Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family

97 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2010-11-16 17:31

Catchfire

Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family

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.

Snatching defeat from the Jaw of Victoria

Issues Pages:

Arts & Culture

Tue, 2010-11-16 12:50

Caissa

How classist.

Tue, 2010-11-16 13:04

Sineed

Thanks for this, Catchfire! You completely got me.

On a slightly serious note, I hope Kate has a happier life than Will's mum.

Tue, 2010-11-16 13:11

RosaL

Pretty funny. But it's going to cost a fortune.

Tue, 2010-11-16 13:16

Caissa

I think the fact he gave her Diana's engagement ring borders on the macabre.

Tue, 2010-11-16 13:43

RosaL

Caissa wrote:

I think the fact he gave her Diana's engagement ring borders on the macabre.

I don't care.

Tue, 2010-11-16 14:04

Snert

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?

Tue, 2010-11-16 14:23

RosaL

Snert wrote:

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.

Tue, 2010-11-16 15:30

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Caissa wrote:

I think the fact he gave her Diana's engagement ring borders on the macabre.

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".

Tue, 2010-11-16 17:13

#10

Jingles

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...

Wed, 2010-11-17 11:28

#11

torontoprofessor

@Catchfire -- Can I steal your thread title for my facebook page?

Wed, 2010-11-17 11:50

#12

Catchfire

I'd say yes, but it's not mine! It's from the link in the OP!

Wed, 2010-11-17 16:07

#13

BillBC

When Charles wed Diana,the Socialist Worker in the UK ran the headline "Parasite Marries Scrounger..."

Fri, 2010-11-19 00:32

#14

Malcolm

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."

Mon, 2010-11-22 05:48

#15

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Caissa wrote:

I think the fact he gave her Diana's engagement ring borders on the macabre.

It's not that unusual in "old money" families to use a family heirloom piece of jewelery 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".

He's not the only one to do it, either; most normal people also use family hand-me-down rings for the same purpose.

Tue, 2010-11-30 02:14

#16

Hurtin Albertan

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.

Tue, 2010-11-30 11:35

#17

Catchfire

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:00

#18

humanity4all

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!

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:03

#19

Snert

Most of us here will be Canadian, not British.

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:05

#20

humanity4all

It is strange how canadian forces are HM!

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:30

#21

Snert

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.

Tue, 2010-11-30 18:18

#22

Malcolm

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.

Wed, 2011-02-16 09:01

#23

Catchfire

Oh, bless!

Quote:
Prince William and Kate Middleton will spend Canada Day the way the prince's grandmother, the Queen, did last year, in Ottawa.

CBC News has learned William and Kate will make their first official trip as a married couple to Canada from the end of June to mid-July.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gov.-Gen. David Johnston are to officially announce the visit on Wednesday.

The royal couple are expected to travel across Canada — from Atlantic Canada to the West Coast — and to the Arctic.

Wed, 2011-02-16 09:42

#24

Boom Boom

Blech.

Sun, 2011-03-13 15:51

#25

Catchfire

Kate Middleton for the win!

Sun, 2011-03-13 16:49

#26

500_Apples

Has she actually done or said anything to deserve such scorn?

Mon, 2011-03-14 01:23

#27

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

The Governor-General is Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

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.

Malcolm wrote:

Not a thin dime of Canadian taxes goes to paying for the royals unless thay are in Canada on an official capacity.

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.

Malcolm wrote:

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.

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.

Mon, 2011-03-14 01:42

#28

politicalnick

Snert wrote:

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.

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.

Mon, 2011-03-14 02:01

#29

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

500_Apples wrote:
Has she actually done or said anything to deserve such scorn?

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.

Mon, 2011-03-14 02:06

#30

Malcolm

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.

Mon, 2011-03-14 02:54

#31

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Every post you make shows how vacuous your case is.

That is the very paradigm of a vacuous statement.

Malcolm wrote:

Now, please stop lying about me.

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.

Malcolm wrote:

Speaking of bullshit, Fmrsldr, you continue your little campaign of slander and falsehood.

... 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.

Malcolm wrote:

There are lots of sensible arguments for abolishing the monarchy. 'Tis a pity Canada's republicans seem so reluctant to use them, prefering their pointless fictions.

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.

