Just to annoy Norgy I will be providing live continuous coverage of the royal wedding.
Alternatively I may well just relax in the garden and then go down the boozer. :hmm:
In the meantime enjoy The Register's scoop about the event:
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/28/operation_pumpkin/ (http://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/28/operation_pumpkin/)
QuoteRevealed: Secret security plan should Kate leave Wills at the altar
'Operation Pumpkin' prepped for royal runaway bride scenario
By LaHussy • In Bootnotes • At 11:15 GMT 28th April 2011
Police and spooks in charge of security for tomorrow's royal wedding have planned for every possible eventuality - including that of Kate leaving Wills at the altar.
The top-secret contingency plan for a "runaway bride" scenario has been dubbed "Operation Pumpkin", and if put into effect would see hundreds of operatives switch tasks in a desperate attempt to generate a moving security cordon around the escaping future Queen - while simultaneously attempting to preserve Prince William's option to pursue and dramatically win her back.
"Frankly, it's a nightmare scenario," one highly-placed MI5 source confessed to the Reg yesterday. "But you have to plan for every possible contingency, and let's face it, this one's hardly that unlikely, is it? Obviously we had to get together with Clarence House and work something out.
"Naturally, they wanted us to simply make her go through with it - but we said you must be joking: in the UK, in front of millions of witnesses? No way. And the plods would never play ball anyhow.
"So we said, look, if she bottles it we'll just have to get her out pronto, helicopter off the roof maybe, then sort her out with a new identity and young Bill will just have to go on the honeymoon on his own."
However our source said that royal officials were unhappy with that plan. They reluctantly accepted that Ms Middleton remains free to bolt right up until the last moment, but argued that she should be compelled to flee on foot for at least a short distance, so allowing the Prince to pursue her and so perhaps regain some PR benefit for the royal family - and maybe even persuade the absconding future consort to come up to scratch once more.
"That's when it got difficult," says our source. "Now you've got her running out of the Abbey, crowds everywhere, him chasing after her. She's got to be able to run, he's got to be able to catch up if he can. Nightmare."
....
Click on the link for the full article.
Someone from work called and woke me up and now I'm counting on the fashion experts to help me sleep again with their talks of hats.
Looks like zombie-Leslie Nielsen is attending.
What's the plan if she turns out to be an alien robot and starts shooting wedding guests with lasers?
And Mr. Bean! And a fat/short Conan.
I need sleep. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 03:29:11 AM
What's the plan if she turns out to be an alien robot and starts shooting wedding guests with lasers?
What's there to do besides embracing her as our new overlord and possibly savior?
wait... she's eligible to be Queen? I assumed she could be nothing more than a princess consort... :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 04:20:51 AM
wait... she's eligible to be Queen? I assumed she could be nothing more than a princess consort... :hmm:
WTF :wacko:
A king's wife becomes queen, nothing really new about that?
Quote from: Liep on April 29, 2011, 04:28:31 AM
A king's wife becomes queen, nothing really new about that?
Hasn't penetrated to Kentucky yet.
This business with commoners is bad juju.
Quote from: Liep on April 29, 2011, 04:28:31 AM
A king's wife becomes queen, nothing really new about that?
Yet a queen's husband is only a prince, omg sexism!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 04:43:24 AM
Yet a queen's husband is only a prince, omg sexism!
I suppose that's the next thing we're gonna vote about after making it so that male heirs are not prefered over females. What is the world coming to?
:rolleyes: So I guess Prince Philip is secretly King and we just don't know, right? :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 04:59:19 AM
:rolleyes: So I guess Prince Philip is secretly King and we just don't know, right? :lol:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
She looks lovely. :wub:
And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.
Watching Elton John fumble through a hymnal, I'm half expecting him to explode into flames.
"For richer, for poorer". Niggas, puhleeze.
And what the fuck are those Saudi arabs doing there? And why aren't they bearing gifts and tribute?
"Here's some gold, myrrh, and Frank sent this."
Wait, you're actually watching this Seedy? :thatsgay:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 05:41:15 AM
Wait, you're actually watching this Seedy? :thatsgay:
It's the only thing on this AM, and I've already watched SportsCenter twice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:09:04 AM
She looks lovely. :wub:
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 :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:09:04 AM
She looks lovely. :wub:
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 :hmm: ?
[Caliga] This would make CdM King, right? :hmm: [/Caliga]
Caliga lives in Kentucky, I'm sure he knows that Elvis would still be King.
Awww, they're singing My Country, 'Tis of Thee. What a shout-out to the Americans. :cry:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
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 :hmm: ?
Meh, Harry's gonna be pushing up on that at the reception, somewhere between the open bar and the dance floor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:56:02 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
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 :hmm: ?
Meh, Harry's gonna be pushing up on that at the reception, somewhere between the open bar and the dance floor.
Is he still in full uniform btw?
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 05:57:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:56:02 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
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 :hmm: ?
Meh, Harry's gonna be pushing up on that at the reception, somewhere between the open bar and the dance floor.
Is he still in full uniform btw?
He looks like a linebacker in that thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:58:20 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 05:57:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:56:02 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
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 :hmm: ?
Meh, Harry's gonna be pushing up on that at the reception, somewhere between the open bar and the dance floor.
Is he still in full uniform btw?
