Now that the jewel-encrusted unicorn march called “The Royal Wedding” is over, Britain’s souvenir vendors wanna unload all their crappy commemorative plates. Sure, Britain’s own citizens still don’t have full marriage equality but whether you loved the ceremony or hated it, everyone can appreciate our suggested bouquet of romantic collector’s items to help you and your queen royally celebrate your brains out.
Start your evening by drinking some viagra-laced “Royal Virility” beer, a limited-edition ale brewed just for the occasion and sold only in the UK where Viagra requires no prescription. Then carry your Princess into your opulent suite where you will first slip into something more comfortable—a “Royal Jewels Commemorative Condom.” The affordable $16 three-pack comes with this royal proclamation:
Combining the strength of a Prince with the yielding sensitivity of a Princess-to-be, Crown Jewels condoms promise a royal union of pleasure. Truly a King amongst Condoms.
Copy writing that great doesn’t come cheap. And once you’ve had too many rounds of pretentious boozey sex, you and your royal mate can rush to the throne room and yawn rainbows into a Royal Wedding sick bag! Just when you thought the wedding couldn’t get any better!
When you regain consciousness you and yours can enjoy some quiet quality time together knitting your own royal wedding. Of all the tacky souvenirs, it’s the only one we kinda actually wanted.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Cam
I’m waiting for “John From England” to come on here and tell us again how tacky America is and that there is nothing like that in England. Come on John. 😉
EdWoody
You can say Britain doesn’t have marriage equality all you like, it doesn’t make it so. Same-sex unions in Britain are exactly equal to opposite-sex marriages in all but name, and we don’t care abut the name because we don’t have America’s slavery-and-religious-hysteria issues.
Cam
@EdWoody:
Ok Ed, then we are going to allow women to vote here…but you know, we won’t CALL it a vote, because we don’t want to upset people and we need to let those people feel that they are still superior to women. So women will NOT vote, they will clop. Nothing wrong with that is there?
Additionally, you may feel that your civil unions in Britain are equal but many other places in the world don’t see them that way. Remember Elton John and David Furnish were denied the right to adopt a foreign baby because the host country said that they were not “Married” and their laws were worded that only “Married” foreign couples may adopt.
It isn’t that we here in America want Marriage because of religeous and Slavery over-hype. It is because we did not exist for generations with a system that immediately granted some people a title at birth that officially put them above everybody else. Even though we do not have equality amoung all citizens here, we still strive for it and do not appriciate it when it isn’t given.
robert in NYC
EdWoody, the UK will probably get civil marriage equality sooner than anyone thinks. Apparently, a consultation is soon to begin to do just that, allowing same-sex couples the right to marry and opposite sex couples to have a civil partnership by choice. Just because you don’t care for marriage doesn’t mean you should not support those who do. Its not going to harm a civil partnership and neither will marriage equality. Everybody becomes truly equal and importantly, the have a choice, nobody is banned from anything.
Cam, British royalty is NOT above the law or superior to anyone else and as such is subject to the laws of the land as anybody else is in the UK. The absolute power of the monarchy ended with the Bill of Rights in 1689. There are quite a number of monarchies around the world, most of them concentrated in Europe. The British monarchy is there by the grace of the people and is a constitutional monarchy I might add and answerable to Parliament which is the only body allowed to enact legislation without any interference from the throne.
England was a republic briefly during the civil war of 1641-1652 when the monarchy was abolished albeit temporary, but it was restored by mutual consent of the people and Parliament in 1688 and has remained to this day. The UK as we know it didn’t emerge until 1701 with the Act of Union. The Bill of Rights also gave birth to the act of Habeus Corpus that came into effect in 1679, one of the foundations of the U.S. judicial system inherited from England in addition to its legal system and differs greatly from the Napoleonic code used in France and its former colonies where one is considered guilty until proven innocent.
Cam
@robert in NYC: said “Cam, British royalty is NOT above the law or superior to anyone else and as such is subject to the laws of the land as anybody else is in the UK. The absolute power of the monarchy ended with the Bill of Rights in 1689. ”
_______________________________
Robert, I was not speaking about the British Royalty specifically but about the entire titled nobility there. Britain for generations had an incredibly ridged class system which also supported the nobility. I understand that there isn’t an absolute pwer death grip held, but to try to say that there wasn’t a strong understanding that somebody with the Title “Lord” before their name was automatically going to be treated differently than somebody who didn’t is silly.
If you are born automatically knowing that most of you are automatically less than merely by not having an outdated title, I can see why some people would then not mind a system which, while handing you your rigths, still separates you out as different.
robert in NYC
Cam, I’m a British citizen with dual American citizenship. I don’t feel any different to royalty and neither do the majority of the British people for that matter. They may be viewed by some as being different by some, but that’s not the majority view. Just because someone is born with a golden spoon in their mouth doesn’t make any of us in the UK feel any different just because they have a title. Most British people are indifferent to it and definitely don’t feel inferior. The once notorious class system is rapidly disappearing. I don’t know of any country where there isn’t some form of it, in fact there is some in this country between the wealthy in the republican party and their disdain for the middle class as well as the corporate elite who despise them.
Believe me, many of the anti-monarchists in this country were probably among the majority who watched the recent wedding. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Cam
@robert in NYC: said..
“Believe me, many of the anti-monarchists in this country were probably among the majority who watched the recent wedding. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.”
____________________
Wow, what is it about some of the Britts on here that many cannot come in without some kind of dig.
