|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 18:22:27 GMT
Oh don't claim he's a figurehead - you'll really bring out the pitchforks! I had a vigorous "discussion" several years ago regarding the monarchy's lack of actual power and used the word figurehead. It was vehemently disagreed with - despite having elections, there is no government until Charles decrees it to be - he officially appoints the prime minister and opens parliament and as at least those British peas will tell you, is head of state and no figurehead. And those people are wrong, just like all the people in the US who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6th were wrong [which is why they are in prison now]. Don't believe me, an American - believe the British monarchy itself: www.royal.uk/role-monarchyThe British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.And I would encourage you to question any source of information from the web, which I did - the site above referenced: www.royal.uk/about-siteThis is the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.The monarch is a representation of the crown and is a symbolic leader, as Head of State: As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.And they have power to dissolve parliament and dismiss all elected officials - I honestly don't know which is more repulsive - that he has power or that this entire dog and pony show is for someone who's merely a figurehead. As I said earlier - why Americans buy into this is what I wonder. Lots of countries have royalty, which their citizens decide is worth their tax dollars to support - in this case a mere $100 million a year. There's nothing remotely interesting or special about Charles, he's an awkward man ill suited for the spotlight. But you know his mommy was Queen so now he's King. Why do we remotely give a damn. His coronation will be broadcasted in all it's frivolity here despite the fact that it isn't remotely newsworthy.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Apr 6, 2023 19:21:54 GMT
Darcy Collins no one is forcing you to watch it and I suspect a number of your compatriots will say it certainly IS newsworthy. It’s good to see what is happening in other parts of the world. No one objects to you having an opinion but WHY are you so cross about it?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 19:40:02 GMT
Darcy Collins no one is forcing you to watch it and I suspect a number of your compatriots will say it certainly IS newsworthy. It’s good to see what is happening in other parts of the world. No one objects to you having an opinion but WHY are you so cross about it? I'm cross as you might be surprised just how difficult it is to avoid. I am cross because the US with all it's warts and issues had one great idea- a meritocracy. Oh we may have failed to implement this great ideal and there a zillion ways we've screwed up this great idea - but it was a great freaking idea. That it didn't matter who you were born to, it mattered what YOU accomplished. And now 300 years later we're idolizing the British Royalty. It does make me cross. I don't actually care what you all decide to do in your country. But unlike the Netherlands or Eswantini or Belgium or Andorra or what the other dozens of monarchies that I couldn't tell you who the current ruler is - we're inundated with "press" about the British royal family. They'll have wall to wall coverage of the coronation - and I'm simply asking why? Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. It does make me cross as it's impossible to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Apr 6, 2023 20:10:41 GMT
But WE pour millions of £s into YOUR economy and there are far fewer of us than there are of you! Dare I say it, our history and traditions are interesting and many Americans have ancestors from here, so of course they want to know what’s going on. If you listen to my husband, he complains that we have wall to wall news coverage of your elections, your reality stars, Trump! and he pontificates that no one here is interested. He’s wrong. You can bet there will be more Royal threads here in the short and long term. Darcy Collins stay cool, don’t open the damn threads!