Mon, 2011-03-14 02:57

#32

Malcolm

Fmrsldr, if you want to troll around a thread where I haven't posted for more than three months just so you can launch a childish personal attack, that says far more about you than it does about me.

You have consistently failed to make the case that the abolition of the monarchy is of sufficient importance to justify the effort involved. Instead, you have resorted to lies. That really is your problem, not mine.

Now do grow up.

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:04

#33

Ken Burch

Catchfire wrote:

Are those pot leaves she's wearing on her head?

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:05

#34

Ken Burch

Catchfire wrote:

Oh, bless!

Quote:
Prince William and Kate Middleton will spend Canada Day the way the prince's grandmother, the Queen, did last year, in Ottawa.

CBC News has learned William and Kate will make their first official trip as a married couple to Canada from the end of June to mid-July.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gov.-Gen. David Johnston are to officially announce the visit on Wednesday.

The royal couple are expected to travel across Canada — from Atlantic Canada to the West Coast — and to the Arctic.

Any chance they'll stop by Quebec City or Montreal? I'm sure they'd get a REALLY warm welcome in those royalist strongholds.

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:15

#35

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

It's strange how any discussion of Charles killing Diana didn't go very far. Or...maybe not...

Long live the KING!

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:46

#36

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, if you want to troll around a thread where I haven't posted for more than three months just so you can launch a childish personal attack, that says far more about you than it does about me.

Oh, you're breaking my heart. Yeah, go ahead avoid the issue by playing the sympathy/innocent victim card.

Malcolm wrote:

You have consistently failed to make the case that the abolition of the monarchy is of sufficient importance to justify the effort involved. Instead, you have resorted to lies. That really is your problem, not mine.

Oh, I see. It's my fault that you are unable to answer my questions. Yeah fine. Walk away. It's a free country. If you can't win, go ahead and pout all you like.

Malcolm wrote:

Now do grow up.

Yeah o.k. pops, keep talking down toward others in your arrogant and condescending tone.

And while you're at it keep avoiding the issue, blowing smoke in our faces and hiding behind your chimeras and shiboleths.

I take it this is your way of telling me you're not going to answer my questions.

You sure don't know how to exit a discussion gracefully, do you?

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:47

#37

politicalnick

I just love the hypocrisy of it all.

One report says they're being 'thrifty and economical' another says it will make Chuck and Di's look like a 'little get together'

A national holiday on the wedding day, just great, why collect the taxes on a day your spending them all for a party. Such a shame that those paying the bill aren't invited to the actual party.

Did I need to file a request somewhere to get a national holiday on my wedding day...can you download that form somewhere...

Best part of all is while 'posh spice' and hubby are invited the Obama's aren't!

Mon, 2011-03-14 03:56

#38

Frmrsldr

politicalnick wrote:

Did I need to file a request somewhere to get a national holiday on my wedding day...can you download that form somewhere...

Yeah, as a citizen living in a libertarian, representative, egalitarian democracy, how do I get such a cush gig?

I mean, if I get married, how do I get an all expense paid honeymoon vacation to (another Commonwealth limited monarchy country - say,) Australia? On the Australian taxpayer's dime, no less?

Only the (British) Battenburg family, you say?

Now what makes them think they're so damn special?

Aren't they equals, just like the rest of us?

Mon, 2011-03-14 04:09

#39

Malcolm

Fmrsldr, I've set forth the issue quite succinctly more than a dozen times.

1. Under the current settlement, the Crown (and its delegate the GG) has virtually no de facto power.

2. The reason the office has no de facto power despite having almost absolute de jure power has to do with democratic legitimacy. Therefore, replacing the Crown with an elected official would create a one person absolute dictatorship unless accompanied by significant constitutional revisions.

3. Abolishing the Crown and rejigging the constitutional powers of the head of state (despite your fabrications and delusions) is a complicated constitutional issue which requires the consent of the federal parliament and every provincial legislature.

4. The amount of effort and energy involved in abolishing a powerless remnant is not worth the expenditure. It is like ordering invasive surgery to remove a non-infected appendix.

That is the case that you refuse to acknowledge - either because you are too stupid to grasp it, or too dishonest to admit it.

Instead, you troll around dead threads looking to make personal attacks.

You'd really do us all a service if you'd just go back to getting drunk and passing out.

Might I suggest.

