I was listening to the wireless today and the presenters were discussing this:



What was interesting, was the reaction of listeners to the topic. A few responded as you might expect, cooing and congratulating, but many people came out quite aggressively toward the royals...something I've never quite experienced before.

It should be noted that this wasn't a mainstream station by any stretch of the imagination, which is perhaps why some of these reactions were actually read out on air at all.

I believe the topic was actually 'family photo's' or 'important photos' or something. It all turned a bit nasty though...

Ab Origine wrote:
Has the hatchling got an unusually large tail?

Who can say? I think it's just traditional christening garb, however.

Unless you are convinced that their DNA has exceptional qualities including perception, wisdom and leadership abilities, there is no tangible reason to maintain that circus.

If you do believe their DNA carries those abilities you're an arse.

They are nothing more than the medieval mob pretending to be legit.
Get rid.

Precisely my view and apparently, the view of many listeners. My point being, on just about any other station, these comments wouldn't have even come to light. This was an independent station, if you like, and although they got a bit edgy, they did read some of them out. It made me think about what your average joe actually thinks of the issue, rather than what the majority of the media would like us to believe they think.

Is anyone else seeing a seachange out there, or is it just more of the same?

from the lovely folks at B3ta.

Ab Origine wrote:
I think it's pretty mixed tbh. Most people I know couldn't give a toss about them but on the whole they're not overtly anti-royalist, unlike me. The mrs's mum likes them for reasons unknown... those kind of viewpoints seem to be set in stone for other unknown reasons!
I think if you have a look at any social media (FB or whatever) it gives a fairly good indication. And from what I've seen, it is a totally mixed bag, going from 'they're a bunch of benefit sponging immigrants, hang them' to 'they are the pride of the nation I'd kiss their shoes' etc.
But to me there is a right & a wrong to it. Anybody who thinks they're great or the idea of a hereditary ruler is in any way logical is off their cake.

Ab Origine wrote: When we have more people dragged into poverty, sick and disabled cynically forced off benefit to seek non-existent work that they can't fucking do, jobs disappearing as business after business goes to the wall because they can't get or can't repay loans, public sector cuts right, left and centre and then cunt stunts like the bedroom tax all happening and amongst all that these scrounging fucks get a 11 MILLION increase which is termed a 'cut in real terms' because they are such 'great value for money'.

I wonder why people might just be pissed off eh?

I'm not for killing them btw. They were born into that shite.
Just sling them out and find them work. Meanwhile charge the fuckers bedroom tax anorl as they are state benefit dependants.

Why are they still there?
Because they hold the keys to snake bellied useless cunts being remembered for posterity because they were given a title.
Get rid!

Thanks for that, Abs. It's very pleasing to me to hear that people have the gumption to recognise these undeservedly over privileged leeches for what they are. The only people I've encountered who object to the monarchy are on forums (apart from a couple of my siblings). It's discouraging just how many folk seem to be at best, unquestioning of their right to rule, and at worst, starstruck by 'their majesties'.

Is there a difference between christening and baptising?

humanspirit wrote: AFAIK, they're just two words for the same thing.

What wub said.

Could John the Baptist do a christening?

I don't know, but John the Christener would have been a shit name.

Technically: Baptising accepts you into the church and Christening gives you a formal Christian name.

Usually they are part and parcel of the same ceremony although it is feasible you could do the naming bit without the baptism bit, not certain that happens too often tbh.

'Wet the baby's head' and all that.

Ab Origine wrote:
For some of us it was a full dunk, none of this half assed head wetting stuff.

Ab Origine wrote: Waterboarding children is never acceptable no matter the provocation!

Spoilsport.

Well................. when I say .............."never" ........ I might be pushing it.