New Post
Search
HelpRe: This has been posted
in reply to a message by Rachel Shaina
Good point. Why is it Princess Diana, but not Princess Kate?
"An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way." -Charles Bukowski
"An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way." -Charles Bukowski
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
1
Because Kate is not the Princess of Wales yet.
Diana was never really Princesss Diana although people call her that.
Diana was never really Princesss Diana although people call her that.
This message was edited 9/10/2014, 1:59 AM
1
I thought that she was Princess Diana when she was married to Prince Charles. I think the difference is that Charles is the son of the current monarch, and William isn't. Not that it makes sense in this case, because Catherine will be queen some day.
1
Diana's correct title when she was married to Prince Charles was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales. Although "Princess Diana" became the common usage, it was always incorrect. It should have been "Diana, Princess of Wales." After she was divorced from Prince Charles, she lost the "HRH". She was still Diana, Princess of Wales, but no longer HRH Diana, Princess of Wales.
William is not the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparant to the British throne. The heir apparant is first in line to a throne who cannot be displaced in the line by the birth of another person. William is not first in line, he is second. So since he is not the Prince of Wales, his wife can't be the Princess of Wales. He will become Prince of Wales when the Queen dies and Prince Charles becomes King, or if and when Prince Charles dies before the Queen does and William would then become first in line.
The marriage of a woman to any Prince of the royal family other than the Prince of Wales doesn't result in her obtaining the title Princess. That's why most Princes other than the Prince of Wales are given dukedoms upon marriage, so their wives can assume the title of Duchess. That's what happened when Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson and again when Prince William married Catherine Middleton.
William is not the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparant to the British throne. The heir apparant is first in line to a throne who cannot be displaced in the line by the birth of another person. William is not first in line, he is second. So since he is not the Prince of Wales, his wife can't be the Princess of Wales. He will become Prince of Wales when the Queen dies and Prince Charles becomes King, or if and when Prince Charles dies before the Queen does and William would then become first in line.
The marriage of a woman to any Prince of the royal family other than the Prince of Wales doesn't result in her obtaining the title Princess. That's why most Princes other than the Prince of Wales are given dukedoms upon marriage, so their wives can assume the title of Duchess. That's what happened when Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson and again when Prince William married Catherine Middleton.
This message was edited 9/10/2014, 6:36 AM
1
Her correct title was HRH The Princess of Wales while she was married. Diana was not a part of it. Wives of British royalty never have their own names in their titles.
This message was edited 9/11/2014, 4:06 AM
1
Ooo, is that being attempted? What a shake-up!
Though, I secretly wish that I was like Grace Kelly and stumbled upon Princessdom, without the tragic ending. I was just wondering the other day how wonderful it would be to have the duties of a Duchess rather than a menial office worker by day. And... a little jealous of the nanny!
Though, I secretly wish that I was like Grace Kelly and stumbled upon Princessdom, without the tragic ending. I was just wondering the other day how wonderful it would be to have the duties of a Duchess rather than a menial office worker by day. And... a little jealous of the nanny!
This message was edited 9/10/2014, 8:04 AM
1
It won't happen. The majority are in favor of the monarchy.
1
I think the tide is slowly turning (m)...
... after Prince George was born last year, Republic (the official campaign to scrap the monarchy) had its biggest surge in membership. I think many people were probably sickened at the immorality that one baby can be born into such privilege, from birthright alone, when 1/3 of babies born in the UK in the present times are born into poverty.
Then when it was announced that the cost of refurbishing the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge's apartment at Kensington Palace had more than doubled, there was another spike in membership.
It will take a long time to get there, it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but will it happen one day.
... after Prince George was born last year, Republic (the official campaign to scrap the monarchy) had its biggest surge in membership. I think many people were probably sickened at the immorality that one baby can be born into such privilege, from birthright alone, when 1/3 of babies born in the UK in the present times are born into poverty.
Then when it was announced that the cost of refurbishing the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge's apartment at Kensington Palace had more than doubled, there was another spike in membership.
It will take a long time to get there, it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but will it happen one day.
1
The problem with ending the monarchy imo is the paparazzi. The royals could adjust to the daily grind, but the media will never leave them alone.
1
I hope not.
1
....Really...?
1
Actually...
