1. Rowan says

    Pro royalists are so frigging insane.

    He looked miserable and she looked hungry plus angry.

    Urgh, so depressing. What a waste of tax payees money! My money!

  2. MaryM says

    Well the monarchy is by its very definition anti-democratic, so this is not surprising. The unelected future head of state of Britain, got married today. Everyone is clearly OBLIGED to be happy about it. Otherwise you’ll be arrested. Truly disgusting.

  3. NE Rich says

    I’m confused. While I could not care less about the “Royal” wedding, I’m not clear on what the protesters were protesting about if it was not the existence of the monarchy which they said it was not? Anyone clear this up?

  4. MaryM says

    Perhaps these protestors were arguing that while LGBT are legally barred from getting married, the ‘royals’ can do so, and in the process, shut the democratic right to protest down.
    Don’r be fooled into thinking the ‘royals’ are universally loved in Britain. Many of us (about 35%) would prefer a democratic system.
    While I accept that we will have a ‘queen’ as head of state until Elizabeth Windsor dies, when she does die, it’s time to transition from a monarchy to a more democratic system.

  5. Max says

    Rightfully so. As much as I agree that the royal family is outdated, they’re still entitled to some decency. You don’t get a free pass to hijack someone’s wedding just because you’re gay.

    Imagine if groups tried to crash a same-sex wedding. Would we call them “activists” as well?

  6. Seriously says

    I don’t really care that they were asked to not make a scene … They wouldn’t have made any difference other than make people who’ve traveled from across the world upset at the gay activists. Nothing would have been accomplished by this protest.

  7. BC says

    This is why people in our “community” bug the hell out of me. Not every public event is the place for our “activism.” So idiotic. So self-centered. So immature. No WONDER people aren’t thrilled with us when we are determined to make a scene everywhere we go.

  8. booka says

    The term “Appropriate” comes to mind. Royal weddings are benign, yet unifying events in Britain. “Feel good” moments that also generate alot of money. To try and stick yourself in the middle of it and make it some political jihad, is decidedly “inappropriate”, and just makes people hate Gays for being being such selfish, insensitive assholes.

  9. fedorajoe says

    Agreed, Booka. There are times when protests are just not appropriate. Weddings and funerals certainly spring to mind. It just makes the protestor look disgusting and it casts a shadow over the cause being argued for. Let the people who are inclined to enjoy the day (like me) enjoy it. No need to pull a stunt and risk hardening people’s hearts toward our cause.

  10. Jack says

    And THIS is an example of why free speech must extend to speech we don’t agree with, and or even hate. You never know who is going to be deciding what is offensive.

    Remember that next time some of you argue that offensive, mean, or hateful speech shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.

  11. Francis says

    I don’t know if this event was the appropriate time for a call to activism, at the same time, making a stand and making your voice heard is doing something that many gay people don’t do, and that alone gives me a less negative view on these activists than many of you. They are standing up for what they believe in and what is right. And yes, you can say they were being self-centered. And they have every right to be. As long as we are legally and socially discriminated against, we as a community have every right to be self-centered and not allow the current order of the world to continue without a fight.

  12. ratbastard says

    The entire UK has gay civil unions, yes? What exactly were they protesting?

    As an aside, the monarchy is silly and blatantly undemocratic, especially in England’s case, when you add the fact England has an official state sponsored, the Church of England, and it’s hereditary, un-elected head of state is titular head of the official state religion, and must be a member of the official state religion. I find the concept of an official state religion more objectionable than the monarchy itself actually.

  13. johnny says

    Not for nothing:

    The Royal family takes about 20 million pounds per year to keep up. Sounds expensive, right?


    The Royal family’s estate and holdings provide over 170 million pounds of profit to the citizens of the UK, which they donate directly to them after the 20 or so million is taken out. Not bad, eh?

    Anyone complaining about how expensive and useless the royals are needs to examine the facts. They actually provide more income than they take and also give a lot of their personal wealth and time to charities.

    Some may see them as sort of an overdecorated, silly leftover from a long-dead form of government, but I see no reason not to let them continue as a symbol for people as long as they’re giving so much back.

  14. EJ says

    Is it always necessary to make an “anti” statement.
    It was a lovely event, everyone seemed to have a great time,
    the world is in such a mess isn’t a little joy important ?

  15. Bob says

    Johnny –

    Your argument sounds nice but is sadly misfounded. The 170 million pounds you cite are generated by the Crown Estate and flow into the Treasury’s coffers; in return the Windsor family receive the money off the Civil List.

    However, the Crown Estate was never the personal property of the monarch. The current arrangement came to be when the British monarch ceased to use the Crown Estate to pay for government expenditure. Elizabeth Windsor is not donating her own 170 million to the British state; she receives public money in return for public money.

Leave A Reply