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Apr 6, 2023 20:25:47 GMT
Darcy Collins no one is forcing you to watch it and I suspect a number of your compatriots will say it certainly IS newsworthy. It’s good to see what is happening in other parts of the world. No one objects to you having an opinion but WHY are you so cross about it? I'm cross as you might be surprised just how difficult it is to avoid. I am cross because the US with all its warts and issues had one great idea- a meritocracy. Oh we may have failed to implement this great ideal and they’re a zillion ways we've screwed up this great idea - but it was a great freaking idea. That it didn't matter who you were born to, it mattered what YOU accomplished. And now 300 years later we're idolizing the British Royalty. It does make me cross. I don't actually care what you all decide to do in your country. But unlike the Netherlands or Eswantini or Belgium or Andorra or what the other dozens of monarchies that I couldn't tell you who the current ruler is - we're inundated with "press" about the British royal family. They'll have wall to wall coverage of the coronation - and I'm simply asking why? Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. It does make me cross as it's impossible to avoid. The world has gotten smaller with the internet and social media. There are a lot of subjects and traditions in various cultures and countries that people are interested in. Got say that even after your nice thread about not sticking out like an American when traveling there is no doubt you are an American here and with posts like these. 😆 😆
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 21:19:06 GMT
I'm cross as you might be surprised just how difficult it is to avoid. I am cross because the US with all its warts and issues had one great idea- a meritocracy. Oh we may have failed to implement this great ideal and they’re a zillion ways we've screwed up this great idea - but it was a great freaking idea. That it didn't matter who you were born to, it mattered what YOU accomplished. And now 300 years later we're idolizing the British Royalty. It does make me cross. I don't actually care what you all decide to do in your country. But unlike the Netherlands or Eswantini or Belgium or Andorra or what the other dozens of monarchies that I couldn't tell you who the current ruler is - we're inundated with "press" about the British royal family. They'll have wall to wall coverage of the coronation - and I'm simply asking why? Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. It does make me cross as it's impossible to avoid. The world has gotten smaller with the internet and social media. There are a lot of subjects and traditions in various cultures and countries that people are interested in. Got say that even after your nice thread about not sticking out like an American when traveling there is no doubt you are an American here and with posts like these. 😆 😆 You've clearly never had dinner with an anti-monarchist lol. You think this was bad - they spent 3 hours ranting. The Brits really can lay it all down in colorful vernacular when then they want to - get a few in a room with some pints and all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Apr 6, 2023 21:53:54 GMT
I think it is lovely. If Camilla survives Charles what will her title be after William is King? I’d think Queen Camilla, while Catherine would be The Queen. Obviously Camilla wouldn’t be the Queen Mother since she’s not Willism’s mother. Maybe The Dowager Queen? I thought she might be the Dowager Queen. Isn't that who Queen Mary was when her husband died (I can't pull the name now) and Elizabeth II's father came to the throne? I think it's gross - seriously disgusting that you feel that birthright determines your ruler despite anything. And I'm more disgusted that WE - who rejected the whole class bullshit and founded a country based on meritocracy - even if flawed and I know it's flawed! - still support - and yes that's what we're doing with our money - support a corrupt system where who your parents are determines if you can rule. I actually learned quite recently that the British monarchy is the last one (or maybe one of the last ones) that believes they are of divine right. Is that the same as birthright? I was watching a Dutch girl on TikTok and she feels quite the same as you do, and was talking about how this is why the Dutch queen stepped down and allowed her son (Willem?) to now reign. I believe that is one of the reasons QEII would not abdicate even towards her last days when she was probably exhausted as hell, as she felt, she believed to her core and had very deep faith, that God put her on the throne. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I just found it really interesting that the other monarchies do not believe in divine right anymore. I actually thought they all did.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 22:07:27 GMT
I’d think Queen Camilla, while Catherine would be The Queen. Obviously Camilla wouldn’t be the Queen Mother since she’s not Willism’s mother. Maybe The Dowager Queen? I thought she might be the Dowager Queen. Isn't that who Queen Mary was when her husband died (I can't pull the name now) and Elizabeth II's father came to the throne? I think it's gross - seriously disgusting that you feel that birthright determines your ruler despite anything. And I'm more disgusted that WE - who rejected the whole class bullshit and founded a country based on meritocracy - even if flawed and I know it's flawed! - still support - and yes that's what we're doing with our money - support a corrupt system where who your parents are determines if you can rule. I actually learned quite recently that the British monarchy is the last one (or maybe one of the last ones) that believes they are of divine right. Is that the same as birthright? I was watching a Dutch girl on TikTok and she feels quite the same as you do, and was talking about how this is why the Dutch queen stepped down and allowed her son (Willem?) to now reign. I believe that is one of the reasons QEII would not abdicate even towards her last days when she was probably exhausted as hell, as she felt, she believed to her core and had very deep faith, that God put her on the throne. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I just found it really interesting that the other monarchies do not believe in divine right anymore. I actually thought they all did. Interesting - I assumed they all did as well. I will fully acknowledge that my Brit friends have probably swayed me quite a bit - and the whole Meghan fiasco was the the final nail for me- yes they're more than a little drama queens but the very real racism she was subjected to just really turned me from thinking it was all tiaras and good times. Layer on the continued support for Andrew - just yuck.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Apr 6, 2023 22:38:29 GMT
I don’t know one single person who supports Andrew nor have I read anything in the media where there is support for him. Where have you heard of any support for him?
Abdication was never on the cards for Queen Elizabeth II. She had lived through the furore of her Uncle abdicating and her father having to take over as King. Her sense of duty (and her faith although the term divine right will probably have many Brits raising an eyebrow) was too great.
Admittedly I don’t watch it but I doubt TikTok actually provides much in substantiated facts.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 22:47:39 GMT
I don’t know one single person who supports Andrew nor have I read anything in the media where there is support for him. Where have you heard of any support for him? Abdication was never on the cards for Queen Elizabeth II. She had lived through the furore of her Uncle abdicating and her father having to take over as King. Her sense of duty (and her faith although the term divine right will probably have many Brits raising an eyebrow) was too great. Admittedly I don’t watch it but I doubt TikTok actually provides much in substantiated facts. He continues to be a counsellor of state and still lives in royal housing - the british royal family still clearly supports him down to allowing him to don military dress for Elizabeth's funeral. I don't engage in TikTok so have nothing to say on that front. I mean hell you arrested a man for daring to comment on his poor behavior in Scotland. The public may not like him, but not enough to actually remove him the firms payroll- but then again he's the Queen's son so still has a divine right to sit on the throne of England - as he's also not been removed from the line of succession.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Apr 6, 2023 23:09:54 GMT
The arrest would not have been for commenting on Andrew but for a public order offence, I imagine. I don’t recall.
Yes, he still theoretically holds certain positions but his removal has to follow certain procedures. My apathy, and that of some of the public, over him can not be read as support. I genuinely believe that in time King Charles will do whatever is necessary to further diminish any role Andrew has.
It’s gone midnight and I have prattled far too much.
|
|
|
Post by tampascrapper on Apr 6, 2023 23:18:22 GMT
I just can’t get onboard with Queen Camilla. Team Princess Diana forever ❤️❤️❤️
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Apr 6, 2023 23:19:56 GMT
believe that is one of the reasons QEII would not abdicate even towards her last days when she was probably exhausted as hell, as she felt, she believed to her core and had very deep faith, that God put her on the throne. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, however I'm skeptical that this was her real reason. I don't doubt she believed in God, but she always seemed too practical to me to think her being Queen was something God specifically wanted. When she was crowned, she made a very clear vow to the country that "My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service" She took on a job and she declared publicly that she would do that job until the end of her life. She gave her word and she was never going to go back on it, it just wasn't in her nature. Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. On another thread you claim to respect other people and other cultures when you travel and that no-one knows you are an American Thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest shit I've read all week. Based on how you behave here, I have no doubt you can't hide your ugly/loud American side.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 23:26:52 GMT
believe that is one of the reasons QEII would not abdicate even towards her last days when she was probably exhausted as hell, as she felt, she believed to her core and had very deep faith, that God put her on the throne. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, however I'm skeptical that this was her real reason. I don't doubt she believed in God, but she always seemed too practical to me to think her being Queen was something God specifically wanted. When she was crowned, she made a very clear vow to the country that "My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service" She took on a job and she declared publicly that she would do that job until the end of her life. She gave her word and she was never going to go back on it, it just wasn't in her nature. Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. On another thread you claim to respect other people and other cultures when you travel and that no-one knows you are an American Thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest shit I've read all week. Based on how you behave here, I have no doubt you can't hide your ugly/loud American side. Well clearly you're wrong - but that's okay - you keep paying for Andrew to hang out in the royal residences - we all know you have a soft spot for the rapist.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Apr 6, 2023 23:37:13 GMT
we all know you have a soft spot for the rapist You're an even bigger idiot than I thought was possible
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 6, 2023 23:45:57 GMT
we all know you have a soft spot for the rapist You're an even bigger idiot than I thought was possible Eh - if that's the best you got, must have hit too close to home. I don't see you wondering why exactly he still hangs out rent free at the Royal Lodge - I mean the horror that Charles actually wanted to move him to Frogmore - funny how all the Brits and Commonwealth folks claim to not support Andrew but continue to actually support him. But I'm an ugly American for pointing out that the system is corrupt and immoral when he raped a 17 year old. I'll take my ugly American self all day long vs supporting that kind of "culture" - go rewatch his BBC video and continue to be embarrassed. I have zero issue enjoying other country's cultures - but refuse to be told that it's ugly to be against the monarchy - an institution fundamentally flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 7, 2023 0:05:38 GMT
Wow this thread has been an education - had no idea that the monarchy also gets to avoid estate taxes. Must be nice when the commoners pay 40% on amount over 325,000 pounds but Charles gets to inherit the PRIVATE fortune of $791 million - that's not even the crown estate of $28 billion. Apparently Andrew is very sad he didn't inherit and Charles also cut off his 35,000 a year yogi - yeah life be hard for the royalty.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Apr 7, 2023 12:43:59 GMT
At typo! Note the typo in the years of Charles I's reign -- 1949 instead of 1649.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Apr 7, 2023 14:24:27 GMT
At typo! Note the typo in the years of Charles I's reign -- 1949 instead of 1649.