1 1/2 oz Irish whiskey
1 tsp brown sugar
6 ozhot coffee
heavy cream

Combine whiskey, sugar and coffee in a mug and stir to dissolve. Float cold cream gently on top. Do not mix.

Mon, 2011-03-14 04:36

#40

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

The amount of effort and energy involved in abolishing a powerless remnant is not worth the expenditure. It is like ordering invasive surgery to remove a non-infected appendix.

That's one way of looking at it.

Here's another:

Imagine you have a bunch of useless, broken, unfixable, ancient garbage cluttering your garage and creating a potential fire hazard. The sensible thing to do is to clean it up, even though it may require a little effort.

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, I've set forth the issue quite succinctly more than a dozen times.

1. Under the current settlement, the Crown (and its delegate the GG) has virtually no de facto power.

2. The reason the office has no de facto power despite having almost absolute de jure power has to do with democratic legitimacy. Therefore, replacing the Crown with an elected official would create a one person absolute dictatorship unless accompanied by significant constitutional revisions.

3. Abolishing the Crown and rejigging the constitutional powers of the head of state (despite your fabrications and delusions) is a complicated constitutional issue which requires the consent of the federal parliament and every provincial legislature.

4. The amount of effort and energy involved in abolishing a powerless remnant is not worth the expenditure. It is like ordering invasive surgery to remove a non-infected appendix.

So these are your "lots of sensible arguments for abolishing the monarchy"?

You're a pro-monarchist, got it. Thank you for answering that question.

Like I said, reminds me of an agnostic who tries to convince oneself that one is not an atheist by only coming up with arguments against the existence of god. Yeah, it's got me convinced.

Malcolm wrote:

That is the case that you refuse to acknowledge - either because you are too stupid to grasp it, or too dishonest to admit it.

Instead, you troll around dead threads looking to make personal attacks.

Careful, Malcolm. Those are personal attacks.

Malcolm wrote:

You'd really do us all a service if you'd just go back to getting drunk and passing out.

Careful, Malcolm. As you may recall, I got my first warning from a mod. when I made a comment like that.

Mon, 2011-03-14 04:42

#41

politicalnick

I have to agree with Frmrsldr on this one. The reference to him being a 'drunk' is quite offensive and demeaning. Some people on here should really reread the policy about such language and rethink how their words give true light to their character.

Mon, 2011-03-14 09:46

#42

Snert

Quote:

It's strange how any discussion of Charles killing Diana didn't go very far.

I know! Also, same thing with discussion of her being killed by a lion.

I wonder if that's because both ideas are childish and nonsensical?

Mon, 2011-03-14 10:26

#43

Catchfire

Please keep the tiresome arguments about abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. Start a new thread elsewhere if you'd like to continue that canard. Also, the personal attacks between Malcolm and Frmrsldr have got to stop. If you can't stand each other, ignore each other's posts. If you can't do that, don't call each other stupid, ignorant, dishonest, drunk or whatever. It's your choice.

RP, I take your criticism about the Kate photos--although the entire Royal wedding setup is already pretty misogynist, and while the criticism we see about Kate and William tends to be gendered, I find that Kate generally seems to come out on top as much less of a bore than Billy. But again, your point is well taken.

Mon, 2011-03-14 11:18

#44

Ghislaine

Catchfire, I just clicked on the link you posted above, with all the photos of Kate Middleton and I just have to point out that a lot of it is really offensive. One picture shows a tiny bit of her (not fat at all belly) with the caption "and I'm certain your diet is going well as well".

Very sexist messaging; body image issues are not funny. Anyways, did not expect a link like that on rabble.

All of that said, Will and Kate are coming to here to PEI on their trip. I am thinking of booking that time as my vacation, as I can imagine the trip to work will be a nightmare with Royal security and crowds.

Mon, 2011-03-14 11:50

#45

500_Apples

Catchfire,

I'm actually wondering where the scorn comes from. It could be that Kate Middleton is a horrible human being who is rude to waiters and janitors and makes stupid celebrity comments about poor people -- I don't know. If she has done those things regularly and ignorantly, she deserves to be ridiculed for it in my opinion, but not in the same manner as those pictures.

Really, all she did was go after William, which could have happened to many women. I'm born in 1983 and I remember that prince William was tied with Leonardo DiCaprio for most eligible man alive among the girls of my generation... A lot of college women would have gone after him.

