Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
Theodore's Royalty and Monarchy Site > Categories > British Isles and the Commonwealth > Harry & Meghan, Duke & Duchess of Sussex
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Posted Reply with quote  #46 
Once more, we see that the hardcore haters of Britain and the monarchy aren't having their minds changed by this marriage...

https://www.qt.com.au/news/q-a-the-royal-wedding-has-killed-off-the-idea-of-a/3420995/
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Posted Reply with quote  #47 
I'm confused about the racialism that is supposed to be at the core of the British monarchy. I have a feeling she doesn't mean Norman versus Saxon. Oh well, you get feeling some of these ideologues could give a twenty minute rant about the cardinal isms on just about any pretext.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,237
Posted Reply with quote  #48 
The awful Markel / Dooleys just won't go away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5751887/Meghan-Markles-nephew-gets-caught-knife-London-club.html#ixzz5G789D

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/05/meghan-markle-s-half-sister-says-meghan-s-mother-doria-cashed-in-on-royal-wedding.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/21/meghan-markles-estranged-half-sister-reportedly-in-talks-with-producers-to-turn-her-tell-all-into-film-or-tv-show.html
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Posted Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I'm confused about the racialism that is supposed to be at the core of the British monarchy. I have a feeling she doesn't mean Norman versus Saxon. Oh well, you get feeling some of these ideologues could give a twenty minute rant about the cardinal isms on just about any pretext.


Well to these people the British monarchy is synonymous with "imperialism" and "racism". My whole problem is that the Royals and the whole political and cultural Establishment may seem oblivious to the threats to their continued existence. Appeasement of fashionable opinion is rarely a winner. Recognising the demands of identity politics doesn't make them satisfied, and they will keep asking for more.

And that's the regrettable thing. Anglo-Saxons, for decades, have been told to be ashamed for their very existence. A union like this carries a certain symbolism in this context. It's not going to win over the haters, and will cause anxiety among supporters of the monarchy who feel that an agenda will be pushed that will attack them too. Keep in mind that with the late Princess of Wales, a certain cult has been built up with which to attack the monarchy and its supporters.

It's sad that we face these dilemmas, whereas Eastern Europeans who are ever more determined to preserve their national identities, don't.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Posted Reply with quote  #50 
From the official photographs. Nice to see Prince George with a smile:

In this extraordinary image with their six bridesmaids and four page boys George, third from the right is grinning cheekily as is Charlotte, second left on the floor. Here the Duke and Duchess were pictured in Green Drawing Room, Windsor Castle with (left-to-right): Back row: Brian Mulroney, Remi Litt, Rylan Litt, Jasper Dyer, Prince George, Ivy Mulroney, John Mulroney Front row: Zalie Warren, Princess Charlotte and Florence van Cutsem

He's grinning again in this one. But the grimaces and uncomfortable body language of the adults do betray their inner struggle against the heritage of centuries of racialism. Still, at least they're trying.
 
The Duke and Duchess are pictured in The Green Drawing Room, Windsor Castle, with (left-to-right): Back row: Master Jasper Dyer, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, The Prince of Wales, mother of the bride Doria Ragland, The Duke of Cambridge Middle row: Brian Mulroney, The Duke of Edinburgh, Her Majesty The Queen, The Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte, Prince George, Rylan Litt and John Mulroney Front row: Ivy Mulroney, Florence van Cutsem, Zalie Warren and Remi Litt
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 450
Posted Reply with quote  #51 
So will this be occasion enough for the thread title to be changed/updated I wonder ? : P
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Posted Reply with quote  #52 
I ought I suppose to have started a separate thread for the actual marriage. Doesn't really matter much, though. Can't edit the title, post is 'too old' I was told when I tried.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 398
Posted Reply with quote  #53 
Thanks for posting the photos of the wedding-party. The 2 young boys with hair parted down the middle standing or kneeling on either ends of the photo are twin grandsons of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. They were pageboys in the wedding. Their younger sister was a bridesmaid in the wedding, so I'm guessing that she's probably one of the young girls in the photo, though I don't know which one. Their fashion-designer mother is a friend of Meghan's.