“Anti-Monarchists”? really? Is that what you said? Sorry, but nobody here really cares that much.
You said that the class system there is “Rapidly dissapearing” however, that means:
1. It isn’t gone yet
2. people there grew up under it
So back to the subject of my origional comment, people that gew up under that may accept a separate but equal designation in a way that Americans, with our history and more importantly with the history of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, wouldn’t. This isn’t meant as an insult to Britts, the same way large number of Americans wouldn’t like Marmite, we weren’t raised with it.
robert in NYC
Cam, you and I will never agree on this issue and I assume you’ve never lived in the UK as far as I know. Stereotyping an entire society based on past history and assumptions just doesn’t hack it any more. You talk as if there is no such thing as class structure in this country as if doesn’t exist or ever existed. The reason why some British people come here and “have a dig” is that there is a lot of misinformation about the UK, a lot of it no longer applicable and some of it just made up from stereotypes, pure ignorance. I myself am not a royalist, but I respect it and one thing that galls me and other Brits is the immense ignorance displayed by some of the comments we read in the media and on this site.
As for anti-monarchists and your statement that nobody really cares here….then nobody should be posting articles about the UK’s cultural and historic traditions if they really don’t care, including Queerty. I find it ironic that a country which rejected monarchy obsesses about it when significant events such as the recent wedding or any scandal emerges. I find that hypocritical to say the least.
With all its faults, the UK has done a lot more for LGBT people than this country has, far more. A much fairer place for LGBT people to live and it hasn’t stopped to guarantee that full equality will be granted to its LGBT citizens.
SapientHomo
You forgot a product…
The Royal Wedding Commemorative Cock Ring
http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/product.cfm?p=21868
Cam
@robert in NYC:
All you do though, is keep deflecting from the origional post. You attacked the U.S. with a load of hyperbole about Slavery and Religion because overall people here are not satisfied with Civil unions and want marriage.
I pointed out that Seperate but equal is anathma here after Brown v. Board of ed and doesn’t really go down easy with people in the U.S. and perhaps it doesn’t matter to Britts as much because of the long history of the very ridgid class system.
Those were the origional comments, you still haven’t really responded just why it is you seem to be advocating for a seperate but equal designation for yourself.
EdWoody
@Cam: It wasn’t Robert who mentioned slavery and religion, it was me. And what I meant by it is: If not for already having gone through the racial tensions brought about by slavery, US citizens probably wouldn’t be so offended by the idea of civil unions as a valid alternative to marriage. That’s a touchy issue for you, understandably so. But we Brits, as a generalization, don’t see it as such a big deal, because we’re not working with these issues in our cultural viewpoint. We focus on the “equal” part, not the “separate” part.
And I find it particularly ironic that the US specifically enshrines separation of church and state into its constitution, but in practise the churches practically run the country. The thought of electing someone to the office of President who doesn’t profess a strong religious conviction is unthinkable to a vast number of Americans. Whereas in the UK, where the head of state IS the head of the religion, the churches have next to no effect on the everyday life of the average citizen and certainly not in politics.
The combined result of these is that Brits, in general, are happy with the bread-and-butter practical benefits of civil unions, without pining for the purely symbolic benefits of marriage.
robert in NYC
Cam, nowhere did I refer to slavery or endorsing civil unions (partnerships) to the exclusion of marriage.
EdWoody….like it or not….marriage equality is coming in the UK. I personally don’t care for civil partnerships, but I’m certainly going to defend the right of those gays and straights who want them, they should be retained as a matter of choice for both orientations. However, I think civil marriage should also be available to those of us who would prefer it and should not be opposed by those gays among us who don’t. There should and must be choice for both orientations, whether one agrees with it or not. I see no reason why a straight couple shouldn’t have have a civil partnership and gays who want a civil marriage instead. You have to see the larger picture. Civil partnerships will never be universally recognized for either orientation. Its not the trend when you look at the number of countries now allowing us to marry, 10 already, and growing.
Civil partnerships are unequal in terms of the benefits and privileges they confer when you compare them to the French PACs which offer far fewer rights to a British CP’d couple residing in France as an example. Further, Civil Unions in the U.S. as well as marriage for that matter only confer rights at the state level, not the national (federal). If all civil unions including partnerships conferred identical rights to civil marriage, then that might make a good argument. As far as I know, British CPs are at odds with the way pensions are distributed as opposed to marriage. State final-salary pension schemes will only pay out survivor’s benefits for years of service after 1988, although widow’s pensions in most schemes and widower’s pensions in some are based on years of services starting from earlier dates. Private occupational schemes only need to use years of service after the civil partnership came into force for survivorship benefits, although most use all years of service. The UK basic state pension is complicated and the benefits are not entirely equal for civil partners as compared to married couples. So, in reality CPs are still unequal to marriage.
Cam
@robert in NYC:
Sorry Robert, that was Ed Woody not you!
pavelzxukk
preteen models
nn preteen babes
tgp 026
preteem models nude
childrens models tgp
top pretenn cutie
preteen modeling pictures
juliette nonude
carolmodel preteen pics
nonude child young models
little preteen models nn
free nn preteen models picture galleries
galleries free nonude preteens
youngest sexy child pics
little models sexy photos galleries nonude
preteen models topsites
kids no nude fachion
freegalls com
young cuties preteen
preteen model link
popular girl lina model
pre teens nonude pics
lolita videos
pretee tgp
preteen modeling bikini pics
nonude preteen model gallery
100 no nude model con