I really don't think the majority of us are 'in favour' of the royalty. I'd say about 10% love them, 20% dislike them to some degree and 70% couldn't give two hoots but think they bring in revenue from gulible tourists. Especially in my generation, they aren't very popular at all (Kate's family are often straw-manned).
But they won't be gotten rid of, because of history, tradition, tourism and it's just too much of a pain in an arse when we're a stable, traditional country where most of us just can't be arsed making a change. Getting rid of a monarchy would be kind of complicated at the best...
I really don't think the majority of us are 'in favour' of the royalty. I'd say about 10% love them, 20% dislike them to some degree and 70% couldn't give two hoots but think they bring in revenue from gulible tourists. Especially in my generation, they aren't very popular at all (Kate's family are often straw-manned).
But they won't be gotten rid of, because of history, tradition, tourism and it's just too much of a pain in an arse when we're a stable, traditional country where most of us just can't be arsed making a change. Getting rid of a monarchy would be kind of complicated at the best...
1
Yeah, this...
The tourism aspect shouldn't be underestimated. The chance to see actual royalty/actively used palaces etc in an English-speaking country is a huge tourism drawcard, earning a very large amount of money for the country. There's also quite a bit of money that the royal family gives back into the treasury each year.
The tourism aspect shouldn't be underestimated. The chance to see actual royalty/actively used palaces etc in an English-speaking country is a huge tourism drawcard, earning a very large amount of money for the country. There's also quite a bit of money that the royal family gives back into the treasury each year.
1
It's basically the key argument of the pro-monarchy folks these days. They can't justify a baby being born into such luxury, or Kate getting -so- much fame and wealth just by marrying and giving birth, in this day and age, so they bellow 'What about the money from tourism?!' as if that justifies it. A lot of people don't want to get rid of them, like I said, because of the money from tourism and the fuss such a change would create, but they sure as hell don't like them.
I think a hell of a lot of pro-monarchy anglophones come from outside the UK, and to be honest, they're entitled to like the monarchy but that's just about it. And personally, not naming names, there are examples even here over how non-Brits like the British monarchy far more than -we- actually do. Another example is how much the US freaked over the royal wedding, as did the Brit press, but most of us were like 'I want to watch the news. I don't care about this wedding poo. Why is on every channel? How much is it costing out country? Damn, the Middletons are annoyingly smug, aren't they?'.
Antipathy basically sums up what, from my experience, most of the UK population feel towards the monarchy, with a growing level of boredom and bitterness.
I think a hell of a lot of pro-monarchy anglophones come from outside the UK, and to be honest, they're entitled to like the monarchy but that's just about it. And personally, not naming names, there are examples even here over how non-Brits like the British monarchy far more than -we- actually do. Another example is how much the US freaked over the royal wedding, as did the Brit press, but most of us were like 'I want to watch the news. I don't care about this wedding poo. Why is on every channel? How much is it costing out country? Damn, the Middletons are annoyingly smug, aren't they?'.
Antipathy basically sums up what, from my experience, most of the UK population feel towards the monarchy, with a growing level of boredom and bitterness.
1
I'm an American who's in favor of the monarchy, not that it matters much in the sense that as an American, I can never have any influence on whether it stays or goes. Nevertheless, I thought I'd state my view.
I'm not in favor of it because of tourism dollars. Nor do I think that most of the British who say they are in favor of it for that reason really are in favor of it for that reason. I think they have emotional reasons for being in favor of it but fall back on the "tourism dollars" reason because it sounds reasonable and logical. But I find yours and Betsabe's argument of "the immorality of one baby can be born into such privilege, from birthright alone, when 1/3 of babies born in the UK are born into poverty" and "can't justify a baby born into such luxury" just as unconvincing.
My country is a democratic republic. But do you think we don't have babies born into privilege and luxury while others are born poor? Apparently our poverty rate is not as high as yours, but 22 percent of our children are poor. And the babies of actors, actresses, athletes are born into luxury. You may feel that actors and athletes are more deserving of their riches than are royalty, but I don't. I don't feel that actors and athletes do one damn thing to deserve their millions. Then we do still have our Americans who inherited their wealth, not having done anything themselves to earn it, whose babies are born into luxury and privilege. A democratic republic doesn't change these things.