He looks like a linebacker in that thing.
Swastikas and all?
She might not be Queen yet but I find it very weird to be attracted to the (future) Queen.
Man, Lizzy's being at this for way too long.
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 05:58:45 AM
Swastikas and all?
Practically. He's the only one in the house wearing a black uniform.
Shame William's hairline is receding faster than the polar caps.
As one of the few living Languishites that remember watching the previous Royal Wedding, I have to admit that I like this one better.
Queens' bodyguards are having issues with the mounts. I've just seen the 2nd riderless mount hauling ass, destination: unknown.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 06:15:51 AM
Queens' bodyguards are having issues with the mounts. I've just seen the 2nd riderless mount hauling ass, destination: unknown.
:lol:
I have been enjoying the Household Cavalry. They look like they are about to charge Boney's lines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 06:15:51 AM
Queens' bodyguards are having issues with the mounts. I've just seen the 2nd riderless mount hauling ass, destination: unknown.
Let me know when you know where it went.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 06:12:17 AM
As one of the few living Languishites that remember watching the previous Royal Wedding, I have to admit that I like this one better.
Maybe because Wills and Kate are in
lurve, whereas Charles and Diana were not :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 06:33:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 06:12:17 AM
As one of the few living Languishites that remember watching the previous Royal Wedding, I have to admit that I like this one better.
Maybe because Wills and Kate are in lurve, whereas Charles and Diana were not :hmm:
This is true. Diana at her wedding seemed much more stilted. That's what happens when rich people raised to be married off to other rich people happens.
Ugh, I crashed somewhere before the actual wedding and just woke up. Did I miss anything good?
While you were asleep the British monarchy was further degraded and rendered closer to being irrelevant. That's pretty much it. :)
Would love to know what Prince Philip and Pippa were chatting/laughing about on the balcony. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 07:35:53 AM
While you were asleep the British monarchy was further degraded and rendered closer to being irrelevant. That's pretty much it. :)
So same course as the Danish?
Quote from: Liep on April 29, 2011, 07:41:08 AM
So same course as the Danish?
mmmm, danishes :mmm:
I see the tabloids has already bumped the kiss, the dress and the 'I will's to the 2nd page. The news in Denmark is that Beckham wore his OBE on the wrong side.
To be fair, it might have attained the "most read" mark because of its headline: "Breast-oops at the wedding" and a picture of Victoria.
I like the little girl who covered her ears on the balcony :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 04:59:19 AM
:rolleyes: So I guess Prince Philip is secretly King and we just don't know, right? :lol:
There is a reason he was called Prince Albert Cal. Only the reigning monarch can be King of Canada.
I know that... it's exactly the point I was trying to make. :wacko:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 08:21:53 AM
I know that... it's exactly the point I was trying to make. :wacko:
You realize that the dignity of the largest and most glorious monarchy on the planet demands this convention? Good. Such an illustrious title is reserved only for those who sit on the Hockey Stick Throne.
I am happy that we abolished that silly institution after the Great War. Long live the Republic.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 08:58:40 AM
I am happy that we abolished that silly institution after the Great War. Long live the Republic.
:hug:
Even the French are smarter than the British, it seems. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 07:35:53 AM
While you were asleep the British monarchy was further degraded and rendered closer to being irrelevant. That's pretty much it. :)
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.
I must say the future queen looks lovely. And it does show she's in love.
G.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 08:58:40 AM
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.
@Grals Because all the royal family really has to justify its claims on the monarchy is its bloodline. Do you not think that if commoners marrying into it becomes the usual occurrence the British won't eventually just say to themselves "Why do we pay to support a bunch of ordinary rich people's extravagant lifestyles?" Her bloodline is really the only concrete attribute Elizabeth has to distinguish herself from the commoners. That's not to say she's not been a good Queen--because she certainly has--but if she'd been a bad one, and also had an undistinguished bloodline... don't you think there would be little support for the institution?
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 09:08:10 AM
@Grals Because all the royal family really has to justify its claims on the monarchy is its bloodline. Do you not think that if commoners marrying into it becomes the usual occurrence the British won't eventually just say to themselves "Why do we pay to support a bunch of ordinary rich people's extravagant lifestyles?" Her bloodline is really the only concrete attribute Elizabeth has to distinguish herself from the commoners. That's not to say she's not been a good Queen--because she certainly has--but if she'd been a bad one, and also had an undistinguished bloodline... don't you think there would be little support for the institution?
It's one way to look at it - a very utilitarian way I might add. We could also say that the monarchy is the last institution that has some permanency about it; that isn't at the mercy of the latest fad or subjected to the vagaries of the market. It's also, albeit nominally, a last recourse against a cabal of corrupt professional politicians that move in and out of power and are mainly preoccupied with shortsighted agendas.
G.
I would be more ok with an actual ruling monarchy, because if someone is born with the right to rule they might actually just be a good and wise ruler. OTOH, anyone who has to be elected a national leader has to be a backstabbing sociopath to get there. But, since the Windsors are pure figureheads, they do in fact have no more real value to the British people than Elizabeth's corgis do to her... they're basically bejewelled pets that serve as a source of mild amusement. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 08:58:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 09:08:10 AM
@Grals Because all the royal family really has to justify its claims on the monarchy is its bloodline. Do you not think that if commoners marrying into it becomes the usual occurrence the British won't eventually just say to themselves "Why do we pay to support a bunch of ordinary rich people's extravagant lifestyles?" Her bloodline is really the only concrete attribute Elizabeth has to distinguish herself from the commoners. That's not to say she's not been a good Queen--because she certainly has--but if she'd been a bad one, and also had an undistinguished bloodline... don't you think there would be little support for the institution?
