DavidV
Registered:1298611695 Posts: 5,045
Posted 1526936453
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:1403955979 Posts: 1,433
Posted 1526945087
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
Registered:1195143426 Posts: 5,288
DavidV
Registered:1298611695 Posts: 5,045
Posted 1526970599
· Edited
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:1217151204 Posts: 7,099
Posted 1526974167
Reply with quote
#50
From the official photographs. Nice to see Prince George with a smile: 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.
Elizabelo_II
Registered:1369491278 Posts: 457
Posted 1526981003
Reply with quote
#51
So will this be occasion enough for the thread title to be changed/updated I wonder ? : P
Peter
Moderator
Registered:1217151204 Posts: 7,099
Posted 1526985387
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:1262548452 Posts: 430
Posted 1527002199
· Edited
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
Registered:1369491278 Posts: 457
Posted 1527012852
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:1217151204 Posts: 7,099
Posted 1527019017
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:1298611695 Posts: 5,045
Posted 1527023081
· Edited
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:1298611695 Posts: 5,045
Posted 1527023924
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
Moderator
Registered:1148498020 Posts: 6,815
Posted 1527054977
Reply with quote
#58
The title has been changed.
royalcello
Moderator
Registered:1148498020 Posts: 6,815
Posted 1527055150
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:1217151204 Posts: 7,099
Posted 1527059985
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?