Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Donald Jessica Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Trump makes a mockery of the legal system and cowardly judges just sit back and let him.

Republicans don’t trust women.

with the Kraken taking a plea, the Cheese stands alone.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Not all heroes wear capes.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

The words do not have to be perfect.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Two thoughts on the big day

Two thoughts on the big day

by | 123 Comments

This post is in: 

1. Events like this should be like the World Cup of streaking, and yet the whole thing went off without a hitch. I expected better of the Brits.

2. Nobody thinks about strategic alliances anymore. It seems to me that England gains little from marrying a figurehead to some other fruit of English nobility, an event about as fairytale as the Prince choosing one of Cinderella’s stepsisters. The world is an unpredictable place. England might do well to stabilize its key alliances and marry into some other inbred clan that passes national power from one useless generation to the next. I suggest Barbara.

Reader Interactions

123Comments

  1. 1.

    dmsilev

    England might do well to stabilize its key alliances and marry into some other inbred clan that passes national power from one useless generation to the next. I suggest Barbara.

    Since same-sex marriage is now legal in many jurisdictions, I suggest that William should emulate the Egyptian Pharaohs and marry Harry.

    dms

  2. 2.

    jibeaux

    the whole thing went off without a hitch.

    Well, there’s some mighty grumpy proles over in the wedding thread, do they count?

  3. 3.

    Studly Pantload, now with enhanced schmuckosity

    I woke up thinking for whatever weird reason about the old Dynasty Moldavian wedding massacre that was one of its season-ending cliffhangers. Actually picked up my phone to check headlines to make sure everything went ok.

  4. 4.

    MattR

    the whole thing went off without a hitch.

    I am confused. I thought the whole point was to get hitched.

  5. 5.

    chopper

    It seems to me that England gains little from marrying a figurehead to some other fruit of English nobility,

    i thought kate was ‘a commoner’.

  7. 7.

    JPL

    The highlight was when they drove off into the sunset (slight exaggeration) in that Aston Martin Volante.

  9. 9.

    Chris

    England might do well to stabilize its key alliances and marry into some other inbred clan that passes national power from one useless generation to the next.

    Some of our robber barons used to marry off their kids to noble and royal houses in Europe, I believe.

    Which is about as blatant a proclamation of un-Americanness as you could ever make, but whatever. They don’t do that anymore, now they just accuse people of “harboring anti-colonial sentiments.”

  10. 10.

    Culture of Truth

    The Strategic alliance is between the monarchy and the people, by marrying a ‘commoner,’ and well advised it is.

  11. 11.

    Brain Hertz

    1. Events like this should be like the World Cup of streaking, and yet the whole thing went off without a hitch. I expected better of the Brits.

    Well, the fact that central London probably contained the greatest single assemblage of rooftop snipers in history probably put a few people off.

  12. 12.

    Studly Pantload, now with enhanced schmuckosity

    Shuttle launch done been scrubbed.

    [Types obligatory FYWP for getting sent to moderation purgatory for changing screen handle]

  14. 14.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

     

    and yet the whole thing went off without a hitch.

    Why would anybody invite Christopher Hitchens to a high society wedding? He’d drink all the booze and insult all of the guests, and probably end up taking a swing at the groom.

  19. 19.

    Studly Pantload, now with enhanced schmuckosity

    @Culture of Truth:

    Wow, so it sounds like by birthright, all UK citizens (at least the ones whose family’s can afford to send them boarding school, perhaps) are automatically entered into a lottery to become a memeber of the royal family.

  20. 20.

    Warren Terra

    Nobody thinks about strategic alliances anymore. It seems to me that England gains little from marrying a figurehead to some other fruit of English nobility, an event about as fairytale as the Prince choosing one of Cinderella’s stepsisters. The world is an unpredictable place. England might do well to stabilize its key alliances and marry into some other inbred clan that passes national power from one useless generation to the next. I suggest Barbara.

    No, no, you don’t understand:

    The selection of Kate Middleton, a lowly commoner drawn from the very dregs of society, as Prince William’s bride has been the subject of great speculation, much of it thinly veiled snobbery. But Britain is broken. Social mobility is at a historic low, state education and public healthcare are in crisis, and our own prime minister has blamed the truculent immigrant and his concealed wife for our lack of national cohesion. Once upon a time, royal marriages were political acts that forged links between different nations. Instead, William and Kate’s wedding will bind this nation to itself, and in marrying so very far beneath himself, I believe the young prince has made a heroic and deliberate sacrifice to achieve this end.

