Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 The Guardian (ironically) has it right (except for the "queen of England" part). [ed.: +] Well, the Queen of England is the important part. It sounds as if some of the countries aren't as open-minded as England, Canada included. So much for progress. Makes me even happier that our Head of State isn't born into the position - with gender and religious discrimination. I'm wishing more than ever that this baby had been a girl - to push the issue; to help push some countries into the 21st Century... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Personally, I have a real problem with all of the attention and privilege showered on this baby just because of who he was born to. How many other babies were born on the same day - and how many of them were born just to die in a life of poverty, struggle, and starvation? Each life is just as precious as Baby Cambridge's, so this birth just really highlights the injustices of the world to me. Fair point. I just see this though as similar to a very popular celebrity couple having a baby, though this baby may hold a (mostly ceremonial) title one day so that brings extra hoopla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Fair point. I just see this though as similar to a very popular celebrity couple having a baby, though this baby may hold a (mostly ceremonial) title one day so that brings extra hoopla. I feel the same way about celebrity's babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well, the Queen of England is the important part... I don't know why a position that hasn't existed for 300 years is in any way important today. It sounds as if some of the countries aren't as open-minded as England, Canada included... Oh, I get it; you wrongly use "England" as a synonym for "United Kingdom". Anyway, I don't get what you're basing your observations about open-mindedness on. All 16 countries have given their approval for the proposed changes; those that require it have passed or are working on their legislation; Canada's paraliment passed its law, albeit possibly (I think certainly) unconstitutionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well, the Queen of England is the important part. It sounds as if some of the countries aren't as open-minded as England, Canada included. Bambino is right, she's the Queen of the UK not the Queen of England. Also, England isn't a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Fair point. I'm not sure how it is. Almost all of us in the West are born into privilege compared to others just because of who we were born to. One could argue there are children born more privileged than this one; ones that are born to parents with more wealth and who have no expectation to eventually serve a country, let alone possibly 16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Bambino is right, she's the Queen of the UK not the Queen of England. Also, England isn't a country. I actually know that and assumed people would know what I meant. People do use the two terms interchangeably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 People do use the two terms interchangeably. Horrible practice. Imagine millions of people calling Obama "President of Massachusetts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Horrible practice. Imagine millions of people calling Obama "President of Massachusetts". Oh, please. It's hardly comparable. As I said, countless people do it, including the media. Furthermore, I can't tell you how many people have asked me on my travels if I'm from England - and that includes British tourists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 So she got the throne over a second born son? Who knew. :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't know, if one goes by examples of the past, Harper praises being Canadian and the British, but he's a closet American. And what closet are you hiding in? Your comment was rude and totally unecessary. It also implies Mr Harper is disloyal. What a cheap-shot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Who thinks it would be funny if they named him Joffery? Funnier if they named him Lance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) ... Two: Britain's Succession to the Crown Act 2013 has not been put into force. They are waiting for other Commonwealth Realms like Australia and New Zealand to get their legislation ready, plus now there's no indication of what's going to happen with Canada's law being challenged in court as unconstitutional....IOW, if the child had been a girl, it would have been a legal mess. She potentially could be Queen of Canada and New Zealand and the Northern Hebrides while her younger brother would have been King of the UK (etc) and Australia and the Outer Hebrides. By having a boy, all this mess is avoided. Funnier if they named him Lance.I frankly was betting on George Alexander Kong Albert because then he could have become King Kong. Edited July 25, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Who thinks it would be funny if they named him Joffery? Some little girl on the news said she would have preferred Kyle. THAT would have been funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) ISince there has to be royalty, I hoped for a girl. A first born girl getting the throne would at least be some progress. Cuz we haven't had a Queen for a long time now..... Edited July 25, 2013 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 With that over with, hopefully we don't have to hear any more about this kid for about 18 years, or however long it takes him to get into his first Royal Scandal. (bets? I'm thinking probably Tweeting a picture of his abs, or drinking in public.) -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 When one comes to think of it, being a royal from the very birth is a very challneging task. Firstly, as we probably all remember when we were kids ourselves we thought of ourselves as the centre of the universe and it was only later on when we were told that all those other people don't exist for our entertainment only. For royal children this does not really hold true as they really seem to be the centre of the universe and all other people are there only their servants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 For royal children this does not really hold true as they really seem to be the centre of the universe and all other people are there only their servants. There is a problem with that though Anne , Andrew,Charles were raised by nannies for the most part and apparently they had to schedule time with their mom, the Queen. The Butlers who served them tell a pretty weird set of things occuring or having to be done, as in....Charles doesnt tie his own laces? Has his underwear ironed.....and this one floored me, he has someone come in every night to put toothpaste on his toothbrush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 I guess some of those old Royal peccadilloes die hard! I suppose it hearkens back to the idea of the Monarch as the country, not only the ruler, but also belonging to the country, almost literally as property. I doubt it's so much that kings and queens didn't wish to tie their own laces or prepare their toothbrush--it's that their entire lives were symbolic and ceremonial. On the other hand...it's frigging silly and mock-worthy...so there's that too...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 In theory the Queen owns all of Britain and her dominions including Canada. Of course, as an owner she should have the right to sell off her property such as the Buckingham Palace. Could she do that? Of course she couldn't. And, no she couldn't sell Canada to the Americans either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 In theory the Queen owns all of Britain and her dominions including Canada. Of course, as an owner she should have the right to sell off her property such as the Buckingham Palace. Could she do that? Of course she couldn't. And, no she couldn't sell Canada to the Americans either. I think she only "owns" the Duchy of Lancaster and some castles. The Crown Estate is in trust. At one time, the Privy Purse had to foot all the bills for the crown, government and military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 For royal children this does not really hold true as they really seem to be the centre of the universe and all other people are there only their servants. You must be kidding. Or, are you typing from the 9th century? In what way is Prince Harry helping wounded soldiers an example of his regard of them as his servants? Better yet, in what way is his serving alongside his military compatriots an illustration of his regard for them as servants? In what way is Prince William helping charities that aid homeless youth an example of him regarding anyone as his servant? In what way is the Queen appointing not who she personally wants as prime minister but, rather, the person in whom the elected Commons has placed its confidence a showing of her regard for politicians as her servants? For at least the last 150 years, those in the Royal Family have been, in essence, public servants; doing what the nations expect of them, not the other way around. Prince George will be raised to understand that he will reign, not rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.