Where?
|
|
FurryP
Drama Llama
To pea or not to pea...
Posts: 6,986
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 19:58:26 GMT
|
Post by FurryP on Apr 7, 2023 22:32:41 GMT
This the first time I have seen it. My first thought? It looks like the cheapie 8.5 x 11" scrapbook paper that used to be around in the early days. No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Basket1lady on Apr 8, 2023 4:09:03 GMT
This is what I thought as well. Surely the current invitation was inspired by this one from when he was a little boy? I like these little nods to some informality. It wouldn't be wise to go in and make sweeping changes while he is such a new king. But little by little, hopefully we will see the family modernize.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Apr 8, 2023 15:01:46 GMT
At typo! Note the typo in the years of Charles I's reign -- 1949 instead of 1649.
Where? My mistake in attaching the mistake to the invitation. The mistake was in an article about the invitation and coronation.
(Hanging my head in shame)
|
|
|
Post by mymindseyedpea on Apr 8, 2023 18:41:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gryroagain on Apr 8, 2023 19:11:46 GMT
I am just here to say it’s refreshing to see not just another monarchy love fest in the comments. I am American (though haven’t lived there for a fair bit and won’t) so it’s not an American thing- monarchy is repulsive IMO.
But 2peas is a twilight zone of royal lovers lately amd it’s so odd to me.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Apr 10, 2023 12:04:58 GMT
believe that is one of the reasons QEII would not abdicate even towards her last days when she was probably exhausted as hell, as she felt, she believed to her core and had very deep faith, that God put her on the throne. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, however I'm skeptical that this was her real reason. I don't doubt she believed in God, but she always seemed too practical to me to think her being Queen was something God specifically wanted. When she was crowned, she made a very clear vow to the country that "My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service" She took on a job and she declared publicly that she would do that job until the end of her life. She gave her word and she was never going to go back on it, it just wasn't in her nature. Why do we, Americans continue to prop up an institution that is the antithesis of our ideals. We're the number one visitor to royal palaces by a mile - we pour billions of dollars into an institution with media coverage that is over the top ridiculous. On another thread you claim to respect other people and other cultures when you travel and that no-one knows you are an American Thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest shit I've read all week. Based on how you behave here, I have no doubt you can't hide your ugly/loud American side. Careful. Your cultural bias is showing.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Apr 10, 2023 12:13:19 GMT
Careful. Your cultural bias is showing. I don't need to be "careful" about anything. I said about that person...and I meant it. What part of that don't you understand?
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Apr 10, 2023 13:39:12 GMT
could you please explain the significance of this?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 6:09:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 18:11:20 GMT
could you please explain the significance of this? Don't encourage her. Consulting astrologers is a 17th century bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Apr 10, 2023 18:43:09 GMT
could you please explain the significance of this? Don't encourage her. Consulting astrologers is a 17th century bullshit. Respectfully, this type of topic (astrology, numbers, stars, planets) is important to her, and she will point out things of interest to her or when she sees things that are significant to those aspects. And I'll admit - when I was a kid, one of my favorite things to do was read my horoscope in Seventeen magazine, and I'd get a kick to read things like Linda Goodman's Love Signs to see how "close" it describes my personality due to my birthday, and where the planets and stuff were when I was born. Does that mean I'd plan my life around those "predictions"? No. But it helps me understand references when people will say "oh she's an Aquarius " or "Scorpios and Virgos do not mesh" and stuff like that. No harm, no foul. It doesn't hurt for me to ask, plus I am genuinely curious, and it doesn't hurt for you to scroll on by if you aren't interested in her explanation.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Apr 11, 2023 20:57:21 GMT
I don’t get being all the butt hurt because other people enjoy following royalty. We all enjoy different things. No need to chastise those of us that enjoy the pomp and circumstance. Nobody here is asking anyone to agree, but JFC the vitriol like were pro puppy killing if we like seeing some tiaras.
|
|