    (There are some good bits in the rest of it, but I won’t quote them here)

  23. 23.

    eemom

    it is the middle of the afternoon, this is the second wedding thread, and I am STILL waiting to be informed of Andrew Sullivan’s views on the matter.

    y’all are getting pretty sloppy around here.

  24. 24.

    Jay C

    Yes, but despite the plethora of young European royalty still kicking around, the British have had a “marry domestically” policy in place since WWI, when George V, embarrassed by the Royal family’s German connections (IIRC, he had no more “English” blood in him than Kaiser Wilhelm) changed their name to “Windsor”, and started encouraging the family to hitch up with their fellow Brits rather than foreigners (the Queen was, I think, the last exception).

    Still, looking at Princess Countess Baroness Kate, it doesn’t look like Wills has done half-bad…

  25. 25.

    Geeno

    By Barbara, I assume you mean the harmless fag-hag Babs the Younger, not the hateful pool of white haired bile that is Babs the Elder.
    Actually, I shouldn’t be too hard on the young Barbara Bush. She seems to be living up to her “NotJenna” nickname by actually working and not taking easy fame and money.
    “Seems” mind you.

  26. 26.

    Calouste

    England might do well to stabilize its key alliances and marry into some other inbred clan that passes national power from one useless generation to the next.

    Wills’ gran did that. Or more acurately, she married into a different branch of the same inbred clan. As did her great-great-gran.

    But since the abolishment of the nobility in Germany, which had a virtual unlimited supply of Princes and Princesses (specially of the Saxe-Coburg-whatever variety), the pool has become really limited.

  28. 28.

    Jay C

    @Chris:

    British-American nuptials in the old days weren’t ALL bad: after all, this guy was the result of one….

    @Warren Terra:

    OMFG! Were the Condescension Police all off at the Abbey today? “lowly commoner”? “very dregs of society” “so very far beneath himself”? And this:

    Social mobility is at a historic low

    O RLY? There’s one former Miss Middleton, C. who might disagree…

  32. 32.

    superking

    On NPR this morning, someone suggested that he marry the daughter of an official in the Chinese communist party.

  34. 34.

    Jay C

    @Warren Terra:

    Sorry, Warren, link no wurk.

    And my comment was meant to be moderately snarky: obviously, “marrying royalty” isn’t the solution to social non-mobility: good concept, but there are just too damn few royals….

    I prefer the American solution to the problem: just inherit lots of money! Much more democratic!

    And I wasn’t aware that Stewart Lee was a comedian; and that that lengthy piece was, one supposes, meant as dark humor – it is truly hard to tell with the Brits sometimes.

  39. 39.

    quaint irene

    How about Kim Jong Il? Give the North Korean’s a little royal pageantry, a break from all those goose-stepping parades.

  40. 40.

    Studly Pantload, now with enhanced schmuckosity

    @Poopyman:

    Oh, yes, I do agree that things worked out rather well for young Prince William.

  41. 41.

    JR

    William isn’t just a future head of state for Britain, he’s also looking like the last monarch the Empire will know, given that anti-monarchical sentiment is running rampant. Marrying a commoner does little to improve the nation’s lot in the world, but it could do wonders for the Windsors’ lot within the nation.

  42. 42.

    Warren Terra

    @Jay C:

    Sorry, Warren, link no wurk.
    ….
    And I wasn’t aware that Stewart Lee was a comedian; and that that lengthy piece was, one supposes, meant as dark humor – it is truly hard to tell with the Brits sometimes.

    I must have typo’d something. This was meant to be the link – though as you note, this might also have helped.

    And yes, the piece was meant as mordant humour. I rather thought it was a successful effort in that vein, which is why I linked to it. I didn’t think it was terribly subtle. Certainly if you hadn’t cottoned on before, by the time it listed Optimus Prime as being among those in attendance you might have twigged to its intent.

    And my comment was meant to be moderately snarky: obviously, “marrying royalty” isn’t the solution to social non-mobility: good concept, but there are just too damn few royals….

    Given the overall tone of your comment, it seemed quite possible you were being sincere.

  44. 44.

    Geeno

    @Warren Terra:
    She was my middle school “heart”-throb aways back in the early 70’s. Beauty, brains and a killer sense of humor. I still adore her.

  47. 47.

    Steve

    @Jay C: @Jay C:

    (IIRC, George V had no more “English” blood in him than Kaiser Wilhelm)

    I had to look it up because I didn’t quite believe this, but in fact it’s true. George I was so German that it’s not clear when he even learned to speak English. This is well known, but what I didn’t realize is that George V was the first monarch of the current royal line to marry someone we could legitimately call “English.” George V himself was half-Danish, but every monarch prior to him had basically been 100% German.

    Of course, you could quibble about my definition of ethnicity, since other than George I and George II all the monarchs were at least born in England, but since they all had German blood and married German spouses it’s not clear at what point they get to become “English” just by virtue of living there.

    Mind you, the only reason they had to go all the way to Germany to find George I in the first place is because they disqualified about 50 people who were ahead of him in the line of succession for being Catholic.

  48. 48.

    Paul in KY

    @Brain Hertz: I wonder how many of those were at Pres. Obama’s inauguration? If he wins in 2012, I would say that record will be broken.

  50. 50.

    Seebach

    Is there any reasons Democrats should not be supporting Trump while he destroys the Republican party? I’m seeing a lot of Trump alarm while he’s being absolutely riotous.

  53. 53.

    Amir_Khalid

    I don’t get the American hostility to British royals that I’ve seen on the threads here. They’re in another country, from whom you gained independence 235 years ago. Lighten up, already.

  55. 55.

    Mnemosyne

    @Steve:

    Mind you, the only reason they had to go all the way to Germany to find George I in the first place is because they disqualified about 50 people who were ahead of him in the line of succession for being Catholic.

    There are still people out there who want to restore the Stuarts to the throne, and part of the argument is that they’re at least Scottish (I don’t think there’s been an actual English monarch since Elizabeth I).

  56. 56.

    eemom

    @Seebach:

    well, there is the minor matter that his successful whoring of birtherism made the entire nation look like a racist asshole the other day.

    Also, while I get the message that the worse the republicans get, the better it is for us electorally, there is nevertheless something deeply disturbing about human scum like him and Sarah Palin being taken seriously as contenders for the fucking presidency.

  58. 58.

    Seebach

    @eemom: He’s bringing America’s skeletons out of the closet. Sometimes the nation really just needs to look like a racist asshole.

  59. 59.

    Geeno

    @Steve:
    The whole Stewart line after James I.
    [english history minor]
    It was one of his younger daughters who married the then “Elector of Hanover”- a minor ally, and whose great-grandson became George I after Queen Anne survived all of her children.
    Her brother James, called “the Great Pretender” had become a Catholic, and he and his heirs were barred from the throne. His son Charles aka “Bonnie Prince Charlie” tried – on several occasions, to retake the throne, for his father or himself through out the reign of George II.
    BTW – there is no strong evidence that George I EVER learned English.
    [/english history minor]

  60. 60.

    Citizen Alan

    @Jay C:

    And I wasn’t aware that Stewart Lee was a comedian; and that that lengthy piece was, one supposes, meant as dark humor – it is truly hard to tell with the Brits sometimes.

    Really?!? Surely the bit where he said that Optimus Prime and Yog-Sototh were attending the wedding was a bit of a clue.

  62. 62.

    Lol

    Surprised not to see any comment about Bradley Manning being cleared as mentally competent to stand trial and being moved to medium security. Would’ve expected a “better late than never” or at least a “too late to earn my vote asshole”.

  63. 63.

    alwhite

    It seems like their should be a Saudi princess that would be the right age & accomplish the sort of merger you are thinking of.

    I kind of hope the boy starts shagging some horse-face bat. It might finally break American fascination with this line of inbred Dutchmen

  64. 64.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Geeno:

    Yeah, what you said. One of the consequences of bringing in George I was the Brits got more involved on the Continent than they had been since Henry V was trying to get his French back.

  65. 65.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Geeno:

    Yeah, what you said. One of the consequences of bringing in George I was the Brits got more involved on the Continent than they had been since Henry V was trying to get his French back.

  66. 66.

    Jay C

    @Citizen Alan:

    Surely the bit where he said that Optimus Prime and Yog-Sototh were attending the wedding was a bit of a clue.

    OK, OK! By the time I got to Opty & Yog, (even) I kinda caught on….

  67. 67.