How could the bloodline become undistinguished? The supreme seat, the throne majestical, still passes from blood to blood.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 08:58:40 AM
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.
:rolleyes: Judgmental much?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 29, 2011, 08:18:24 AM
I like the little girl who covered her ears on the balcony :lol:
OK, Siege.
Quote from: Grallon on April 29, 2011, 09:05:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2011, 10:12:16 AM
She can't do that.
She will probably outlive Charles anyway.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2011, 10:12:16 AM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:09:04 AM
And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.
:x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.dailyexpress.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fdynamic%2F40%2F285x214%2F215511_1.jpg&hash=3c096d78ac69a9577a3027c41ef3e7b1732ece64)
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 11:06:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:09:04 AM
And I'd wear her sister the fuck out.
:x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmultimedia.ekstrabladet.dk%2Farchive%2F00659%2FPippa_1_659203o.jpg&hash=c6a372af40eae2c8180e61ae08a6c93da6c8c8fa)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 05:50:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 05:09:04 AM
She looks lovely. :wub:
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 :hmm: ?
You leave that to me. :ph34r:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 08:58:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 11:24:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 09:08:10 AM
@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. :bowler:
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.
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2011, 10:12:16 AM
Quote from: Grallon on April 29, 2011, 09:05:09 AM
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).
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 11:30:27 AMBut 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.
So ... when's the live coverage of the wedding night?
Quote from: Grallon on April 29, 2011, 09:05:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on April 29, 2011, 12:57:42 PM
Will not happen without a gross unconstitutional act, and Charles will never accept to bow out, he's been waiting too long.
Still it would be a smart move and could be done with the backing of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
G.
:mellow: Why are we even discussing this?
"LOL HAY GUYS WHUT IF DA QUEEN BYPASSES EVERYONE ELSE AND GIVES THE THROAN TO ZARA PHILLIPS!?!?!?????"
Quote from: Grallon on April 29, 2011, 12:59:37 PM
Still it would be a smart move and could be done with the backing of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
Why would it be a smart move? What's wrong with Charles?
Oh wait, I know... you don't want to fuck him, unlike William. :P
Quote from: Grallon on April 29, 2011, 12:59:37 PM
Still it would be a smart move and could be done with the backing of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
Ignoring the Act of Succession wouldn't be a smart move, if only because it's illegal. And changing it? For what? They're still unable to change it to allow Catholics to succeed or to allow absolute agnatic primogeniture.
Plus, you should know that it has to be changed in all 16 Kingdoms in the Commonwealth first, Canada included.
Deal with it, Charles the future George VII is the next King.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 29, 2011, 06:07:53 AM
Shame William's hairline is receding faster than the polar caps.
It's actually the best proof that William is indeed Charles' son, contrarily to Harry who is so obvious a bastard it's not funny.
Quote from: Drakken on April 29, 2011, 01:05:50 PM
It's actually the best proof that William is indeed Charles' son, contrarily to Harry who is so obvious a bastard it's not funny.
:lol: Yeah, if something happens to William the hand-wringing over Harry and his eligibility will be: extremely amusing.
Is there really serious speculation that Harry is not Charles kid?
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2011, 01:17:30 PM
Is there really serious speculation that Harry is not Charles kid?
Yeah. Di was fucking some dude (her bodyguard?) before and after Harry was born. It just so happens the other guy looks just like Harry. He's also a colossal screwup like Harry IIRC.
The Guardian has a nifty button on its homepage for Republicans to hide all the royal marriage stuff.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2011, 01:17:30 PM
Is there really serious speculation that Harry is not Charles kid?
Yeah. Di was fucking some dude (her bodyguard?) before and after Harry was born. It just so happens the other guy looks just like Harry. He's also a colossal screwup like Harry IIRC.
From left to right Di's squeeze James Hewitt, Harry and to prove there are gingers in Di's family, her brother Earl Spencer.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg59.imageshack.us%2Fimg59%2F9931%2F0614princeharry21.jpg&hash=02523817f31eef0f56ad2ef35bb92c1e572f34cf) (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/0614princeharry21.jpg/)
IMO he looks more like the guy on the left than the guy on the right.
I take it nobody is in a hurry to do a paternity test? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 01:55:42 PM
I take it nobody is in a hurry to do a paternity test? :ph34r:
I wonder if one was ever done whether Dianna would get a walk?
Well, I suspect Kate will be under enormous pressure to produce a son so that the issue will be rendered moot. :)
Hopefully she doesn't fail and go crazy like that Japanese chick. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 01:59:23 PM
Well, I suspect Kate will be under enormous pressure to produce a son so that the issue will be rendered moot. :)
Hopefully she doesn't fail and go crazy like that Japanese chick. :ph34r:
A daughter would do the deed as well, Harry would by bypassed by any scion of Kaylliam*.
