Lifelong Welfare Case to Hold Lavish Wedding at Public Expense


Details here.

NEXT: Speed 5: This Time for Sure!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Second best headline of the decade after The Onion’s announcement of Obama’s electoral victory.

    1. Now you’ve piqued my curiosity. Do you remember it off hand or can you furnish us with a link?

        1. I thought he meant this one. (Either way, thanks.)

          1. Ah, I was close without even having to crack my fingers to do some Google searching.

          2. This one was pretty funny, too.

        2. Actually I was thinking of, well probably a paraphrase — Black Man Given World’s Worst Job

    2. I didn’t see The Onion headline, so I was thinking “best evah!” Still haven’t checked Onion link, and I remain very enthusiastic about this one.

    3. I dunno. I think I may have to stick with Jesse for the #1 slot.

      1. It’s a mighty fine headline, I have no qualm about the slight difference in taste.

  2. All such welfare cases should bring in as much tourist revenue as this one.

    1. You really don’t think about shit before you post it, do you?

      1. Do you put much thought into your bowel movements?

    2. So, you are saying they could easily pay their own way without public subsidy? Damn fine observation, Max.

    3. Ol’ Dirty Bastard from the Wu-Tang Clan adhered to that theory.

      Nothing like defrauding the NYC Department of Public Services.

  3. “Hmmm.. I’m the heir to the English throne. I’m bloody rich, a celebrity, a handsome devil, and can have any woman I want. How can I make my life less awesome? I know!”

    1. Barney from “How I Met Your Mother” would be disappointed.

    2. By marrying the hottie he’s been dating for many years, and is likely in love with? This is your idea of making one’s life less awesome?

      1. He must be sick of having sex with her, and this is his way of insuring he’ll only have to do so a couple more times before he gets to stop.

      2. she is not a hottie, a solid 7, nowhere near hottie territory…

        1. Yeah, I’m sure you pull much hotter tail.

        2. Maybe not a 10, but definitely a lifetime achievement for most men.

          1. Well said.

          2. The future King of England should be able to score a 10. But maybe in England she is a 10 and he needs to visit some college campuses in the US to know what a real 10 is.

        3. Ziggy is right. She is a 7 or an 8, and that ain’t bad at all. She is not striking, and that is the real difference between her and an Angelina, or a Kim Kardashian.

          Laura Logan tops my list for English lasses (her voice tames me). As for Watson’s new pixie hair cut, crackhead mainlining media is giving her raves for looking ‘mature’ but I fucking HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT. How can you possibly look more mature with a pixie cut? She looks like she is about to show you the frog she carries around in her back pocket and then try to take out your eye with a pellet from her sling shot.

    3. Yes, but eventually they start spreading rumors about your private life. Ask this guy.

      That said, you’d think Wills could have held out another 20 years or so before the “is he gay?” stuff started.

  4. Personally?

    I’d rather the Fed underwrote something like that.

  5. Correction:

    Most of his life he’s been a welfare case.

    But for a certain period of time he was in the armed forces.

    So then he was merely an overpaid government employee, and not a welfare case.

    A pedantic distinction at best, I know. But still a distinction.

    1. I think of that as a workfare-style intervention that has yet to lift him off the dole.

      1. Oh I don’t know about that, give him a few years and he could be President.

        1. Does he get much teleprompter practice?

    2. If you read the article that guy has a job as a search and rescue pilot. I’m not sure the British overpay their SAR pilots all that much. The Mideltons apparently have a party business, and if my understanding is correct, according to tradition they would pay for the wedding.

      1. The rest of Britain’s SAR pilots are not drawing multiple-million-pound subsidies, Mr. Doesn’t-Get-The-Joke.

    3. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

  6. Well, ya gotta admit that in most cases of “Look! A Squirrel!”, the first thought isn’t “I’d hit that all night”

    1. Damn near spit out my smoothie.

  7. Not that it affects me personally, but are you sure the wedding will be paid for by the British taxpayer? I was under the impression that the royal family receive public funds to pay for certain official functions (meetings with foreign heads of state and so on) but pay for many or most private events with their own money. The linked article doesn’t include any mention of taxes or public funds.