    Geeno

    @alwhite: He will, just give him time, but I bet he has better taste than dad.
    For now, everything is happy-faced in royal land!
    I miss the day when people didn’t give a shit if the King was happy, just as long as there was “legitimate issue” and no political unrest was on the horizon.

  69. 69.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    @Mnemosyne:
    Well, James I styled himself King of Great Britain, as I recall, though it had no legal effect (as I remember from Wiki). So…yeah, the Stuarts were probably the last British monarchs.

    The pro-Stuart movement is very high church/Anglo Catholic/Roman Catholic (did you know that Anglo Catholics venerate Charles I as a saint and martyr?)

  70. 70.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    @Mnemosyne:
    Well, James I styled himself King of Great Britain, as I recall, though it had no legal effect (as I remember from Wiki). So…yeah, the Stuarts were probably the last British monarchs.

    The pro-Stuart movement is very high church/Anglo Catholic/Roman Catholic (did you know that Anglo Catholics venerate Charles I as a saint and martyr?)

  71. 71.

    Warren Terra

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Yeah, what you said. One of the consequences of bringing in George I was the Brits got more involved on the Continent than they had been since Henry V was trying to get his French back.

    You seem to have forgotten how the importation of William III got the Brits involved in a series of vicious wars across Europe (but principally in the low countries), opposing the hegemony of Louis XIV. Far bloodier than the wars of Henry V, especially for the English (it’s kind of amazing how few English people were involved in Henry’s wars).
    On the other hand, that series of events did eventually give us Churchill, one could argue.

  75. 75.

    Citizen_X

    @Steve:

    other than George I and George II all the monarchs were at least born in England, but since they all had German blood and married German spouses it’s not clear at what point they get to become “English” just by virtue of living there.

    Sigh. I guess the job falls to me:

    WHERES TEH BIRF CERTIFICUT?

  76. 76.

    Chris

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Yeah, what you said. One of the consequences of bringing in George I was the Brits got more involved on the Continent than they had been since Henry V was trying to get his French back.

    A la santé du roi de France, et merde au roi d’Angleterre!

  77. 77.

    Mandramas

    @Mnemosyne: The Tudor are Welsh in origin. So, go back to the House of York to find a British monarch.

  78. 78.

    Mandramas

    By the way, do you people have read the Barroque Cycle? Neal stephenson’s magnum opus.

  80. 80.

    BOSS BITCH

    @Warren Terra:

    a lowly commoner drawn from the very dregs of society

    really? she’s the dregs of society? how did she end up at the same school as William?

  82. 82.

    Suffern ACE

    @BOSS BITCH:

    she’s the dregs of society? how did she end up at the same school as William?

    William took a few steps down and went to St. Andrews. Good school and all, but it’s like passing up Princeton or Harvard or Stanford to go to Duke or Emory or (gasp!) Brown.

  83. 83.

    BOSS BITCH

    @Amir_Khalid:

    I don’t get the American hostility to British royals that I’ve seen on the threads here.

    Don’t use political sites to gauge how Americans feel about royals. Look at the TV instead. Non-stop coverage.

  90. 90.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @BOSS BITCH: As I understand it, St Andrews has been socially A-okay for years. Academically, it might not be Oxbridge, but that doesn’t really matter, now does it?

  91. 91.

    BOSS BITCH

    IN ANY CASE, I wish them all the best and I hope she maintains her sanity and individuality.

  92. 92.

    Brachiator

    @BOSS BITCH:

    really? she’s the dregs of society? how did she end up at the same school as William?

    I’m sure that the link Warren provided was a satire. And there is additional irony here that even though the Middleton’s have quite a pile of money (millionaires on paper at the least), they are still considered to be “commoners” within the British class system.

    Similarly, it’s odd that even though she is married to Prince William, Catherine does not become a princess herself. It’s not even clear (yet) that she can be called Princess William of Wales. She has to settle for being, for now, a “mere” Duchess of Cambridge.

  93. 93.

    BOSS BITCH

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Academically, it might not be Oxbridge, but that doesn’t really matter, now does it?

    doesn’t matter one bit to me.

    had to look up Oxbridge. Never heard that name/term before.

  94. 94.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    @Poopyman:

    middletons vs the kardashians in an international reality tv skankoff! and if prince whatshisname(the only prince i have mindspace for this weekend is prince amukamara) doesn’t want to let her compete right now, give it 6 months and he will lose all interest, its family tradition.

  95. 95.