*Just coined that one. :ph34r:
Oh right, I forgot the British aren't male-only in the line of succession. :blush:
Quote from: Drakken on April 29, 2011, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 01:59:23 PM
Well, I suspect Kate will be under enormous pressure to produce a son so that the issue will be rendered moot. :)
Hopefully she doesn't fail and go crazy like that Japanese chick. :ph34r:
A daughter would do the deed as well, Harry would by bypassed by any scion of Kaylliam*.
*Just coined that one. :ph34r:
if they have a daughter first then a son, does the son superceed? i forget
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 02:15:44 PM
if they have a daughter first then a son, does the son superceed? i forget
Yes.
What I like is how the King of Norway is currently 68th in line for the Throne.
I kind of wondered at one point several years ago: If Prince William married Princess Victoria of Sweden, would the countries be united once they both had succeeded to their respective thrones? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:52:39 PM
I kind of wondered at one point several years ago: If Prince William married Princess Victoria of Sweden, would the countries be united once they both had succeeded to their respective thrones? :hmm:
Only to the extent Canada and Australia and Great Britain are I presume.
That sucks. See what I mean? Modern royalty are totally useless. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:54:47 PM
That sucks. See what I mean? Modern royalty are totally useless. :rolleyes:
Well certainly as a tool of Habsburgian empire building :P
See, if I was a Prince, I would consider it my duty to marry specifically in order to enlarge my territory. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:52:39 PM
I kind of wondered at one point several years ago: If Prince William married Princess Victoria of Sweden, would the countries be united once they both had succeeded to their respective thrones? :hmm:
Both Parliaments would probably pass a law that makes sure the two countries remain separate, sovereignty and all that. Or, one would be forced to abdicate or renounce his or her claim - most probably the bride.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 02:17:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 02:15:44 PM
if they have a daughter first then a son, does the son superceed? i forget
Yes.
Feminists are gonna love that outcome hah
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:04:00 PM
Feminists are gonna love that outcome hah
If they do have a daughter first the secession law will probably be changed.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:54:47 PM
That sucks. See what I mean? Modern royalty are totally useless. :rolleyes:
Have you not played EU3? :rolleyes:
Sweden and the UK (and Australia, Canada,, etc) would be in a personal union - shared monarch, but separate countries.
Hell Scotland and England were in the same situation up until the Act of Union.
Hey if they had let elder daughters inherit the crown in 1901 the Kaiser Wilhelm II's mother would have been Queen and a few months later Wilhelm would have united the crowns of Germany and Great Britain :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:57:55 PM
See, if I was a Prince, I would consider it my duty to marry specifically in order to enlarge my territory. :showoff:
I can see you marrying a woman with huge ... tracts of land. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:13:45 PM
Hey if they had let elder daughters inherit the crown in 1901 the Kaiser Wilhelm II's mother would have been Queen and a few months later Wilhelm would have united the crowns of Germany and Great Britain :lol:
I guess Richard Hakluyt would be a republican then. :P But I doubt that parliament would have allowed her to marry the Prussian heir apparent anyway if she was heiress apparent herself.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:04:00 PM
Feminists are gonna love that outcome hah
If they do have a daughter first the secession law will probably be changed.
if they can change that why can't they change the catholic thing (or make the grallons of the world squee and pass over old charlie)
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:54:17 PM
if they can change that why can't they change the catholic thing (or make the grallons of the world squee and pass over old charlie)
Well it will not change any time soon but we are talking about 50+ years before William's heirs actually inherit anything. I am pretty sure once this becomes a hot button issue it will eventually be changed because there will be decades of people being upset about it.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 29, 2011, 03:40:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:13:45 PM
Hey if they had let elder daughters inherit the crown in 1901 the Kaiser Wilhelm II's mother would have been Queen and a few months later Wilhelm would have united the crowns of Germany and Great Britain :lol:
I guess Richard Hakluyt would be a republican then. :P But I doubt that parliament would have allowed her to marry the Prussian heir apparent anyway if she was heiress apparent herself.
I certainly think that it was a great tragedy that Great Britain and Germany fell out with each other :(
But, this is Timmy territory :D
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:54:17 PM
if they can change that why can't they change the catholic thing (or make the grallons of the world squee and pass over old charlie)
Well it will not change any time soon but we are talking about 50+ years before William's heirs actually inherit anything. I am pretty sure once this becomes a hot button issue it will eventually be changed because there will be decades of people being upset about it.
There is talk about changing the Act of Succession at the moment. I think it is a good time to change it because, as it happens, it doesn't make any difference to the succession for the forseeable future.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 04:16:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:54:17 PM
if they can change that why can't they change the catholic thing (or make the grallons of the world squee and pass over old charlie)
Well it will not change any time soon but we are talking about 50+ years before William's heirs actually inherit anything. I am pretty sure once this becomes a hot button issue it will eventually be changed because there will be decades of people being upset about it.
There is talk about changing the Act of Succession at the moment. I think it is a good time to change it because, as it happens, it doesn't make any difference to the succession for the forseeable future.
Some Canadians were pushing to amend our Succession Act (remember we inherited all Acts of Parliament in force in 1867) to remove the anti-Catholic discrimination. What ws left unsaid is what would happen if Canada thus wound up with a different monarch than the UK did. :wacko:
Queen Celene Dion.