    1. Their personal wealth was all stolen by force in previous centuries.

      1. considering they got that wealth by stealing from others by force over the centuries, I won’t exactly cry into my pillow over their loss.

  8. Fluff? I thought you wuz a chick. Or is my memory fallen down the memory hole?

    1. I hope you’re more observant at strip clubs.

  9. It is hoped the ceremony will give a huge boost to the nation and the economy as crippling public sector spending cuts hit home.


    1. No one likes you.

  10. Not a bad catch for a welfare case

  11. Is this a follow up to?

    Family Forced onto Welfare after Feds Seize Assets (circa 1775)

    1. More like “Crime family forced into Welfare after Fed seize stolen assets”

    2. Though in that case, Family gets nice County in Northern Virginia, also a City or Two, Named after It.

  12. I’ve been baffled my whole life by the concept of “royalty” and why any country in its right mind would hang on to all that baggage, but after seeing that article I finally understand – it’s for the gossip.

    1. The great thing is you dont actually need royalty. You can leech off another country to get the gossip.

      1. Somebody just told me that! Do you know which country?

      2. Not sure about that, we have the Kennedys on this side of the pond.

        1. Never heard of em.

          What did they do?

          1. You kids have no appreciation for history or culture. Here ya go.

          2. The current brood are the scions of a bootlegger and Wall Street baron that makes Ivan Boesky look like a used car salesman.

    2. But we get Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and the Kardashians with only minimal public outlay. All we do is pay some cops to occasionally arrest and imprison them.

  13. Well played, sir. Well played.

  14. For fun and games, here’s Rothbard on The Bell Curve
    I know I know! Racist, etc etc.

    1. Ugh, that’s especially queasy after a drink or five. I don’t think “libertarianism” means what Mr. Rothbard seems to think it does.

  15. Nobody loves gossip more than the Brits. I really think that might be true.

  16. With their engagement only just announced, divorce lawyers are already circling…

    Now there’s the spirit, boys!

  17. Over here in Scotland, and this was essentially the only story on the news all day yesterday. The news was a ton of stuff about the Royal engagement, a bit about the Brit couple released by Somali pirates after a year and finally, on the lighter side, a little bit about Irish financial crisis.

  18. Met a group of middle-aged British men the other day & one of them mentioned the engagement. I asked them if there was any movement in the UK to buy out the royal family and put them out to pasture. Their response was that it wouldn’t happen, because the royal family are one of greatest tourist attractions there, that they bring in way more money than they cost.

    1. I would really like to see the numbers on that, aside from maybe some local tourist, I doubt anyone around the world is traveling to england just to see the buckingham palace… You would think london has more to offer than that..

      1. Of course it does, but I don’t doubt for a minute that it’s a huge tourist draw.

      2. Fuck Buckingham Palace, I want to see the Tower of London and the torture museum. But I guess those can be attributed to the royal family too.

        1. The Crown Jewels are on display at the Tower of London, but the Instruments of Torture are more interesting, for sure.

  19. I congratulate the happy couple, for no matter how silly the idea of having royalty might be to us, as Americans, we must be gracious and considerate well-wishers.

    1. Who are you, and what the fuck have you done with Fist?

      1. If you don’t get that movie reference, we’re no longer BFF.

  20. Wouldn’t it be funny if the founding father had put out a capture order or warrant (for murder, tyranny etc.) and the british king and it still stood today(like so many laws that stay on forever and never are taken off the books till someone realizes they still exist).

  21. The monarchy is a thousand-year-old institution that provides stability and hope to all Brits and to members of the Commonwealth across Canada, Africa, India, Australia etc. The threat to freedom in Britain comes from politicians and the EU, not royalty.

