This Saturday in London, Prince Harry marries Meghan Markle. I keep checking the mailbox every day but my invitation must have been misplaced. 😉 My Mother in Australia is sending me messages daily about it, but the reality of living in a city the size of London is that famous people do things here all…
Continue reading: British Airways Is Celebrating The Royal Wedding (In Some Unusual Ways)
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Really interested if anyone will actually use the "cheap" opportunity to try to lounge for example.. I know I would 🙂
@ Samy - if I was named Harry I'd probably book a 4,000 Avios redemption somewhere on Saturday in order to utilise it.
Most right-minded people here in the UK don't give poo about the royals. I said right-minded not the majority thought 😉
Prince Harry and I share the same birth day (birth year is 2 yrs off). Would I get anything? 🙂
@vlcnc Brits fall into two camps, those that love the Royals and those that love telling people they don't care about the royals.
Isn't Harry generally a nickname akin to "Dick" for guys named Richard or "Peg" for girls named Margaret? In this situation, the Prince's real name is Henry. Since boarding passes require a legal name (i.e. nicknames not allowed) will they grant access to guys with names like Henry, Harold, or Harrison? I suppose this doesn't matter since I don't have any of those names, nor do I plan on flying out of Heathrow this Saturday.
I don't want to get into politics but in a country that is not poor and where people are having to go to food banks - the royal wedding is an obscenity in my view.
This is of course without getting into the fact royals are undemocratic and serve no real purpose and cost us a lot of money - and before someone pipes in with the tourism economy, it is unlikely people wouldn't come to visit the history of the royals without them in place so the net gain in the economy doesn't work as an argument.
Weimar M Osborne
“Isn’t Harry generally a nickname”
Yes. But after his birth, it was announced that while his first name was Henry he would be known as HRH Prince Harry. So it’s kind of his official name. Sort of.
Though I’m with vlcnc; the great radical Thomas Paine argued that it is as absurd to have hereditary heads of state as hereditary mathematicians or hereditary surgeons. I can’t argue with that.
Only the brain-dead fawn over these parasites. With that said, I get the excitement for this particular wedding. BA needs to calm down (but hey, good publicity).
Prince Harry and I share the same birth day (birth year is 2 yrs off). Would I get anything?
--
I know someone that told me of a shared birthday with Hitler, albeit different year.
And I thought the royal couple were getting married at Windsor Castle.
Do you Londoners consider Windsor to be London; my friends who live near Windsor would politely object to that.
Does anyone know if Howie Mandel and any of the other suitcase girls from Deal or No Deal will be at the wedding? Is Howie flying BA First???
Cheers to the happy couple!
I see that with another royal event, the anti-monarchists have gone into overdrive on their soapbox to educate “the brain dead” for fawning over “the parasites”, because afterall, heredity monarchy is “undemocratic” and “cost of a lot of money.”
Might I recommend you lot fly out this weekend to such great republic utopias as North Korea (or even the United States), while us braindeads from undemocratic countries such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and the UK ponder why our constitutional monarchies are terrible while we watch the royal wedding.
"This Saturday in London". James you have done great work in winning over the UK readers of this blog but you have just undone that work with that sentence.
Seriously I'd expect that kind of generalisation from Lucky- much like England = UK, British Isles = UK etc. but from a man living in London (and an Aussie who gets the nuances) who knows that Windsor isn't London, come on.
And before people get funny, there is a huge difference in the UK between a Royal wedding in Windsor and one in London.
Will BA destroy the vibe with made-for-airlines 187ml mini-bottles of champers for their passenger giveaway?
@ vlcnc - Millions of people visit the UK due to the royals. They and their various castles etc are a major tourist attraction. So the UK does very well out of the royals. Further, they play an important apolitical role in supporting various charities as do their representatives in the commonwealth in the form of the governors general (and lieutenant governor generals in provinces of Canada, for instance).
Semantics! Windsor is closer to LONDON Heathrow Airport than London. Sufficiently close, but technically not London, but then again nor is LHR.
Kudos BA, at least they are doing something a bit different and entering the spirit, like they did with the Gold nose in the Olympics.