Yes, there are concerns about that being voiced here as well. OTOH the direct heirs are CofE and, unless there are some terrible tragedies in store, the situation is resolved for at least 50 years.
Which indicates to me that now is an excellent time to discuss sexism, papism and all the rest. I'm not at all sure that retaining the CofE as the state religion will be tenable in the long term.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 04:16:34 PM
There is talk about changing the Act of Succession at the moment. I think it is a good time to change it because, as it happens, it doesn't make any difference to the succession for the forseeable future.
In Sweden they didn't wait, the Riksdag amended the law of succession for absolute agnatic primogeniture after Carl Philip was born, stripping him of his position as heir apparent in Victoria's favour because she was the eldest.
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
Quote from: Drakken on April 29, 2011, 04:37:43 PM
In Sweden they didn't wait, the Riksdag amended the law of succession for absolute agnatic primogeniture after Carl Philip was born, stripping him of his position as heir apparent in Victoria's favour because she was the eldest.
It sounds like they waited until after it effected the order of succession to me :hmm:
Yes, my point is that we can discuss changes for the succession to the British crown and update them without it having any effect whatsoever for the forseeable future. Of course it may lead to great anger in the 22nd century, infuriated animal rights people will blether on about how the new Act of Succession (2015) paid no attention to the rights of the Queen's corgis :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 29, 2011, 04:46:49 PM
infuriated animal rights people will blether on about how the new Act of Succession (2015) paid no attention to the rights of the Queen's corgis :huh:
They'll inherit the palace.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2011, 04:40:09 PM
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
:huh:
Queen Victoria? Queen Elizabeth I? Ring any bells?
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2011, 04:40:09 PM
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
:huh:
Queen Victoria? Queen Elizabeth I? Ring any bells?
You forgot Matilda, Mary, and Mary Queen o Scots.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2011, 04:40:09 PM
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
:huh:
Queen Victoria? Queen Elizabeth I? Ring any bells?
When I drop a turd in the punchbowl, you aren't supposed to take a big bite.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 04:55:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2011, 04:40:09 PM
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
:huh:
Queen Victoria? Queen Elizabeth I? Ring any bells?
You forgot Matilda, Mary, and Mary Queen o Scots.
Matilda? :huh:
But I was more going for women rulers who were anything but pussies. Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day, and Liz I didn't take no guff from the Spanish (or anybody else).
I'm dissapointed the Queen never sung the national anthem. She truly doesn't say God save me :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Matilda? :huh:
Matilda of Normandy, Queen of England. The Plantagenets took over after her.
Quote from: Malthus on April 29, 2011, 03:15:09 PM
I can see you marrying a woman with huge ... tracts of land. ;)
No, I'd marry for political reasons. However, I'd fuck whoever the hell I wanted to. I am Henry the Eighth, I am.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day
Did she herself actually have anything to do with it, or was it merely done in her name?
Also, don't call her Vicky. We are not amused.
Britain prospered but the monarchy did not. Also, she had a place at the dinner table set for her dead husband for several decades. Hardly the mark of a badass.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2011, 03:04:00 PM
Feminists are gonna love that outcome hah
If they do have a daughter first the secession law will probably be changed.
:hmm: What is the current secession law?
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day
Really? She went out and conquered all that shit herself?
Nah, she was too busy being conquered herself by a drunken Scotsman. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
But I was more going for women rulers who were anything but pussies. Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day, and Liz I didn't take no guff from the Spanish (or anybody else).
I would say that Chatham, Pitt, Palmerston, Disraeli and Salisbury had a bit more to do with it than Victoria did, although some of them acted in her name.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
:hmm: What is the current secession law?
Damnit the Mississippi thread got me mixed up :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 05:57:31 PM
Britain prospered but the monarchy did not. Also, she had a place at the dinner table set for her dead husband for several decades. Hardly the mark of a badass.
There is nothing un-badass about loving your spouse :angry:
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
:hmm: What is the current secession law?
First son succeed, then daughters in absence of a son. And he or she has to be Anglican, no Papist allowed.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Matilda? :huh:
But I was more going for women rulers who were anything but pussies. Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day, and Liz I didn't take no guff from the Spanish (or anybody else).
Golda Meir certainly wasn't a pussy.
Catherine the Great, however, was a very big pussy. :perv:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 04:55:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2011, 04:40:09 PM
Disgusting. Letting women rule. No wonder Euros turned into pussies.
:huh:
Queen Victoria? Queen Elizabeth I? Ring any bells?
You forgot Matilda, Mary, and Mary Queen o Scots.
Matilda? :huh:
But I was more going for women rulers who were anything but pussies. Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day, and Liz I didn't take no guff from the Spanish (or anybody else).
You never heard of the Empress Matilda? I was once going to run an GURPs campaign during the English Anarchy. It never materialized though. Did read up a bunch on it though. Not a great deal of published material on it.
I don't think Victoria "caused" England to do anything.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Vicky caused England to become the biggest Empire in the world during her day
Really? She went out and conquered all that shit herself?