    1. Stability and hope coming to Canada from England?

      That’s a good one, Nigel. Why don’t you ask an Albertan whether stability and hope come from energy production or that fart knocker on the throne?

      The Australians should have thrown the monarchy out when they had the chance several years ago.

  22. Didn’t we Americans fight a war so we did not have to deal with the drama of that family?

    1. Yes. We have the right not to give a flying fuck but to comment about it anyway, because blog commentary is our most cherished right.

  23. Think of the Royals as a constant reminder of the superiority of democracy. Worth every penny.

    1. You mean inferior to a system where politicians live at the taxpayer?s expense? Or inferior to a system that makes us pay for security at Chelsea’s wedding? Or are you talking about a system where one group votes themselves the property of others?

      Democracy sucks.

      1. Let me guess: you’re an anarchist?

    2. I would take a libertarian dictator over a statist democracy any day.

      I care about liberty, not democracy.

      1. I would take a libertarian dictator

        Please expound. There is some nuance I’m not grasping.

        1. I believe Tulpa is pointing out that if a government was restricted to the powers proper to it under libertarian political theory, the selection process for the magistrates wouldn’t matter.

          Let’s say there was a government that didn’t do anything but have the military defend the borders and have the police uphold courts – and the courts were applying a set of laws that were already perfectly acceptable from the libertarian perspective. In such a scenario, who cares how the chief executive is selected? There’s nothing at stake, other than that executive’s competence in event of attack by an external power.

          1. The problem with that is that even under that system, the Chief Executive can still do a lot of mischief. And if he is in power for life, like a King would be, he has lots of time to learn how to game the system and increase his power.

            Beyond that, the real problem with a monarchy is succession. Idiot sons make bad rulers. And when they are not idiot sons and are good rulers, the sons have a bad habit of getting tired of being Kind in waiting and revolt against their father.

            Actually, the Venician system of electing a Doge is better than a hereditary monarchy.

            1. We could follow the Antonine succession policy, where the current monarch chooses a successor he deems suitable from outside his family. And hope you don’t get a Marcus Aurelius type dolt who chooses his deviant son.

          2. The use of the word “dictator” is throwing me off because the word “dictator” comes from “dictate” which means “tell other people what to do” which isn’t necessarily compatible with liberty.

            I wasted my college tuition on an economics degree and very little political science, so perhaps someone else could suggest a better word than, “dictator” for Tulpa.

            That said, I agree with the theory that democracy doesn’t necessarily matter as long as the leader is limited and liberty is protected, but in practice an absolute ruler will always try to increase his power at the expense of the people and the only check on that is some kind of consent/recall/election type mechanism. This is basic John Locke / Jeffersonian kind of stuff.

            1. You’re right that “dictator” was not the best word. Monarch might have been a better choice. Voltaire and company — to whom such a situation would have made much more sense, living before the siren song of democracy started belting out — called such a creature a “benevolent despot”.

        2. Something like The Patrician.

      2. The problem is the whole “right people in charge” thing.

        I dont believe there is a “right person”.

        1. The majority isn’t the right person either, hence the problem.

  24. On this one I really think the English should follow the lead of the Frnch and the Russians…

    1. I mean the French…

      (Frnch), who even says that anymore

    2. Eh, they dont have to travel that far. They have Cromwell’s example.

  25. I thought Obama was already married.

    1. +9999999999999999999999999999999

  26. This is OK because one of his ancestors was William the Conqueror. As rioters have learned in the past, violent agitation can lead to an increase in public benefits.

    1. Actually that is not true. The Queens family is kind of second hand royalty in England oddly enough. They are decended from William the Conquerer but it is very tenuous. They are not English or Norman. They are Germans. When Queen Ann, the last Stewart monarch died, a live in German couple of Hanover took over the monarchy and became George I and Queen Sophia. That whole “house of Windsor” thing was invented during the First World War so the English people wouldn’t be reminded of the fact their Royals were Germans.

