babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family
November 16, 2010 - 6:31pm
Quote:
It was, the English papers say, a "marathon eight-year courtship." But like every marathon of… two people… it had a winner? Yes, that's a metaphor that doesn't hold up. But it does nicely reflect the idea of monogamy as constantly besieged—and also the idea of marriage being a prize, won by the woman. Because men just hate it, and have to be tricked into it! Welcome to the most sexist day on the planet earth in some time! In any event, today a girl, Kate Middleton, becomes an English princess; her "prize," a lifetime of agonizing social events. Also Prince William's rapidly declining looks (sorry!) and oodles of cash.
How classist.
Thanks for this, Catchfire! You completely got me.
On a slightly serious note, I hope Kate has a happier life than Will's mum.
Pretty funny. But it's going to cost a fortune.
I think the fact he gave her Diana's engagement ring borders on the macabre.
I don't care.
That's what's called a healthy boundary.
I'll bet you don't care who won the last Dancing With The Stars, either. Am I right?
Quite right
But I think I'd chalk it up to values and priorities.
It's not that unusual in "old money" families to use a family heirloom piece of jewellery as an engagement ring - or so I've read. In a way, it's rather a nice sentiment - his mother reportedly meant a lot to him, so might the ring, and it gives the gift a special meaning. Much nicer than "Here's the biggest rock in the store".
I wonder if they watch The Tudors and think "Why can't I do that now? This sucks".
I see where she can trace her lineage to George Washington, George S. Patton, and probably another George. And you thought all those "Royal Family/Bilderburger/CFR" theories were bunk...
@Catchfire -- Can I steal your thread title for my facebook page?
I'd say yes, but it's not mine! It's from the link in the OP!
When Charles wed Diana,the Socialist Worker in the UK ran the headline "Parasite Marries Scrounger..."
When Anne (now the Princess Royal) married Captain Mark Phillips, apparently the official CPGB paper included a brief story that :Traffic was disrupted in London due to the marriage of Anne Mountbatten-Windsor and Mark Phillips."
He's not the only one to do it, either; most normal people also use family hand-me-down rings for the same purpose.
I heard they are going to do some sort of random selection or contest of some sort and 100 people will get chosen to attend.
As mentioned in other threads, keep paying your taxes to your crown and prepare your grandchildren to go and die in far away places for your future king!
Most of us here will be Canadian, not British.
It is strange how canadian forces are HM!
Ya, that guy's grandmother is on our money, too. But we don't pay taxes to the Queen, nor does the Queen command our armed forces in anything other than a symbolic capacity.
The Governor-General is Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.
Not a thin dime of Canadian taxes goes to paying for the royals unless thay are in Canada on an official capacity.
There zare lots of sensible arguments for abolishing the monarchy. 'Tis a pity Canada's republicans seem so reluctant to use them, prefering their pointless fictions.
Oh, bless!
Blech.
Kate Middleton for the win!
The Governor General is subject to a higher authority.
Canada's military law is the "QR&Os" - the queen's regulations and orders.
Canada's Governor General is the subordinate of a sovereign that confers these laws to its subjects, in this case the Canadian military.
As such the British crown is the ultimate de jure Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Governor General is the de jure "lieutenant" (both figuratively as well as literally) of the British crown.
So, when Kate and Willy spend their upcoming honeymoon vacation in Canada, they are acting in an "official capacity"?
How much do you figure each Canadian will pay in taxes for their honeymoon vacation in Canada? As soon as I find this out, I'm going to withhold this portion of my taxes. I refuse to pay for their vacation. I'll let those who have nothing better to do than fawn and gush all over these useless (Martin Sheen, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan type) undeserving royal parasite freeloaders, pay their expenses for me.
So please inform us, what are the logically airtight unassailable arguments you have in your arsenal for abolishing the monarchy?
You have informed us on another thread that gathering information about the European monarchies is a hobby of yours.
What do you do when it comes to your republicanism hobby?
Some things are good in themselves. Liberty, representative democracy ("people power"), equality and justice are good in themselves. Intelligent people when they discover this, will be naturally attracted to them and will strive to achieve these goods in their communities and societies.
Things that are their opposites are not goods in themselves and are contraditions (logically) and practically in terms of the harm to both individuals and society they cause. Examples of this are tyranny/despotism, inequality, slavery and injustice.
I'll ask you two very simple questions requiring two very simple answers:
1. Do you support and prefer libertarian representative democracy, egalitarianism and a just form of government? Yes or no?
2. Or do you support and prefer a government that has at its head a position that is unelected, unrepresentative, hereditary, inegalitarian, antidemocratic, reactionary and traces its roots back to a feudal system of government and society? Yes or no?
This is called "the moment of truth" when one must face one's own bullshit.
Obviously you have been fooled like many others. Since our so-called constitution was never ratified by referendum of the people and was a 'royal proclaimation' adopted by british parliament we are actually still under the authority of the crown of England. Nothing symbolic about it. Why do you think the governor-general opens parliament each year by royal proclaimation. It's all part of the great illusion of freedom they would have us believe.
No, I don't think so Apples and I've flagged the post much as I didn't want to.
I hate the Monarchy as much as anybody but I'm having a hard time understanding the ridicule for this woman.
Shouldn't the scorn be reserved for those that were born into the farce not those that seek to avail themselves of it's excesses.
It's classic gold-digger lingo and should have no place here. It does women an injustice.
Speaking of bullshit, Fmrsldr, you continue your little campaign of slander and falsehood. Every post you make shows how vacuous your case is.
I have no problem with abolishing the monarchy as a notional construct. Indeed, all things being equal, it ought to be abolished.
But everything isn't equal. It's a virtually powerless monarchy that is constitutionally complicated to abolishh. Every time you suggest otherwise, you are either lying or demonstrating that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Now, please stop lying about me.
That is the very paradigm of a vacuous statement.
The case rests with the defendant to establish where Frmrsldr has committed libel. Yeah, let's avoid the real issue by fabricating a non-existent libel issue. Just to distract everyone's attention.
Hey, if you don't want to participate in this discussion anymore, you don't have to.
Aw, you disappoint me. You failed the "moment of truth" test. It is one thing to believe something, but if you want to convince others of the truth and rightness of your beliefs, then you are going to have to try a lot harder than that. You are going to have to establish the veracity and rightness of your beliefs.
It should be very easy to knock down my strawman arguments with your superior intellect and awesome arsenal of "lots of sensible arguments for abolishing the monarchy." You haven't provided me with the wonderful opportunity to read what they are.
By the way, you didn't answer my questions.
Your constant avoidance of the issue and the constant chimeras and shiboleths you hide behind remind me of an agnostic who tries to convince oneself that one is not an athiest by only coming up with arguments against the existence of god(!)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, feels like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck - chances are, it's a duck.