123 replies to this topic

[ThickasaBrick]

People are people regardless of titles attached to their name. Each and every member of nobility has ancestors who were, at some point in the past, a "commoner". Being born of parents who are kings or queens doesn't make one any better or worse than anyone other.

[spud the mackem]

libstaK, on 17 January 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Exactly the idea in my mind when I see that pic, it's so so, well - is pompous too strong a word?

   Hi Libstak, To me this picture looks like a day out at the races, for the "gentry", ie:- people with more money than sense. Non of them are even smiling, pehaps that is through having to pay a very large entrance fee, and eating lemons. ha ha,whilst waiting for hours to see what the Queen is wearing that day.These people are living in their own little dream world to which us serfs are not invited,which makes me happy because I wouldnt be seen dead or alive in one of those stupid looking top hats.

[Yamato]

jgorman628, on 17 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

People are people regardless of titles attached to their name. Each and every member of nobility has ancestors who were, at some point in the past, a "commoner". Being born of parents who are kings or queens doesn't make one any better or worse than anyone other.

And so the language needs to be rendered obsolete.  The mere use of the word "commoner" begs distinction with someone else who isn't a "commoner".

[keithisco]

"Serfs" can attend as well... look at most of them and they are all "Serfs"

I agree that all of this attention is just nonsense, but that is all it is... the media get all excited and show us these pictures because nothing else has happened in the day, bit like the kentucky Derby.

i am fairly sure that most of the UK is, like me, of Republican stance(NO, I cant prove it), couldn't give 2 hoots for the Monarchy, but as long as they have a Tourist Dividend to bring in then let them get on with it.

That being said here is the Legal Definition of Commoner: from dear old Wiki:

In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone who holds only a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of BristolActually

Edited by keithisco, 17 January 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[G Donnelly]

spud the mackem, on 17 January 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Hi Libstak, To me this picture looks like a day out at the races, for the "gentry", ie:- people with more money than sense. Non of them are even smiling, pehaps that is through having to pay a very large entrance fee, and eating lemons. ha ha,whilst waiting for hours to see what the Queen is wearing that day.These people are living in their own little dream world to which us serfs are not invited,which makes me happy because I wouldnt be seen dead or alive in one of those stupid looking top hats.

Scathing and almost true if it wasn't for Dandy Nicholls,the Irish and the Aussies.
The Aussies always end up sending one of their crack sprinters to challenge Dandy Nicholls in the Golden Jubilee Stakes.
While the Irish are either part of Aidan O Briens entourage or just there for moral support.
None of them sound like they ever sucked a lemon or stuck a peg up their nose in their life's.
I think if they would they would have their own enclosure to separate them from the toffs and hoorah henry's.
Then it's the other hanger- on's from shows like The Only Way Is Essex who treat Royal Ascot like a premiere.
What about the best dressed woman contest to see who the most orange lady is.
And don't forget the stupid looking outfits,bonnets and top hats.
Honestly..I prefer Doncaster instead where I can wear my scruffs because a race meeting to me isn't a black tie event.

Edited by Medium Brown, 17 January 2013 - 09:10 PM.

[Yamato]

keithisco, on 17 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

"Serfs" can attend as well... look at most of them and they are all "Serfs"

I agree that all of this attention is just nonsense, but that is all it is... the media get all excited and show us these pictures because nothing else has happened in the day, bit like the kentucky Derby.

i am fairly sure that most of the UK is, like me, of Republican stance(NO, I cant prove it), couldn't give 2 hoots for the Monarchy, but as long as they have a Tourist Dividend to bring in then let them get on with it.

That being said here is the Legal Definition of Commoner: from dear old Wiki:

In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone who holds only a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of BristolActually

Americans use class as a wedge issue politically, over there you've got it codified into your law.

[Yamato]

I must repent for this stink bomb of a discussion I threw into the gentleman's club here, however the discussion it generated has been interesting.  So let me just say in my passing:  God save the Queen!





Send Her Victorious, Happy and Glorious!

Long to reign over us.

[spud the mackem]

Yamato, on 17 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

I must repent for this stink bomb of a discussion I threw into the gentleman's club here, however the discussion it generated has been interesting.  So let me just say in my passing:  God save the Queen!





Send Her Victorious, Happy and Glorious!

Long to reign over us.

  I like the flag but what happens if  bonney Scotland goes independant.

[Yamato]

spud the mackem, on 18 January 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I like the flag but what happens if  bonney Scotland goes independant.

Then I retract my support and join William Wallace's modern protege.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Why not?  Because she doesn't have royal juice in her veins, that's why.

Yes, the queen made her a Duchess, but Kate Middleton is still not a member of nobility.   She's not 'Lady Middleton', she's just Kate Middleton.  

Her husband is Prince William, but Kate Middleton is no Princess.  

The Yanks, reading their tabloid fairy tales about princesses, need to get it right.

http://www.foxnews.c...gnancy-related/

Fox News? