Live Royal Wedding Coverage.

[The Brain]

I like the little girl who covered her ears on the balcony 

OK, Siege.

[Neil]

Many say William marrying a commoner might actually bring some oxygen to the institution - especially if the Queen bypasses Charles (and his horse) and gives the throne to her grandson.

She can't do that.

[Valmy]

She can't do that.

She will probably outlive Charles anyway.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't think the Queen will ever abdicate either, a red herring that the BBC commentators always raise at occasions like this. She has cut back slightly on her commitments of course, and this will become more noticeable as she ages further, but the young princes can always stand in for her.

[Neil]

She can't do that.

She will probably outlive Charles anyway.

Why?  Do you think that Charles for some reason doesn't enjoy the benefits of the modern medical techniques that have kept her going?

[Habbaku]

And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.

 

[Liep]

And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.

 

[Warspite]

She looks lovely.

And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.

It would make the Royal soap opera immensely amusing for me if you hit it off with Kate's sister. Now, how can we get you an introduction  ?

You leave that to me.

[Zanza2]

I am happy that we abolished that silly institution after the Great War. Long live the Republic.

Pity about that little detour through a far sillier and far worse institution though.

Indeed, Britain does not need advice on its constitution from the likes of Germany and France, we prefer a system with some stability.

Wasn't meant as advice. But as our various royals and princes stood in the way of a more healthy constitutional development, the disaster of the first attempt notwithstanding, it was good that they had to go. We weren't as lucky in our development of constitutional monarchy as say Britain, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. If we had a glorious revolution in the 17th century sometime, I would perhaps think differently about the institution, but we still had a neo-absolutist emperor early in the 20th century...
Now that we have a republic I would never want a monarchy back, that's pretty much a oneway street I guess. Occasions like this, where the importance of heritage is overstated so much, make me remember what we have in a republic and good it was to shove out the Hohenzollerns and all the rest of the noble ilk.

[Valmy]

Wasn't meant as advice. But as our various royals and princes stood in the way of a more healthy constitutional development, the disaster of the first attempt notwithstanding, it was good that they had to go. We weren't as lucky in our development of constitutional monarchy as say Britain, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. If we had a glorious revolution in the 17th century sometime, I would perhaps think differently about the institution, but we still had a neo-absolutist emperor early in the 20th century...
Now that we have a republic I would never want a monarchy back, that's pretty much a oneway street I guess. Occasions like this, where the importance of heritage is overstated so much, make me remember what we have in a republic and good it was to shove out the Hohenzollerns and all the rest of the noble ilk.

But you have a powerless figurehead of your own right?  I never got the point of that once you got rid of a monarchy.

[Norgy]

@Grals Because all the royal family really has to justify its claims on the monarchy is its bloodline. 

Not really. There are plenty of highly dubious "bloodlines" having been elected as kings in Europe the past two centuries. Monarchy is seen as an apolitical institution, something not sullied by party politics, unlike a presidential office. Now, personally, I'd rather have a directly elected executive that I could vote out wasting away than a king, but I see the principle. In hard times, the royal houses have been rallying points. Of course, this has had to do with personal qualities of the monarch, and more inbreeding isn't likely to improve those. Charles married a commoner, which sired his child, and look how much less like a horse or rubber doll William looks than his father. 

On the other hand, I see your point, but since we're not living in, well, 1066, I don't think it's particularly relevant.

[Caliga]

Many say William marrying a commoner might actually bring some oxygen to the institution - especially if the Queen bypasses Charles (and his horse) and gives the throne to her grandson.

She can't do that.

Why on earth would she want to?  Charles is going to make an excellent monarch (for what that's worth... but still).

[Zanza2]

But you have a powerless figurehead of your own right?  I never got the point of that once you got rid of a monarchy.

Me neither. For all I care, the constitutional tasks he has could be handled by the president of the upper chamber, a post that rotates every year between the state governors.

As it is, we can send him to pointless diplomatic events, e.g. attending the marriage of a British prince like today, and the more important people don't need to bother with that.

[Malthus]

So ... when's the live coverage of the wedding night?

[Drakken]

Why is that?  Many say William marrying a commoner might actually bring some oxygen to the institution - especially if the Queen bypasses Charles (and his horse) and gives the throne to her grandson.

Will not happen without a gross unconstitutional act, and Charles will never accept to bow out, he's been waiting too long.