Yet I'm not really bitter about our wealthy and our privileged. I don't often quote Jesus, but yes, the guy said some things worth saying, and one of the those was "The poor you will always have with you." Knocking the actors and the athletes and those lucky enough to be born into wealth down, and taking all of their money, and redistributing it, will not eliminate our poor. It would be a drop in the bucket. Nor would eliminating royalty eliminate your poor.
I'm not in favor of it because of tourism dollars. Nor do I think that most of the British who say they are in favor of it for that reason really are in favor of it for that reason. I think they have emotional reasons for being in favor of it but fall back on the "tourism dollars" reason because it sounds reasonable and logical. But I find yours and Betsabe's argument of "the immorality of one baby can be born into such privilege, from birthright alone, when 1/3 of babies born in the UK are born into poverty" and "can't justify a baby born into such luxury" just as unconvincing.
My country is a democratic republic. But do you think we don't have babies born into privilege and luxury while others are born poor? Apparently our poverty rate is not as high as yours, but 22 percent of our children are poor. And the babies of actors, actresses, athletes are born into luxury. You may feel that actors and athletes are more deserving of their riches than are royalty, but I don't. I don't feel that actors and athletes do one damn thing to deserve their millions. Then we do still have our Americans who inherited their wealth, not having done anything themselves to earn it, whose babies are born into luxury and privilege. A democratic republic doesn't change these things.
Yet I'm not really bitter about our wealthy and our privileged. I don't often quote Jesus, but yes, the guy said some things worth saying, and one of the those was "The poor you will always have with you." Knocking the actors and the athletes and those lucky enough to be born into wealth down, and taking all of their money, and redistributing it, will not eliminate our poor. It would be a drop in the bucket. Nor would eliminating royalty eliminate your poor.
1
*rolls eyes like a pinball machine*
Thanks for telling me about my country. Next time I want to know what my fellow Brits think, I'll be sure to ask you. It's so absurd, it's almost funny.
There is so much wrong with your reply, not least the joke of a 'stat' you posted (I don't know anyone who's ever been asked some kind of survey about the monarchy, therefore it may well have a narrow target group and it's not at all that n% of all of us Brits think that, it's n% of the Brits who searched or were given that survey and wanted to take the time to answer it and therefore probably had strong opinions in the first place...ah, hell, most sane people know how statistics are a stupid thing to bring into an argument). But you know what, I can't be bothered arguing with you. I agree to disagree with you, because I don't have the energy tonight to argue with you and I know you won't bother listening.
At the minute, I don't care about the monarchy. Your issue and your logic suck, but I'll live and let live.
Thanks for telling me about my country. Next time I want to know what my fellow Brits think, I'll be sure to ask you. It's so absurd, it's almost funny.
There is so much wrong with your reply, not least the joke of a 'stat' you posted (I don't know anyone who's ever been asked some kind of survey about the monarchy, therefore it may well have a narrow target group and it's not at all that n% of all of us Brits think that, it's n% of the Brits who searched or were given that survey and wanted to take the time to answer it and therefore probably had strong opinions in the first place...ah, hell, most sane people know how statistics are a stupid thing to bring into an argument). But you know what, I can't be bothered arguing with you. I agree to disagree with you, because I don't have the energy tonight to argue with you and I know you won't bother listening.
At the minute, I don't care about the monarchy. Your issue and your logic suck, but I'll live and let live.
This message was edited 9/12/2014, 1:29 PM
1
Eh, well *shrugs shoulders*
I should have known by your already-strident tone that you would be quite rude in reply to me. I must have forgotten that I don't have a right to my own opinion.
Oh, and you don't personally know anyone who's been asked a survey about the monarchy, that must mean it doesn't happen, right? The same way you don't personally know anyone who supports it, so that means they don't exist, correct? And because a poll doesn't ask every single person who lives in the country, that means it doesn't count, right, because it's not like polling doesn't take a representative sample and it's not like polling is quite scientific, right? And could you explain exactly why statistics are a stupid thing to bring into an argument? I think it's because these statistics don't support your argument. I'm not the only one who has something wrong with my reply.
I should have known by your already-strident tone that you would be quite rude in reply to me. I must have forgotten that I don't have a right to my own opinion.
Oh, and you don't personally know anyone who's been asked a survey about the monarchy, that must mean it doesn't happen, right? The same way you don't personally know anyone who supports it, so that means they don't exist, correct? And because a poll doesn't ask every single person who lives in the country, that means it doesn't count, right, because it's not like polling doesn't take a representative sample and it's not like polling is quite scientific, right? And could you explain exactly why statistics are a stupid thing to bring into an argument? I think it's because these statistics don't support your argument. I'm not the only one who has something wrong with my reply.
1
Whatever
Grow up, love.
Grow up, love.
1
Oh, the irony
that your response to my pointing out your lapses in logic is "Whatever", and then you tell me to grow up. You must be very young.
that your response to my pointing out your lapses in logic is "Whatever", and then you tell me to grow up. You must be very young.
1
Not interested, end of conversation
1
LOL
Last-word-itis can be so amusing.
Last-word-itis can be so amusing.
1
"The monarchy is a defining characteristic of your country, it is very tied up with your national identity in the minds of so many people who aren't British, it's what sets you apart from other European countries. And eliminating it won't solve the problem of poverty and it won't make a classless society (WE don't have a classless society), but it will make you less distinctive and destroy some of your identity."
I'm British and relatively young (early 20s) and I agree with this. I don't feel strongly about the monarchy either way, but I do feel like they are a big part of the identity of the UK and how the country is perceived by the rest of the world, and so I do think it would be a shame if we abolished the monarchy and became a Republic. In my experience most people don't love them or hate them, they're just kind of 'there', and there are always going to be people who live more luxurious lives than other people. The Royal Family aren't even that rich anyway, compared to a lot of celebrities.
I'm British and relatively young (early 20s) and I agree with this. I don't feel strongly about the monarchy either way, but I do feel like they are a big part of the identity of the UK and how the country is perceived by the rest of the world, and so I do think it would be a shame if we abolished the monarchy and became a Republic. In my experience most people don't love them or hate them, they're just kind of 'there', and there are always going to be people who live more luxurious lives than other people. The Royal Family aren't even that rich anyway, compared to a lot of celebrities.
1
Of course
You believe what you believe, but I disagree. But hell, the world would be boring if we all disagreed.
But at the end of the day, our politics about our monarchy centre mainly around our country (I say this loosely, not being ethnically English/British, and the whole 'identity' thing is bull to me since my family country was part of the empire) and the opinions of British citizens and that's it. If we ever decided to get rid of the monarchy or to keep them, the only decision that mattered would be that of the people of our country. It's a bit like Scottish independence - only the opinions of the population affected matter.
So really, as queenv isn't a Brit, I don't like being preached to. I don't tell her what president to vote for, she shouldn't take my anti-monarchy stance so personally. And actually, I don’t tell the French how to vote, the Dutch what to do with –their- monarchy, or get angry when another country keeps or gets rid of their monarchy, because it doesn’t affect me and it’s none of my business.
Then again, some people who don’t live here have this creepy attachment
You believe what you believe, but I disagree. But hell, the world would be boring if we all disagreed.
But at the end of the day, our politics about our monarchy centre mainly around our country (I say this loosely, not being ethnically English/British, and the whole 'identity' thing is bull to me since my family country was part of the empire) and the opinions of British citizens and that's it. If we ever decided to get rid of the monarchy or to keep them, the only decision that mattered would be that of the people of our country. It's a bit like Scottish independence - only the opinions of the population affected matter.
So really, as queenv isn't a Brit, I don't like being preached to. I don't tell her what president to vote for, she shouldn't take my anti-monarchy stance so personally. And actually, I don’t tell the French how to vote, the Dutch what to do with –their- monarchy, or get angry when another country keeps or gets rid of their monarchy, because it doesn’t affect me and it’s none of my business.
Then again, some people who don’t live here have this creepy attachment
1
I didn't take it personally. I didn't try to tell you to like it. I didn't preach to you. I wasn't angry. I stated a viewpoint. Why the hell are you so intolerant? "But hell the world would be boring if we all disagreed (sic) (you must have meant agreed)" my ass. You obviously can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with you.
1
Well, I guess we can both be rude, then
If you're going to continue being rude to me, I'll do likewise to you.