    Suffern ACE

    @BOSS BITCH: And like anything with non-stop coverage, it gets to be grating. Kinda like the same elite who a week ago wanted us to talk about Donald Trump, now want us to talk about a royal wedding…or who send crack teams of reporters to cover the disappearance of attractive high school girls in some caribbean paradise…why should we trust them to determine the important events of the day? Dissing the royals today shouldn’t be taken personally. Flipping them off is another way for us to flip off the vacuous courtiers who try to get our attention each day with nonesense and nontroversy.

  96. 96.

    eemom

    @Lol:

    as you can see, they’re all too busy musing on royal lineage to pay much mind to the poor tortured posterboy of Obama suckage.

  97. 97.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Warren Terra:

    Yeah, you got a point there. William III had all that Dutch stuff going on…particularly the general opposition to Louis XIV. Prolly would have happened regardless. Balance of power, all that rot.

  98. 98.

    Mnemosyne

    @Brachiator:

    Similarly, it’s odd that even though she is married to Prince William, Catherine does not become a princess herself.

    It’s not odd under the British system, though. IIRC, basically everyone except the actual title holder is legally a commoner. Marrying William doesn’t make her a princess (a title reserved for actual daughters of royalty) but she can be addressed by his title as a courtesy. AFAIK, there will be no problem having her crowned as queen consort, at which point she would have her own title.

    It’s just like that same archaic system we all lived under here in the US until about 30 years ago when married women were addressed by their husband’s name and Mary Smith was called Mrs. John Smith, not Mrs. Mary Smith. Under strict rules of etiquette (per Miss Manners), using “Mrs.” with a woman’s first name is still incorrect, unless she’s a divorcee and needs to distinguish between herself and the second wife (who would then get to be Mrs. John Smith).

  99. 99.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    Nobody thinks about strategic alliances anymore.

    Oddly, democracies don’t go to war with each other. Oddlier, monarchies – even those related to one another – do.

  100. 100.

    NonyNony

    @Mnemosyne:

    Under strict rules of etiquette (per Miss Manners), using “Mrs.” with a woman’s first name is still incorrect, unless she’s a divorcee and needs to distinguish between herself and the second wife (who would then get to be Mrs. John Smith).

    Yeah well fuck Miss Manners. I’ve hated that bit of sexism since I discovered it existed.

  103. 103.

    Brachiator

    @Mnemosyne: RE: Similarly, it’s odd that even though she is married to Prince William, Catherine does not become a princess herself.

    It’s not odd under the British system, though. IIRC, basically everyone except the actual title holder is legally a commoner. Marrying William doesn’t make her a princess (a title reserved for actual daughters of royalty) but she can be addressed by his title as a courtesy. AFAIK, there will be no problem having her crowned as queen consort, at which point she would have her own title.

    No, I meant this level of detail is odd to a lot of Americans. But then again, even a lot of Brits referred to Diana as Princess Diana, which was not her actual title.

    And apparently, a number of Americans interviewed after watching the Royal wedding, wanting to refer to the bride as Princess Kate, no matter what the rules say.

    And explaining the difference between queen consort (wife of a king) and queen regnant (a female monarch like Liz 2 who rules in her own right) is getting deep in the weeds of titles and such.

    On the other hand, Duke Ellington was really the King of Jazz, while Count Basie was the King of Swing. Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat; Paris Hilton is the Skank Laureate of the United States. I say this last with some actual fondness and respect since Hilton, unlike say, Lindsay Lohan, appears to have more of a sense of self-preservation.

    It’s just like that same archaic system we all lived under here in the US until about 30 years ago when married women were addressed by their husband’s name and Mary Smith was called Mrs. John Smith, not Mrs. Mary Smith.

    Yeah, but this was tradition, and not legal. In most states, as I recall, there was never a law that a woman had to take her husband’s name upon marriage.

    But then again, all forms of title here, from Mr to Mrs to Ms are somewhat archaic. And coming back to Anglo-American tradition, having a profession which entitled a man to be called Mr was one of the first steps up the social ladder.

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Even someone as aristocratic as Churchill was, in one sense, a commoner. He did not have a title.

    Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS was “born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough.” Not quite a commoner. And he had a title due to his knighthood.

  104. 104.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Brachiator: A knighthood which he received rather late in life. Also too, did you read the words I wrote? Ones like “aristocratic” and “in one sense” were there and had meaning.