      1. That whole “house of Windsor” thing was invented during the First World War so the English people wouldn’t be reminded of the fact their Royals were Germans.

        Wha’?! Bloody ‘ell!! Buggers!!

      2. This is true.

        1. If by true, you mean false.

          1. By true, I mean generally that they’re all mostly German descendents. Not the other stuff.

            1. and also by “true” I mean, SPELL CHECK

      3. Wow. History fail.

        Sophia was never Queen.

        George 1 was her son.

        The Act of Succession of 1712? 1714? required all future monarchs to be protestant descendents of Sophie.

        Sophie is the granddaughter (thru Elizabeth, the Winter Queen) of James I, so she is a Stuart anyway. Which means the royal family is of Germano-Scotch ancestry.

        1. 1701 apparently for the Act.

          1. And George only got the job because he was apparently the only Protestant relative of the Stuarts in Europe. They were pretty much fed up with the Catholics at that point. And they were willing to take a second class German Royal as King to ensure that there was never another Catholic monarch.

            1. Actually, as of 1701, parliament was naming Sophie their next Queen, they wanted her (she was Electress of Hanover). And, as she was the granddaughter of James I, it wasnt too much of a stretch. She beat Anne to the grave though, so George got the job.

              And the UK and Hanover were united forever and ever. Except that Hanover didnt have a female eligibility rule, so when Victoria inherited the UK, Hanover went to her cousin.

              1. There is an interesting counter history to be written with Victoria being Electress of Hanover and having to confront the Prussians as they united Germany in the 19th Century.

                1. And, of course, it needs to be pointed out that the Kings of Prussia and the Kaiser were descendents of Electress Sophia too. Her son George got England, her daughter Sophie Charlotte was Queen of Prussia.

                  Sophia basically took over Europe with her spawn.

                  1. And of course one of Victoria’s daughters married the Kaiser and was mother to Kaiser Wilhelm. I really think that there is something to Wilhelm being not as good looking as his English cousin Edward and a bit lame and feeling like the outcast of the family that helped cause World War I.

                  2. And of course one of Victoria’s daughters married the Kaiser and was mother to Kaiser Wilhelm. I really think that there is something to Wilhelm being not as good looking as his English cousin Edward and a bit lame and feeling like the outcast of the family that helped cause World War I.

            2. They were pretty much fed up with the Catholics at that point.

              That’s a charitable way of describing the British treatment of Catholics in that era.

              The fact that they claim to be religiously tolerant yet keep such a blatant piece of religious bigotry on their books is amazing.

        2. I wasn’t speaking about his mother. I was speaking about his consort. And yes she was never queen. Good catch. But George was the elector of Hanover. And I did say they were tenuously related to preceding royalty. He was the great grandson of a Stewart, who were Scottish not even English.

          George I was a German. My ancestors have been in America, longer than the English Royals have been in England.

          1. Apparently George did marry that other Sophia (she is really unimportant, hence assuming you were talking about the real Sophia) but he later divorced her and had her imprisoned in a castle. I knew the latter, but not the divorce part. She never left Hanover.

      4. OK, good points.

        One thing I am NOT is a follower of the Royal family.

        1. I only know this from reading The Baroque Cyle.

    2. There hasn’t been an actual Norman King of England since Richard III the last Plantagenet king. The Tudors were from Wales.

    3. One last thing. There are people in England whose families can be traced back to knights who were at Crecy and Agincourt. Harry is not one of them.

  27. I don’t quite get why anyone would want to be king. A real king sure. If I had the power to exile my enemies and raise an army to take back the Aquitaine, sure I would love to have the job. But to sit around as piece of antique furniture for the tourists to look at? No thanks. It would be fun for about a month.

  28. I believe the technical term for what Jesse suffers from is Highness Envy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.