooting
> match, which includes children, ASAP. That's the way young
> people these days roll.

Not just young people. And some couples never marry and yet have
full lives, children, etc. Marriage is passé, except for religious
nutbars and teenage girls with romantic aspirations of becoming the
first of many Mrs. Bieber.

With Kate and Wills, it's a contract cementing the monarchy, so
it's a different thing. Monarchs have always had their own reasons
for doing things.

If they like each other, then it's a bonus.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> sf > wrote in
> news >
>> What I like about them shacking up and waiting so long to get
>> married is that you know they're ready for the whole shooting
>> match, which includes children, ASAP. That's the way young
>> people these days roll.
>
> Not just young people. And some couples never marry and yet have
> full lives, children, etc. Marriage is passé, except for religious
> nutbars and teenage girls with romantic aspirations of becoming the
> first of many Mrs. Bieber.
>
> With Kate and Wills, it's a contract cementing the monarchy, so
> it's a different thing. Monarchs have always had their own reasons
> for doing things.
>
> If they like each other, then it's a bonus.

Good comment, Michel
--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

> On Apr 28, 9:21*am, Nancy2 > wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 11:42*am, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nancy2 > wrote
> > > s.com:
> >
> > > > BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. *I think. *I'll
> > > > have to check. *I wish one of the channels would do a
> > > > commercial-free broadcast.
> >
> > > You might be able to stream the feed from the Beeb directly.
> >
> > >http://www.bbc.com/royalwedding
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > The Bible! *Because all the works of science cannot equal the
> > > wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
> > > animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
> > > Noah's house.
> >
> > Thanks. ;-)
> >
> > On another note: *Kate's grandmother was a twin. *Twinsskip a
> > generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. *I'm
> > not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
> > part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
> > heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. *It would be
> > wonderful if she could do that with one swoop -twins! *LOL.
> >
> > N.
>
> If it skips a gen, then wouldn't it be KATE'S gen to show a set of
> twins?

Yes, but there's no guarantee it will happen.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Apr 30, 8:24*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:21*am, Nancy2 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 11:42*am, Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
> > > Nancy2 > wrote
> > > s.com:
>
> > > > BBCAmerica is starting at 2 a.m., CDT, also. *I think. *I'll
> > > > have to check. *I wish one of the channels would do a
> > > > commercial-free broadcast.
>
> > > You might be able to stream the feed from the Beeb directly.
>
> > >http://www.bbc.com/royalwedding
>
> > > --
>
> > > The Bible! *Because all the works of science cannot equal the
> > > wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
> > > animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
> > > Noah's house.
>
> > Thanks. ;-)
>
> > On another note: *Kate's grandmother was a twin. *Twinsskip a
> > generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. *I'm
> > not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
> > part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
> > heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. *It would be
> > wonderful if she could do that with one swoop -twins! *LOL.
>
> > N.
>
> If it skips a gen, then wouldn't it be KATE'S gen to show a set of
> twins?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, you're right - maybe Mother Nature will make up for the big
skip.... LOL.

N.

On May 1, 7:02*am, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 06:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
>
> > wrote:
> > On another note: *Kate's grandmother was a twin. *Twins skip a
> > generation, and come done through the maternal side, in general. *I'm
> > not one who would ever wish children on someone who wasn't ready, but
> > part of being Williams' bride is the fact that she needs to produce an
> > heir and a spare, and she isn't exactly a youngster. *It would be
> > wonderful if she could do that with one swoop - twins! *LOL.
>
> What I like about them shacking up and waiting so long to get married
> is that you know they're ready for the whole shooting match, which
> includes children, ASAP. *That's the way young people these days roll.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

There was a study a couple decades ago, though, that said people who
lived together before marriage had more divorces (percentages) than
those who didn't. One can hope that isn't true with this couple. And
yes, William is said to be crazy about babies, and she is 29 after
all. ;-)

N.

On May 1, 9:33*am, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> sf > wrote innews >
> > What I like about them shacking up and waiting so long to get
> > married is that you know they're ready for the whole shooting
> > match, which includes children, ASAP. *That's the way young
> > people these days roll.
>
> Not just young people. *And some couples never marry and yet have
> full lives, children, etc. *Marriage is passé, except for religious
> nutbars and teenage girls with romantic aspirations of becoming the
> first of many Mrs. Bieber.
>
> With Kate and Wills, it's a contract cementing the monarchy, so
> it's a different thing. *Monarchs have always had their own reasons
> for doing things.
>
> If they like each other, then it's a bonus.
>


They are lucky that a young virgin is no longer a requirement, as it
was for Charles. Even the Queen now admits that was a huge mistake,
and is said to be very pleased that William has found a love from the
ordinary middle class, as it were.

N.