Incidentally, has Meghan been awarded a coat-of-arms ? If so, it will be interesting to see what form it takes. It's also customary to award a coat-of-arms to the bride's father and his family, which will pass down through the agnatic line. The paternal family's dubious conduct has been well-recorded in the tabloid press, and here on this forum, so I wonder if custom will prevail in this case. They are, after all, the bride's blood kin. It would be regrettable to see such an honorable old tradition dispensed with.  On the other hand, it will probably cause some apprehension, given their behavior, how they may utilize such a coat-of-arms. I do imagine that the tabloid press has been encouraging their singular behavior and urging them on, and perhaps even funding them.
__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 450
Posted Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I ought I suppose to have started a separate thread for the actual marriage. Doesn't really matter much, though. Can't edit the title, post is 'too old' I was told when I tried.


You can't change the title even as a moderator ? That's odd to say the least XD
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Posted Reply with quote  #55 
I don't have any moderator powers outside the Royal genealogy section. And there, in fact, I can edit much older posts, so the status must have something to do with it. Here, as the title is in the first post which was mine I ought to have been able to edit it, but couldn't due to the not particularly old post still being too old. Royalcello probably could, but there's not really a need.

It doesn't seem that the Duchess has her own arms yet, though I expect she will. Her paternal family not being British subjects seems a good enough reason not to render them armigerous. Now, if they could be rendered mute ... no point in hopeless dreaming, I suppose.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Posted Reply with quote  #56 
Republican moaning and misery keeps turning people off:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/royal-wedding-republicanism/


Notice the trend. Monarchists are generally cautious optimists but usually positive in their message. Republicans are a contradiction in that they seem relentlessly optimistic (thinking they are the future), but are at the same time relentlessly negative.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Posted Reply with quote  #57 
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meghan-markle-and-the-myth-of-racist-britain/

I'm not being sour here and can accept the Duchess of Sussex in the Royal Family. But one question that it begs is: why do Britain and Anglo-Saxon nations generally have this anxiety, bordering on hysteria, on race issues that others don't have? Why is there a burning desire among many people to be seen as "non-racist" as possible and fear offending others? Why do Eastern Europeans, for instance, not have this kind of problem? Douglas Murray himself wrote it in his book.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,813
Posted Reply with quote  #58 
The title has been changed.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,813
Posted Reply with quote  #59 
And that is a good article by the estimable Douglas Murray. I have tweeted it. I don't know why the Anglo-Saxon countries are beset by this self-loathing, though Sweden may be even worse.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Posted Reply with quote  #60 
Thanks, royalcello. That's a better title than the one I had in mind, too. I liked both David's linked articles very much, the Spectator one being particularly spot on. Re the first article, Parliament does in fact control the succession and has done so for, oh, the last six centuries or so. But that's just me being pedantic. Responding to David's #57, I can only speak for me. I wouldn't ever wish to be seen as racist because I think racism is wrong and disgraceful. The fact that it's also socially unacceptable is I believe a very good thing which should never change. However, I don't suffer unduly from guilt over our past; I wasn't there and it wasn't me that did whatever it was. All I can actually participate in is the present.

While it is true that if you are going to celebrate and take pride in your national history, which I do, you should also acknowledge less than creditable aspects of it, the latter does not invalidate the former. Or the other way round, for that matter. What other people think about these things is for them to articulate. Unfortunately the most noisy, visible and frequent articulators are those who feel that the latter does invalidate the former, entirely and completely. Or at any rate feel their agenda will be served by keeping on saying that, whether they actually believe it or not.

On the specific question of the Duchess of Sussex, I had a variety of feelings on the engagement announcement, all pro. First, I liked what I had seen of and heard about her; used to celebrity, albeit on a far lesser scale than she would now experience, and committed to and involved in the sort of humanitarian causes dear to Prince Harry's heart, long before the couple knew each other. Also beautiful, which never hurts. Second, I would of course always wish well to a couple planning to make their lives together. Third, it seemed a very reasonable proposition that having a mixed-race woman at or near the pinnacle of the British establishment would increase the sense of belonging and inclusion among black Britons.

Which does seem to be happening. While I agree with Douglas Murray that race relations in Britain are overall in a quite healthy state, making them better still has to be a good thing. And while I did feel slightly guilty about looking at the marriage for the benefits it could bring to the country rather than the couple, isn't that in a sense what royal marriages have always been about?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.