Anyone else annoyed with the Pippa Middleton coverage?

1235

Comments

  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    There is no Pippa Middleton coverage


    There is only Pippa Middleton's arse coverage
  • NormandieNormandie Posts: 4,617
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lamaestra wrote: »
    What chip, Mary? Since when did not liking someone mean one has a chip on one's shoulder?
    Since when one expresses an extreme dislike about someone based on nothing other than what is peddled by the Daily Wail and similar manipulative... organs... :D

    I'm no fawner, deer me no, but neither am I persuaded to hate someone I don't know who has apparently done nothing dreadful to me - or to society at large - to earn that hate. I'm just not that judgemental. Or lacking in self-esteem.
    Lamaestra wrote: »
    And just because you Brits fawn over overprivileged poshos, don't make the mistake of thinking the rest of the world does.
    The number of viewers of The Wedding last year and the substantial increases in readership of newspapers and magazines in chunks of the rest of the world when royalty features prove that assertion incorrect.

    Though, don't get me wrong, I find the fascination other countries continue to show for British royalty quite strange in the 21st century. France had saturation wedding coverage, for eg, though some of the commentary was quite sharp - and they chopped their monarchy over 200 years ago. It's pretty and shiny and fairytale, I suppose - even if the fairytale has proved to be somewhat flawed over recent decades.
  • user1234567user1234567 Posts: 12,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Lamaestra wrote: »
    What chip, Mary? Since when did not liking someone mean one has a chip on one's shoulder?

    I do not like the Royals. I am politically opposed to them and to all privilege by birthright. Like respect, it should be earned.

    I speak my mind and tell it like it is. Accept it because I'll never change.
    Do you think you are earning respect by coming out with sweeping generalisations such as "just because you Brits fawn over overprivileged posho's"? Not liking the monarchy is understandable as it is pretty outdated in a democratic society but the intense dislike you feel for the Middleton sisters seems disproportionate to that view.

    By the way, at what level of privilege do you deem it acceptable to be born into? Unless children are born to homeless people, all children are born privileged to some degree. Is it ok to be born to parents who worked to pay for their house? If the parents die, is it ok for the children to inherit the house or should it go to the governement? What about parents who live in council houses? They're not paying for it, so should they be even allowed to have children in the first place?

    How would you go about disbanding the monarchy? The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth. Would you create a new position where someone is voted for by all the countries to represent them? There are loads and loads of issues to deal with including political, economic and social. I'm sure you have thought a great deal about all of these as you really seem to have it in for the Royals. Either that or you latch onto the simplistic view that Upper Class people are all priveleged snobs and have never done a days work in their life and serve no purpose other than to be figures of hate for people such as yourself. I do think you have a chip on your shoulder but it goes beyond the scope of a light hearted showbiz thread.
  • NormandieNormandie Posts: 4,617
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Quite, Mary Patricia...and, of course, the Middleton family aren't over-privileged poshos (whatever that is) - the family had a perfectly commonplace background and they've worked hard for what they've got. And their three kids aren't famous for falling out of bars drunk, snorting substances various or producing clutches of kids who they then don't support.

    The Middletons look a class act to me and representative of the best of Britain.

    Though I don't know them. :p
  • Pippa 2Pippa 2 Posts: 2,614
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Am I the only person that thinks Pippa is actually pretty plain and ordinary looking? Certainly not in Kate's league anyway.


    You're not the only person. I think the same too. Pippa has got leathery skin like the sun (or sunbeds) has aged her prematurely but Kate is fresh faced and I wish she would put on weight. She's too thin.
  • LamaestraLamaestra Posts: 1,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One thing I have noticed about all Royalists, they all seem incapable of accepting and respecting differences of opinion in a mature and intelligent manner and have to resort to the playground mentality of personal insults.

    But thank you for your input, you have the right to your opinion as do I.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Am I the only person that thinks Pippa is actually pretty plain and ordinary looking? Certainly not in Kate's league anyway.