She was ... occupied.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fatally-yours.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fqueenvictoria.jpg&hash=7e5f17c4c0fea2cae47638d5131da99ac1998c14)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pippa-Middleton-Ass-Appreciation-Society/183120471735513
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-dLLde9IoCTE%2FTb4chxYeYeI%2FAAAAAAAAfFs%2FiorZj30-9Is%2Fs1600%2FPippa%252BMiddleton%252B%252B%252B4.JPG&hash=e29654297c9a6c741eff2f84bf8dde61fedff539)
Keeping on with the sauciness:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-HIIOeFElayA%2FTbxEQwMaxOI%2FAAAAAAAAMqg%2FXf9wWdZ1IWI%2Fs1600%2Fkate%2Bmiddletonoralsex.jpg&hash=7d076cded386007f9876a1b8a1ee13f2839ed7a2)
Quote from: The Larch on May 02, 2011, 09:12:25 AM
Keeping on with the sauciness:
Woah. William hangs low.
Must be some nasty noises from Kate if the little girl closes her ears like that.
For me, the most poinient part of royal wedding was this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13260188 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13260188)
Quote
Queues have formed around Westminster Abbey of crowds waiting to see the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding bouquet, as the royal couple are expected to return to Anglesey.
.....
The bridal bouquet has been placed, as is tradition, on the grave of the unknown warrior.
Containing British lily of the valley flowers, the placing of the bouquet there dates back to the Queen Mother who placed her own bouquet on the memorial in memory of her brother who was killed in World War I.
......
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 02, 2011, 10:20:07 AM
Must be some nasty noises from Kate if the little girl closes her ears like that.
Loud slurping. :yucky:
Is the Louis in William's name for Prince Louis Battenberg?
Quote from: The Larch on May 02, 2011, 09:12:25 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-HIIOeFElayA%2FTbxEQwMaxOI%2FAAAAAAAAMqg%2FXf9wWdZ1IWI%2Fs1600%2Fkate%2Bmiddletonoralsex.jpg&hash=7d076cded386007f9876a1b8a1ee13f2839ed7a2)
Polishing the royal sceptre. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Is the Louis in William's name for Prince Louis Battenberg?
Louis as in Louis Mountbatten of Burma, who was Louis of Battenberg's son.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 02, 2011, 09:12:25 AM
Keeping on with the sauciness:
Woah. William hangs low.
It doesn't matter whether it is humans or some other animal, if you focus on breeding just for the purpose of more breeding, in enough generations the progeny will develop superior reproductive characteristics.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 11:42:24 AM
Louis as in Louis Mountbatten of Burma, who was Louis of Battenberg's son.
Ah yeah. Well he was cool to.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 11:46:33 AM
Ah yeah. Well he was cool to.
The IRA certainly thought he was a blast.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
Hell Scotland and England were in the same situation up until the Act of Union.
And Salmond would like it to happen again. He's said that if Scotland were to become independent he'd like the Queen to remain Head of State (weirdly the royals apparently get on really well with Salmond).
Personally I loved the royal wedding to a somewhat absurd degree :blush:
Quote from: Liep on May 02, 2011, 09:02:14 AM
Pippa-Middleton-Ass-Appreciation-Society
I got my membership card.
I used to hang out with a guy in Boston whose last name is Middleton. I wonder if he is related. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2011, 03:43:10 AM
And Salmond would like it to happen again. He's said that if Scotland were to become independent he'd like the Queen to remain Head of State (weirdly the royals apparently get on really well with Salmond).
Personally I loved the royal wedding to a somewhat absurd degree :blush:
I understood that the Scots love the royals because of the Queen Mother. She was Scottish, after all, and made it a big part of her reign to include and recognize the Scots at every opportunity.
Quote from: merithyn on May 09, 2011, 08:14:42 AM
I understood that the Scots love the royals because of the Queen Mother. She was Scottish, after all, and made it a big part of her reign to include and recognize the Scots at every opportunity.
Quote from: merithyn on May 09, 2011, 08:14:42 AM
I understood that the Scots love the royals because of the Queen Mother. She was Scottish, after all, and made it a big part of her reign to include and recognize the Scots at every opportunity.
I grew up near her castle - she bought it when it was a bit of a wreck, did it up and then spent every summer up there. When she died Prince Charles took over that.
I don't think it's much to do with her though, maybe it was once. But the royals spend every summer in Balmoral - I think it's their favourite home. I think part of it is that the royals as a family on the throne pay a lot of attention to the idea of the nations, in a way that English elected politicians don't, so the Queen's very respectful of the Kirk and the Scottish Parliament.
My own perspective is that I think royals actually suit Scotland a bit more. They remind me of the local laird when I was growing up with their taste for dreach holidays shooting deer and fishing, wearing tartan and rather dourly and formally entertaining themselves. Admittedly I grew up in the Highlands so it was a highly rural area but the royals, like, say, gamekeepers and poachers, just seem to fit Scotland quite naturally.
Apparently, it's all gonna fail.
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/prince-william-beta-chump/
Quote
Kate Middleton, a rather mannish-looking princess-to-be (get a load of that wedge-shaped chin), has excised the 'obey' part from her wedding vows. Her feminist sensibilities have got the best of her, so she will not be vowing any obedience to her Prince. Perhaps William could take a page from her book and alter his wedding vows to suit a more contemporary interpretation:
"I, beta supremo, take thee, annoying ballbuster, to be my lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love as a legally recognized equal in every way except for those times I'm required to prop her on a pedestal and sing her praises to all and sundry, till death or a financial catastrophe from divorce us do part, according to culturally specific traditional folkways; and thereto I plight thee the last vestige of my manly fortitude."
