May 4, 2011 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #765930
It comes out to about 70 pence per Briyon per year. That’s a bit over a buck each. Quite an entertainment bargain. Probably much less than we pay for our heads of state.May 4, 2011 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #765931
but why does everyone feel the need to watch their wedding? to analyze everything they say? They are after all just 2 people who happen to have been born into a certain family. Why the utter fascination with them?May 4, 2011 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #765932
but why does everyone feel the need to watch their wedding? to analyze everything they say? They are after all just 2 people who happen to have been born into a certain family. Why the utter fascination with them?
I answered that above.
The bottom line is that if it doesn’t interest you, no one is forcing you to pay any attention. You could have ignored this entire thread if you so wished… no one forced you to come here. Just accept the fact that some people find the Royals and other celebrities fascinating and leave it at that. It shouldn’t bother you any if some people have an interest in the historical institution known as the British Monarchy.
The WolfMay 4, 2011 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #765933RABBAIMParticipant
Is it mutar to view the inside of a church?? Is it mutar to view nishuk between ish and isha?? Is it Hashakfically correct?? Will you be proud or embarrassed when the video tape after 120 years shows how you spent your time and what you looked at?? Where is our YIras Shamayim??? Where did it go??May 4, 2011 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #765934
wolfish musings. it doesnt bother me at all. i am simply trying to figure out what the fascination is. I find them interesting too simply as celebrities, what i want to know is why they are such celebrities. True they are part of the “historical institution known as the British Monarchy” but so what? Why does that make them entitled to such wealth, fame and celebrity status?May 4, 2011 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #765935OfcourseMember
RABBAIM, you think there arent those who have teinehs to you for being on the internet, even if its a kosher CR? Theres always better things you could be doing with your time.May 4, 2011 11:28 pm at 11:28 pm #765936TikkunHatzotMember
Cucumber, you’re trying to figure out the Brits? The Brits? The people that “ruled the world” & yet decided to stay on some foggy island in the middle of the cold North Sea when they could have moved base to an exotic place like Jamaica? Those Brits?May 5, 2011 12:04 am at 12:04 am #765937
It appeals to our inner princesses and our inner princes.May 5, 2011 12:57 am at 12:57 am #765938mischiefmakerMember
I just think its really cool but I skipped a lot of the “praying” stuff. The things I did hear were straight from the torah-pretty funny. Kate’s gown was gorgeous and she looked amazing.May 5, 2011 1:04 am at 1:04 am #765939
Is it mutar to view the inside of a church?? Is it mutar to view nishuk between ish and isha?? Is it Hashakfically correct?? Will you be proud or embarrassed when the video tape after 120 years shows how you spent your time and what you looked at?? Where is our YIras Shamayim??? Where did it go??
Ignoring for the moment the question of whether what you are saying is even correct or not, what made you believe that I watched any part of the wedding?
The WolfMay 5, 2011 1:05 am at 1:05 am #765940
Why does that make them entitled to such wealth, fame and celebrity status?
That’s not unique to the royalty. You can ask the same question about anyone who inherited wealth or a famous family name from their parents.
The WolfMay 5, 2011 2:14 am at 2:14 am #765941
Mazel tov to the bride & groom. Mazel tov to their parents & grandparents. Mazel tov to her majesty, who, after all, is a pretty nice girl.
I wish them along, happy life together.May 5, 2011 3:13 am at 3:13 am #765942charliehallParticipant
I didn’t even realize the wedding was last Friday until it was over. And I don’t understand what the big deal is.May 5, 2011 4:35 am at 4:35 am #765943StuffedCabbageMember
lol i didnt KNOw there was a person called prince william till AFTER the wedding when my class didnt stop hocking about it…i pride myself in being real sheltered….lolMay 5, 2011 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #765944Shticky GuyParticipant
Kate’s gown was gorgeous
and completely untzniusdikMay 5, 2011 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm #765945
I actually thought she looked beautiful and very majestic. why type of gown would you like her to wear- long sleeves and a high collar?!?! come on!May 5, 2011 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #765946
she was wearing long sleeves. They just happened to be see-throughMay 5, 2011 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #765947EnglishmanMember
That would be enough to make Shticky Guy correct, though it was also way too low the neckline.May 5, 2011 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #765948
she looked stunning! nothing to talk bout (IMHO)May 5, 2011 9:07 pm at 9:07 pm #765949
if you study english history and the history of european monarchy in general you will know that the people who got to be king and or nobility generally did because they were the most ruthless and murdered and betrayed everyone else till they ended up king. then they announced that G-d Chose them. O’k’ we do know that Hashem appoints Kings , but personally I wouldn’t be so proud of the Yichus knowing i descended form the biggest, cuthroats and gangsters who just mamnaged to get a hold of the throne, to say nothing of their disgusting and immoral personal behavior. etc. so the”gantse velt’ likes to see the pomp and ceremony and the clothes and the carriages. nu, what do you expect from them. I get more “Hanaah’ from any real yiddish chasuna, and the true joy in the dancing and the beautiful glow on the Chassan and Kallahs faces. Lihavdil. Every Jewish wedding is a Royal wedding!! and most of the dressess aren’t bad either. maybe we should start a trend to drive the Chassan abnd Kallah to the Chasuna in carriages as they used to do in Yerushalayim in the good old days when we had the Bais HamikdashMay 5, 2011 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #765950YW Moderator-80Member
your description of the origin of royaly is exactly as Rabbi Avigdor Miller, tz’l describes itMay 5, 2011 9:19 pm at 9:19 pm #765951
I’m sure he acquired his knowledge in a better way than i did, too many historical novels. but i do know that they were all “ausvurfin” and in addituon to “lo asani Goy, i wanted to add “lo asani A Royal Goy” becuz the chances of holding on to your head were not so good.May 5, 2011 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #765952
maybe we should start a trend to drive the Chassan abnd Kallah to the Chasuna in carriages as they used to do in Yerushalayim in the good old days when we had the Bais Hamikdash
The WolfMay 5, 2011 9:24 pm at 9:24 pm #765953
I noticed that they just posted the colors that she used when doing her makeup (on her own) for her wedding. I mean…isnt this a little insane. let her live! I am obsessed with her wedding and all btu things have to move on no?May 5, 2011 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #765954YW Moderator-80Member
there was a Godol
the morning after the us presidential election he wanted to know who the president was
this seemed way out of character
he explained when he said the Brocha Lo Asani Goy he wanted to have a mental image of the most important goy in the country
that even in relation to him the Brocha applies.May 5, 2011 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #765955
i heard that before
unfortunately i cannot say that would work for our president nowMay 5, 2011 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #765956
can’t ask my resident talmid chacham because he’s not available now but there was a special conveyance used to carry the kallah to the chuppa in yerushalayim. not clear if it was a carriage or a sedan chair. there are some poeple who are trying to revive the custom now in yerushalayim. all those learned people out there, jump in with the source.