    In the 5 seconds I have spent pondering her attactiveness, I noted that evidently one gains 5 points on the Attractiveness Scale simply by being upper class.

    As for her adolescent backside (that seems to have its own PR agency), I'm not impressed - mine is shapelier, more pert, and probably has better texture*.

    It seems that the newspapers are intoxicated with even the slightest thread connecting to royalty.

    Off with their heads! Or more reasonably: It's long past time this country became a republic.






    *Review by interested party.
    I'm a male racing cyclist.
    Your partner's comments/loyalty may vary.
  • LamaestraLamaestra Posts: 1,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scumble, my friend, the voice of sense and reason!
  • LamaestraLamaestra Posts: 1,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How would I disband the monarchy, Mary? The same way as the French did in 1792/93!
  • NormandieNormandie Posts: 4,617
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ...and then await the arrival of a British Sarkozy. Or Le Pen, all genders available. Trust me, just because an election features, it's not necessarily an improvement.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Normandie wrote: »
    ...and then await the arrival of a British Sarkozy. Or Le Pen, all genders available. Trust me, just because an election features, it's not an improvement.

    Not a convincing argument in favour of keeping the monarchy. By that reasoning we shouldn't bother voting for anything.

    How on earth can you be Head of State of an advanced democracy for life simply because of the family you were born into?

    Ridiculous.
  • LamaestraLamaestra Posts: 1,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My sentiments exactly, Scumble. At least an elected Government/Head of State was genuinely voted in and can just as easily be voted out. Now THAT is democracy.
  • elnombreelnombre Posts: 3,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lamaestra wrote: »
    Being a Royalist is being idiotic.

    And assuming all Brits are royalists is even more so. :rolleyes:
  • Laura PLaura P Posts: 1,253
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are many threads in the general discussion forums for debating liking/disliking the monarchy. Can't we keep this one on topic, which is about the over-saturation of Pippa Middleton in the media? The showbiz forum just isn't the place for this kind of debating.
  • user1234567user1234567 Posts: 12,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Laura P wrote: »
    There are many threads in the general discussion forums for debating liking/disliking the monarchy. Can't we keep this one on topic, which is about the over-saturation of Pippa Middleton in the media? The showbiz forum just isn't the place for this kind of debating.
    Back seat modding is far more irritating than when you think someone has gone off topic. If you read the whole thing, the references to the monarchy/royals were relevant. I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist. It's not like this is a fast moving thread that was hijacked or even one that you post in much. You've posted twice and one of those times was to chastise other posters. Chill out. And for the record, the topic isn't about the over saturation of Pippa Middleton, it's about whether or not the coverage of her annoys you ;)

    Don't want to get in trouble for going off topic so here's my thoughts on Pippa - she doesn't annoy me in the slightest. She seems harmless and doesn't actively seek out the publicity. However, the media's obsession with her and her arse is very annoying.
  • Laura PLaura P Posts: 1,253
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Back seat modding is far more irritating than when you think someone has gone off topic. If you read the whole thing, the references to the monarchy/royals were relevant. I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist. It's not like this is a fast moving thread that was hijacked or even one that you post in much. You've posted twice and one of those times was to chastise other posters. Chill out. And for the record, the topic isn't about the over saturation of Pippa Middleton, it's about whether or not the coverage of her annoys you ;)

    No backseat modding, or knickers in twists, just making an innocent point.

    I think you're more wound up about the off-topicness than I am given how defensive your reply is.
  • Ivy RoseIvy Rose Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    Bumping this as the Fail are going on about her bottom AGAIN because she went to another wedding and wore another bum flattering outfit. Urgh, so what!!! I truly don't understand the obsession with this woman. It's really irritating.
  • twellstwells Posts: 1,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    scumble wrote: »
    Not a convincing argument in favour of keeping the monarchy. By that reasoning we shouldn't bother voting for anything.