I'm sure Kate batted her eyelashes and glowed a bit in the cheeks when she kindly asked directed William to accept her changes to the traditional English wedding vows, and I'm sure William, being the good enlightened poodleboy he is, pretended to happily agree, figuring that she would love him even more for his understanding and progressive attitude.
I've got news for ya, ol' chap. She won't. In fact, she'll likely come to resent you for caving to her demands.
To understand this female peculiarity with issuing demands they don't really want to see acceded, you have to envision that each woman has two mouths. One mouth, the face mouth, says the words that your ears actually hear. This is the mouth that concatenates and delivers the sentence fragments that form in the prefrontal cortex of her mind. She means these words, inasmuch as that part of her brain retains control over the other parts of her brain. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.
The other mouth, the vagina mouth, only says words that her hindbrain hears. These are words not meant for either your ears or her ears. Her hamster, though, does hear them, and his job is to spin those words, devilish as they are, into palatable rationalizations which are then shuttled to the polite and civilized cortex for mastication.
So, the face mouth says 'I will not obey and he better agree with me', while the vagina mouth whispers 'Jesus, if he bends to my feminist will I'm going to dry up in bed and start daydreaming of the gruff bouncer at Shariadiscoteque.'
Before I knew of this 'obey' tidbit, I would have given this celebutard marriage pretty good odds of surviving to the decrepit end. After all, she is marrying a prince. And she's not exactly the hottest babe he could have snagged. But now that this has come out, I revise my estimate downward. The chance of Kate absconding with a swarthy southerner on a weekend junket aboard his yacht has just doubled.
Like father, like son. Even royalty can't compensate for cringing betaness.
Quote
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froissy.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fwkhands900_252886a.jpg%3Fw%3D500%26amp%3Bh%3D444&hash=73f4b626a7210cb2b3ba082fe1e012b5a135a0a4)
Hand holding involves a dominant and a submissive hand position. The dominant hand is the one over the top of the other hand, with the palm facing backward.
Women prefer the submissive postures in relationships. It is their subconscious preference, as it is men's preference to assume the role of the dominant partner. Try it sometime with your girlfriend. Hold her hand in the reverse, where your palm faces forward like in the pic above. You will find your unconscious revolting against the act, a silent scream crying out from the cellar of your mind, begging for relief from the jarring oscillation to its rhythmic pulse.
William has subverted this natural predilection and holds Kate's hand in the submissive posture. I predict she will cheat on him before her 38th birthday.
Why does everything mean something else? Now I'm gonna be self-conscious about the way I hold hands. :unsure:
I didn't know the seduction community had a blog.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 03:35:14 PMWomen prefer the submissive postures in relationships. It is their subconscious preference, as it is men's preference to assume the role of the dominant partner.
Amen. But I don't think that means what I want it to mean.
QuoteWilliam has subverted this natural predilection and holds Kate's hand in the submissive posture. I predict she will cheat on him before her 38th birthday.
LOL reading into ergonomics.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 20, 2011, 04:33:37 PM
I didn't know the seduction community had a blog.
:whistle:
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 20, 2011, 04:33:37 PM
I didn't know the seduction community had a blog.
Right? What a load of crap.
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
I was wondering what it is about the seduction community that turns people into such rabidly bitchy asscunts, but then I realized that they are simply aquiring the social acceptance to adopt a veneer of what they believe will look like self-confidence but is infact extreme douchebaggery. Simply put, a lot of people are douchebags but simply don't get to express it enough without the acceptance of the peer group.
The seduction community doesn't turn people into douchebags, it just attracts the little parrotting me-toos.
In the battle for my soul, Lucifer is winning. I find fewer and fewer ingratiating traits in humanity every day. In fact, some days I find myself wondering if I wouldn't simply incinerate the lot of you if given the opportunity. Good thing we haven't found out yet.
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
Oh, no argument there. Information is not necessarily helpful.
But the power of non-verbal commands and cues is immense [make no mistake, your body screams a lot louder than you can imagine], and those who control it can do great good, or great harm. :sleep:
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:51:41 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
But the power of non-verbal commands and cues is immense [make no mistake, your body screams a lot louder than you can imagine], and those who control it can do great good, or great harm. :sleep:
Then we are agreed again. :hmm:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:51:41 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
But the power of non-verbal commands and cues is immense [make no mistake, your body screams a lot louder than you can imagine], and those who control it can do great good, or great harm. :sleep:
Then we are agreed again. :hmm:
That usually happens when you're not busy being a douche-cunt. :hug:
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:59:07 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:51:41 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
But the power of non-verbal commands and cues is immense [make no mistake, your body screams a lot louder than you can imagine], and those who control it can do great good, or great harm. :sleep:
Then we are agreed again. :hmm:
That usually happens when you're not busy being a douche-cunt. :hug:
At least according to the seduction community, that would make me alpha. :P
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:48:46 AM
In the battle for my soul, Lucifer is winning. I find fewer and fewer ingratiating traits in humanity every day. In fact, some days I find myself wondering if I wouldn't simply incinerate the lot of you if given the opportunity. Good thing we haven't found out yet.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsynthesis.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F01%2Femperor.jpg&hash=00f336fc34828a83f783a59b592fa3becec5a9b4)
I am pleased
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:48:46 AM
I was wondering what it is about the seduction community that turns people into such rabidly bitchy asscunts, but then I realized that they are simply aquiring the social acceptance to adopt a veneer of what they believe will look like self-confidence but is infact extreme douchebaggery. Simply put, a lot of people are douchebags but simply don't get to express it enough without the acceptance of the peer group.