Royalists v Republican trolls, go play somewhere else. Irrelevant to this post or story.
Seems there are also those who see the virtues of a monarchy... and then those elsewhere who love to tell others how bad a monarchy is.
Give me a monarchy over the messes in Republics any day. There's certainly a lot more republics with terrible governance - and conditions for their citizens - than there are monarchies.
@ Main Man
“technically not London, but then again nor is LHR.”
WTF? LHR *is* in London, part of the territory of the Mayor of London and London Assembly, and within the London Borough of Hillingdon.
In what sense is LHR “technically not London”?
@ Janet
“Millions of people visit the UK due to the royals. They and their various castles etc are a major tourist attraction.”
Just like millions of people visit France and see the Louvre and Versailles.
You don’t actually need living inhabitants in order to keep the palaces as tourist attractions. In fact, people see a lot more of, eg, Sandringham House when the royals aren’t in it.
Check out the National Trust sometime...
@ MH
“Give me a monarchy over the messes in Republics any day. ”
Quite right. And I take it you only travel in planes which are flown by hereditary pilots?
Why not introduce the hereditary principle into every aspect of our lives? From now on, only Lucky’s sons and daughters will ever write for OMAAT, and only the children of existing commenters will be allowed to comment. In perpetuity.
Let’s end all this democracy nonsense and go back to the Good Old Days where everyone knew their place. Yes, that’s a world I’d like to live in.
Have you been watching the tv adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale, at all...?
@ The nice Paul
I've been following and enjoying your comments for quite a while now. When are you going to light that cigar?
Well, they could have put on special English food in the lounges. Maybe not even traditional wedding fare but comfort food for travelers, like Bangers and Mash, Chip Butties, Toad in the hole, even some Spotted Dick. The name thing is too exclusive.
In UK ,Harry can be the name on a passport but not common , more common is men named Harold and Henry who are called Harry, but I doubt BA will accept nicknames . Otherwise anyone could arrive and say my nickname is Harry !!
@ the nice Paul.
Love the writings and wit . I flew BA last weekend from YVR to LHR and the lovely sky waitress asked me if I’m flying over for wedding festivities ? When I said that I would only go out of my way for a royal be heading she seemed quite perturbed. Even in Canada we can’t get rid of this primitive ass backwards monarchy.
Ba also had a clown marching along the check in counters dressed as a Beefeater (Buckingham Palace guard ) but with a red plastic nose and funny shoes.
Not a fan of the royals or the wedding but good on BA and it left a smile on my face
@ The nice Paul
As you agree with the statement on differences in quality between republics and monarchies, perhaps if you produce some evidence showing that hereditary pilots are safer than I might consider it.
I'll continue to support where the weight of evidence lies, which is not in evidence in your other scenarios. Probably because being those in your other scenarios doesn't automatically grant you potentials of extreme power and money, whereas governance of a country does.
Oh, and funnily enough you refer to the "good old days" as though it's past, yet monarchies are still present days - and many quite successful.
Quite right: we should all use evidence.
How about North Korea? That appears to be a dynastic monarchy. Is that going well, would you say?
Then there’s all those interesting places in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia, to take one example.
I do find it fascinating how often monarchists cite Our Dear Queen as evidence of the inate superiority of hereditary heads of state, while citing the worst possible elected presidents. Let’s see how we get on with the next monarch, a man famous for his inability to keep his nose out of places that aren’t his to influence.
Don’t forget the Queen was also fortunate (?) to get the throne in her early 20s. From now on it’s much more likely that the throne will be inherited by a succession of 70 or 80 year old bald men, which is going to look very much less glamorous - or relatable.
You are also, of course, condemning the children to a life of sequestration and limited choice. What if William doesn’t *want* to be head of state? His great-grandfather famously did not, but got dumped with it - but that was at a time when people had a different conception of ”duty”.
Finally, in evidence, can I offer the fragrant Mary Robinson, president of Ireland for many years, the epitome of the gracious elected head of state. Elected presidents don’t have to be dummies - that’s our choice (or should be).