    How on earth can you be Head of State of an advanced democracy for life simply because of the family you were born into?

    Ridiculous.

    Great for tourism, though. How many visitors would the UK get without the royal family and Buckingham palace and the "changing of the guard" and all that. The biggest theme park in the world. The Royals earn their pay.
  • Ivy RoseIvy Rose Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    twells wrote: »
    Great for tourism, though. How many visitors would the UK get without the royal family and Buckingham palace and the "changing of the guard" and all that. The biggest theme park in the world. The Royals earn their pay.

    I feel this way about the Royals myself.

    Can't abide Pippa though. She just leaves me cold.
  • conchieconchie Posts: 14,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't get the personal animosity towards Pippa at all, though I do understand how people can get fed up seeing feature after feature about her in the papers... especially The Mail, but then again you would feel that if anyone seemed to be making an appearance in the papers every second day.

    Bottom line is... (no pun intended).... she is out and about...she goes to dinner, she goes to weddings etc etc like everyone else.... the press CHOOSE to pap her.... what is she supposed to do about that.

    She is Kate's sister and since the explosion of media coverage about her bum in that dress it just seems to have sealed the deal where she is concerned. She is up there as grade A PAP fodder, and as her sister's fame is hardly likely to ever diminish, only increase especially when junior comes along... Pippa too will feature more and more.... the devoted auntie stories are probably being written already..... and now that it seems by today's news, Harry and Cressida are heading for the rocks..... the ever availabe and suitable Pippa will be touted again as the ideal candidate for him. It just goes on and on.
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    conchie wrote: »
    I don't get the personal animosity towards Pippa at all, though I do understand how people can get fed up seeing feature after feature about her in the papers... especially The Mail, but then again you would feel that if anyone seemed to be making an appearance in the papers every second day.

    Bottom line is... (no pun intended).... she is out and about...she goes to dinner, she goes to weddings etc etc like everyone else.... the press CHOOSE to pap her.... what is she supposed to do about that.

    She is Kate's sister and since the explosion of media coverage about her bum in that dress it just seems to have sealed the deal where she is concerned. She is up there as grade A PAP fodder, and as her sister's fame is hardly likely to ever diminish, only increase especially when junior comes along... Pippa too will feature more and more.... the devoted auntie stories are probably being written already..... and now that it seems by today's news, Harry and Cressida are heading for the rocks..... the ever availabe and suitable Pippa will be touted again as the ideal candidate for him. It just goes on and on.




    Personally, she's like an annoying fly that refuses to be swatted. She has (IMHO) ashamedly cashed in on her sister's fame by writing guff about how to make ice cubes at a party. The woman is a talentless social climber who has insisted on thrusting herself into the public's consciousness, therefore, should not be surprised when she gets criticised.

    It's telling that her book has faced cripplingly low sales.
  • CitizenofPhobosCitizenofPhobos Posts: 1,677
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm sorry but if it came to constantly hearing about Pippa Middleton or Kim Kardashian a woman who's claim to fame was home made porn films, I know who'd I'd rather hear about.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Vacuous parasite with an unremarkable *rse mops up blank space on the Mail's website. This is what we gave up our manufacturing base for .................... Christ on Bike !!!!
  • Mr DangerousMr Dangerous Posts: 902
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sorry but if it came to constantly hearing about Pippa Middleton or Kim Kardashian a woman who's claim to fame was home made porn films, I know who'd I'd rather hear about.

    Yep, I'm more annoyed at the coverage of Kim and her pointless can of unemployed family....so really coverage of Pippa's sweet backside is more preferable...:o
  • Scarlett BerryScarlett Berry Posts: 21,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    scumble wrote: »
    Not a convincing argument in favour of keeping the monarchy. By that reasoning we shouldn't bother voting for anything.

    How on earth can you be Head of State of an advanced democracy for life simply because of the family you were born into?Ridiculous.

    Billiantly put. My sentiments exactly
Sign In or Register to comment.