  105. 105.

    Brachiator

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    A knighthood which he received rather late in life. Also too, did you read the words I wrote? Ones like “aristocratic” and “in one sense” were there and had meaning.

    Not picking a fight with you. I comment as a reply but also for the sake of other casual readers. There are people who honestly believe that Churchill was “just a commoner” and who do not know of either his aristocratic or American background.

    There was even a Juicer, in an earlier thread on another topic, who asserted that Churchill was just a “regular joe” who didn’t even go to college.

  106. 106.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Brachiator: Okay. A “regular joe,” he was not. Commoner can mean simply untitled or it can mean “common people.” Churchill spent much of his life as one, but never in a million years could he have been considered the other.

  107. 107.

    Calouste

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Form a royal matrimonial perspective, everyone below the level of Duke is a commoner. The late Queen Mum was the first commoner in the British royal family, her father was only an Earl.

  109. 109.

    Calouste

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Churchill spend his whole life as a commoner (in the titled sense). A knighthood doesn’t make you aristocracy. The title is not heriditary for starters.

  110. 110.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Calouste: Yeah, I wasn’t going get that deeply into the weeds unless the argument continued. IIRC Churchill turned down an offer of a peerage following WWII in order to remain in the House of Commons.

  111. 111.

    Mandramas

    Churchill was fan of their ancestor, John Churchill, first duke of Marlborough, one of the best generals in British story. And a secondary character in the Baroque Cycle.

  112. 112.

    Brachiator

    @Calouste:

    Form a royal matrimonial perspective, everyone below the level of Duke is a commoner. The late Queen Mum was the first commoner in the British royal family, her father was only an Earl.

    Yeah, it’s weird how these rules worked.

    Albert’s freedom in choosing Elizabeth, legally a commoner though the daughter of a peer, was considered a gesture in favour of political modernisation; previously, princes were expected to marry princesses from other royal families.

  113. 113.

    C.S.

    @Warren Terra:

    . . . in marrying so very far beneath himself, I believe the young prince has made a heroic and deliberate sacrifice . . .

    From the pictures I’ve seen of the couple, I don’t think the groom was the one making a sacrifice.

  116. 116.

    AAA Bonds

    All this peerage and royalty shit is absolutely disgusting, by the way. Those people should have their “possessions” sold and be turned out in the street.

  117. 117.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @AAA Bonds: While Churchill’s record on colonial issues is not spotless, or even good (I assume this was your point), it is not particularly germane to the issue being discussed.

  118. 118.

    Mandramas

    @AAA Bonds: For consistency’s sake, also cap inheritance to upper cap of 400.000 $ for each heir. This should disable american nobility system with no impact on middle class on a couple of generations.

  119. 119.

    Brachiator

    @AAA Bonds:

    All this peerage and royalty shit is absolutely disgusting, by the way.

    You do realize, don’t you, that people can discuss titles and peerage and such, without approving of monarchy.

    Hell, I think that marriage is an outmoded institution, but I don’t feel a burning deed to throw married couples into the street. And I support gay marriage. Go figure.

  120. 120.

    Mnemosyne

    @NonyNony:

    Yeah well fuck Miss Manners. I’ve hated that bit of sexism since I discovered it existed.

    This is why “Ms.” was invented — that way, you don’t have to reveal your marital status upon first introduction. Which is why Miss Manners encourages women other than herself to use “Ms.” I have a feeling you haven’t read any of her columns if you think she’s anti-feminist in some way.

  121. 121.

    Tehanu

    @Mandramas:

    I’m a Yorkist — by my lights, the last legitimate English monarch was Richard III — but although Elizabeth I was a Tudor, she was also the granddaughter of a Lord Mayor of London. So she had that going for her.

  122. 122.

    Tehanu

    @Brachiator:

    Actually, everyone who isn’t a royal is a commoner, technically, including Lady Diana Spencer who was the daughter of an Earl but not a peeress in her own right. I see several others have noted this. The only exceptions are the men (and a very, very few women) who are peers in their own right. So (for example) the Duke of Devonshire is a peer, but not a royal duke, and his wife the Duchess is a peeress by courtesy only, but a commoner in fact, while Sir Winston Churchill, grandson of a duke, was a commoner. It’s a technical distinction — not a sociological category. The Middletons may be “commoners” but they’re rich and their kids all went to posh schools.

Comments are closed.