In my own personal opinion I would not trade my life for that of the royals. It doesn't sound like a fantastic life. They will never have privacy, they will never be allowed to have their own careers and their children will not be allowed to have dreams as their careers will be predetermined. It sounds like a prison. It is probably impossible for Kate to leave the house without spending 15-30-60? minutes putting makeup on. There might be paparazzi sneaking into the hospital room as she's giving birth in 3 or 4 years. William lost his mother to those losers and to our shared public addiction to celebrity gossip.

Mon, 2011-03-14 16:47

#46

Malcolm

I apologize for having responded in kind to Fmrsldr's personal attacks. I should not have done that.

Fmrsldr, those are not arguments to abolish the monarchy. Those are arguments why it should not be a priority.

Despite your protestations, there is no compelling reason to make it a priority, and there is no simple way to accomplish it. If either of those facts were otherwise, you would have my full throated support. As it is, it is a significant waste of progressive energy to accomplish something of minimal value.

If "they aren't worth abolishing" makes me a monarchist in your eyes, then so be it. Sensible people will be able to see through that canard.

Mon, 2011-03-14 16:48

#47

Malcolm

double post - clicked "quote" vice "edit."

Mon, 2011-03-14 21:50

#48

Catchfire

Again, this is not the thread about abolishing the monarchy. Please start another thread if you wish to discuss that. Malcolm's will be the last word in this thread.

500_Apples wrote:
Catchfire,

I'm actually wondering where the scorn comes from. It could be that Kate Middleton is a horrible human being who is rude to waiters and janitors and makes stupid celebrity comments about poor people -- I don't know. If she has done those things regularly and ignorantly, she deserves to be ridiculed for it in my opinion, but not in the same manner as those pictures.

While I'm sensitive to Ghislaine and RP's critique, I see the photos at poking fun at the vacuity of the English Upper Crust. I take the point that the jokes in the link I posted are gender specific, but maybe it's hard for North Americans to fully understand the ridiculous wealth and lifestyle the leisure classes enjoy in England. I see the photos as highlighting the utter disconnect Kate, William and their entourage have with the rest of Britain. Kate doesn't have to be rude to waiters in order to exploit them.

I guess I started this thread because I think the combination of the gross inequality which separate the classes (economically, politically and socially) in Britain, and the spectacular, crass degree to which the nation is encouraged to celebrate it (cf. commemorative plate), is positively criminal. Humour is a good way to combat that cognitive gap--although apparently it has its own pitfalls.

Mon, 2011-03-14 22:11

#49

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Please keep the tiresome arguments about abolishing the monarchy out of this thread. Start a new thread elsewhere if you'd like to continue that canard. Also, the personal attacks between Malcolm and Frmrsldr have got to stop. If you can't stand each other, ignore each other's posts. If you can't do that, don't call each other stupid, ignorant, dishonest, drunk or whatever. It's your choice.

No personal animosity on my part.

Mon, 2011-03-14 22:34

#50

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, those are not arguments to abolish the monarchy. Those are arguments why it should not be a priority.

Indeed. Hence your claim that you have "lots of sensible arguments for abolishing the monarchy" was either an empty one or wasn't about abolishing the monarchy at all but rather, was a sarcastic putdown toward those who value libertarian, egalitarian, representative democracy and justice or pro-republicanism/anti-monarchism.

Malcolm wrote:

Despite your protestations, there is no compelling reason to make it a priority, and there is no simple way to accomplish it. If either of those facts were otherwise, you would have my full throated support. As it is, it is a significant waste of progressive energy to accomplish something of minimal value.

If "they aren't worth abolishing" makes me a monarchist in your eyes, then so be it. Sensible people will be able to see through that canard.

Reminds me of my uncle (who was overweight and was warned by his doctor) who always said, "I'm going to start excersizing and lose some weight." but who always came up with excuses not to and rationalizations why he didn't.

Also reminds me of my grandfather who always said, "I'm going to quit smoking." but who always came up with excuses, rationalizations and explanations as to why he hadn't.

They recognized what the problem was but sadly were unable to bring themselves around to committing themselves to beneficial actions that would bring improvement to their lives.

Tue, 2011-03-15 00:52

#51

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

CF, you're floating on an island. Come together bro!

You take our words? What the fuck is that sidesteppping? I guess I have to react vociferously.

Pages

Topic locked