also the kallah used to wear a crown too. one of the takanos after the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash was that Kallahs should no longer wear crowns and that is our minhagMay 5, 2011 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #765957
not clear if it was a carriage or a sedan chair
The latter sounds far more likely. I don’t think that carriages (as they are popularly envisioned) were around then.
The WolfMay 5, 2011 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #765958
‘??? ????? ??? ???’. chariots are ancient, carriages are just more modern chariots, and nowadays we have”horseless carriages’ “ain davar chadash mitachat lashemesh’May 5, 2011 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #765959
m?dern hebrew word for automobile is ???May 5, 2011 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #765960
“vi’ayn kol chodosh tachas hashamesh’ (Koheles 1:9)May 5, 2011 10:52 pm at 10:52 pm #765961
‘??? ????? ??? ???’. chariots are ancient, carriages are just more modern chariots,
I am well aware that chariots are ancient. And no, carriages are NOT “more modern chariots.” They are two completely different types of vehicles used for two very different purposes. The fact that both are pulled by horses does NOT make them similar at all.
Saying that a carriage is a “more modern chariot” is like saying that a tractor is a “large car” since they both have motors.
And I don’t think anyone in ancient times would have considered bringing a bride to her chuppah in a chariot.
The WolfMay 5, 2011 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #765962
does anyone know who kate middleton is? Is she some kind of royalty or what?May 5, 2011 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #765963
“Is she some kind of royalty or what?”
She is now
🙂May 5, 2011 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm #765964
Now Kate is Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Until last Friday, she was just a commoner.May 5, 2011 11:50 pm at 11:50 pm #765965
so then what zchus did she have to marry the prince? Was she really just a regular commoner or something more than that?May 6, 2011 12:31 am at 12:31 am #765966
She is very pretty, appears to have a good personality and excellent character. Those were enough reasons for me to marry my wife, not necessarily in that order. My wife was a commoner, too.May 6, 2011 1:58 am at 1:58 am #765968StuffedCabbageMember
i hope shes getting used to her new name. its gonna take a while to tell people her name now….May 6, 2011 2:08 am at 2:08 am #765969
ronrsr you are a commoner so why shouldnt your wife be one too but prince william is royalty, therefore it only makes sense that he would marry into royalty. Or if not royalty there has to be some reason why he chose her out of the whole EnglandMay 6, 2011 2:48 am at 2:48 am #765970
therefore it only makes sense that he would marry into royalty. Or if not royalty there has to be some reason why he chose her out of the whole England
He married her because he met her in college and they fell in love. That’s really all there is to it.
The WolfMay 6, 2011 2:55 am at 2:55 am #765971
ronrsr is not a commoner.
We are all children of a great King, making us all princes & princesses.
I just wonder why she has to lose her first name in the title.
She doesn’t look like a Princess William Arthur Philip Louis.
And Princess Katherine is less of a mouthful.May 6, 2011 3:55 am at 3:55 am #765972
I just wonder why she has to lose her first name in the title.
Princesses by marriage in the UK are known by their husbands’ names.
Another example is Princess Michael of Kent.
The WolfMay 6, 2011 4:37 am at 4:37 am #765973
Wolf, I’m aware of that, but I don’t see why they need to lose their first names as well as their last.May 6, 2011 9:04 am at 9:04 am #765974Shticky GuyParticipant
what type of gown would you like her to wear – long sleeves and a high collar?!?! come on!
She looked stunning! nothing to talk about (IMHO)
Yes she did look very beautiful. And whether she wore long or short sleeves is immaterial in that setting. But ‘high collar’? Thats a different story. Do you really think that neckline was befitting of a Royal or of any house of worship? Even our cleaner was disgusted and refused to watch with us because of it.May 6, 2011 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #765975
Wolf, I’m aware of that, but I don’t see why they need to lose their first names as well as their last.
They don’t “lose” their first name. I’m sure William still calls her “Kate” (or whatever he was calling her). It’s just the formal convention that is only used in certain circumstances.
The WolfMay 6, 2011 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #765977
I’m sure she will popularly be called Princess Kate.May 6, 2011 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #765978
SG- I think she looked beautiful and regal. I dont really knwo what you mean by her collar? you think is should have been a little more white material going higher up?May 6, 2011 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #765979
I’m sure she will popularly be called Princess Kate.
Indeed she will be, just as Diana was called “Princess Di.”
The WolfMay 6, 2011 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #765980Pac-ManMember
adorable, her neckline was way too low. enuf said.May 6, 2011 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm #765981
is that a fact or opinion? either way i hear where you are coming from btu not starting another fight with you over this!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.