You are behaving really immaturely and I'm not interested in discussing this (which, incidentally, as I've pointed out, has very little do with you, if anything at all. If the UK were to keep or get rid of our monarchy, it would be our choice, not what pleases you the most) if you're going to continue being rude yet accusatory. It's just a bit pathetic.
Oh, and I'm not using labels, yet you are. Who the hell are you to call me 'intolerant'? Just... eugh. As I said, you won't listen, so why should I try to justify myself to you. I don't want to bother with you any more.
I just think you're talking out of your arse, love, that's all. Ta ta.
If you're going to continue being rude to me, I'll do likewise to you.
You are behaving really immaturely and I'm not interested in discussing this (which, incidentally, as I've pointed out, has very little do with you, if anything at all. If the UK were to keep or get rid of our monarchy, it would be our choice, not what pleases you the most) if you're going to continue being rude yet accusatory. It's just a bit pathetic.
Oh, and I'm not using labels, yet you are. Who the hell are you to call me 'intolerant'? Just... eugh. As I said, you won't listen, so why should I try to justify myself to you. I don't want to bother with you any more.
I just think you're talking out of your arse, love, that's all. Ta ta.
This message was edited 9/13/2014, 11:28 AM
1
I was not at all rude to you until you were to me. My initial response to you, in which I outlined why I support the monarchy, was not at all rude, but yours in response to it was.
You accused me of being angry, which I had not been when I made my initial response, but that must be a bad case of projection. Because it's evident that the subject of the monarchy makes you so angry that you can't have a civil discussion about it without resorting to insults and ridicule ("eyeballs rolling like a pinball machine" and "your logic sucks.")
No, what I think about the monarchy doesn't have a lot of weight because I'm not a Brit, but that's not as you pointed out. I pointed it out first in my initial response. And no, you can't tell me whom to vote for for President and you don't get to vote for President yourself and maybe you don't care, but guess what? There are a lot of people who aren't American who do care who the President of the USA is, and who do want Americans to understand how their country is perceived by the rest of the world. And if one of them wanted to present their viewpoint to me, whether it were you or someone else, while I might not agree, I would never treat them in the rude, sarcastic, angry, dismissive way that you have treated me, made all the worse by your failure to defend any stance you have taken.
Throughout this discussion, you have either failed to address my points entirely, or done so with a complete lack of logic ("polling and statistics are stupid because I said they are and polls are done this way because I say they are so that means your statistics don't mean anything nyeahhh") or with immature one-word answers. ("Whatever".) And you think I'm talking out my "arse"? And I'm immature? More projection and more irony.
Who am I to tell you you're intolerant? A person who's been a target of your intolerance. And you're not interested in having this discussion with me? Prove it, then. Quit posting your rude, sarcastic point-dodging responses. which are made obviously because you're a person who can't stand not having the last word, even when the last word is "Whatever."
You accused me of being angry, which I had not been when I made my initial response, but that must be a bad case of projection. Because it's evident that the subject of the monarchy makes you so angry that you can't have a civil discussion about it without resorting to insults and ridicule ("eyeballs rolling like a pinball machine" and "your logic sucks.")
No, what I think about the monarchy doesn't have a lot of weight because I'm not a Brit, but that's not as you pointed out. I pointed it out first in my initial response. And no, you can't tell me whom to vote for for President and you don't get to vote for President yourself and maybe you don't care, but guess what? There are a lot of people who aren't American who do care who the President of the USA is, and who do want Americans to understand how their country is perceived by the rest of the world. And if one of them wanted to present their viewpoint to me, whether it were you or someone else, while I might not agree, I would never treat them in the rude, sarcastic, angry, dismissive way that you have treated me, made all the worse by your failure to defend any stance you have taken.
Throughout this discussion, you have either failed to address my points entirely, or done so with a complete lack of logic ("polling and statistics are stupid because I said they are and polls are done this way because I say they are so that means your statistics don't mean anything nyeahhh") or with immature one-word answers. ("Whatever".) And you think I'm talking out my "arse"? And I'm immature? More projection and more irony.
Who am I to tell you you're intolerant? A person who's been a target of your intolerance. And you're not interested in having this discussion with me? Prove it, then. Quit posting your rude, sarcastic point-dodging responses. which are made obviously because you're a person who can't stand not having the last word, even when the last word is "Whatever."
1
It's the romantic allure of royalty.
Sorry.
Sorry.
1