The seduction community doesn't turn people into douchebags, it just attracts the little parrotting me-toos.
In the battle for my soul, Lucifer is winning. I find fewer and fewer ingratiating traits in humanity every day. In fact, some days I find myself wondering if I wouldn't simply incinerate the lot of you if given the opportunity. Good thing we haven't found out yet.
I think the seduction community people are rather pathetic. I imagine them to be some pimpled, greasy nerds who sit in their armchairs and think they can "mastermind" some hot chick into having a pity-fuck with them.
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:48:46 AM
I was wondering what it is about the seduction community that turns people into such rabidly bitchy asscunts, but then I realized that they are simply aquiring the social acceptance to adopt a veneer of what they believe will look like self-confidence but is infact extreme douchebaggery. Simply put, a lot of people are douchebags but simply don't get to express it enough without the acceptance of the peer group.
The seduction community doesn't turn people into douchebags, it just attracts the little parrotting me-toos.
In the battle for my soul, Lucifer is winning. I find fewer and fewer ingratiating traits in humanity every day. In fact, some days I find myself wondering if I wouldn't simply incinerate the lot of you if given the opportunity. Good thing we haven't found out yet.
I think the seduction community people are rather pathetic. I imagine them to be some pimpled, greasy nerds who sit in their armchairs and think they can "mastermind" some hot chick into having a pity-fuck with them.
I doubt you are correct.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmysterypua.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fmysterypua.jpg&hash=8a527de43a9484d5fdd3b5d58b3d9e25b995c4ce)
enjoying the hijack
I think you should use pictures of that tranny Pete something, the singer from Dead or Alive, as thread hijacks. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 23, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
I think you should use pictures of that tranny Pete something, the singer from Dead or Alive, as thread hijacks. :)
As the thread had been hijacked by the seduction community, my pic fits and your suggestion is stupid. +1 Ed Anger Disapproval point.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 23, 2011, 07:57:55 AM
As the thread had been hijacked by the seduction community, my pic fits and your suggestion is stupid. +1 Ed Anger Disapproval point.
I'm really racking them up these days. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on May 23, 2011, 07:59:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 23, 2011, 07:57:55 AM
As the thread had been hijacked by the seduction community, my pic fits and your suggestion is stupid. +1 Ed Anger Disapproval point.
I'm really racking them up these days. :cool:
There is a prize at 10.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
Some of the psychology they (ab)use is interesting, but I think the whole thing is rooted in insecurity. They are people who are prone to worry anyway, and this gives their minds shiny distractions to worry about and channels that energy into something they believe will make them feel better about themselves: getting laid.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
I'm siding with Pitiful Pathos here. The whole idea of the "seduction community" is nerds studying players and codifying this in "nerdspeak" so that they can fake being men having fun and fun being around with, and weasel their way into a girl's pants.
But it's still deeply rooted in fear : of women, of rejection, that they might not be enough. Hence this obsession that should be "dominant" pushed too far, to the point of acting like real jerkasses. What they don't understand is, if the girl already digs you to begin with, as long as you don't sound like a serial killer when you open your mouth she'll like you anyway, and will more than likely sleep with you or give you her real number.
Besides, most "gurus" are already good-looking to begin with and know where they market themselves in, so of course they are getting ass. But they won't tell the 350-lbs fatso with a white t-shirt to lose his fat and get some style, otherwise they'll risk losing the customer. So they sell him the dream that he may pull hot chicks as he is instead.
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:51:41 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 22, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 22, 2011, 11:37:15 AM
Maybe you get used to it, but I think it would be exhausting to neurotically analyze every little social nuance through that lens.
Every little social nouance has meaning even if you're not scrutinizing it. [IE the tree falls even if you don't hear it]
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Well, the interactions are seen through a lens of dubious veracity in the first place. And the analysis of every nuance through that lens comes with a host of neurotic worries. "Is my hand on top of hers?" OMG, I am not an alpha male", "she will cheat on me", etc.
Oh, no argument there. Information is not necessarily helpful.
But the power of non-verbal commands and cues is immense [make no mistake, your body screams a lot louder than you can imagine], and those who control it can do great good, or great harm. :sleep:
There is no doubt that people communicate through non-verbal cues, but it is always more of a 'complete package over time' deal.
Determining whether one person is "dominant" over another by way of a pic of which way they happen to hold hands strikes me as total and complete bullshit. :lol: That's like taking a pic of Prince Charming there smiling at the hired help, and deducing he's planning an affair with her.
:yes:
The classic literary reference in the wordpress site is a nice touch.
Anyhow, of course self-confidence and non-verbal cues matter when you're trying to get laid. It's the codification, spurious theory development and general nerdy obsession that makes it pathetic. That and taking the insight that it helps not to care too much and neurotically obsessing about how to make yourself look like that.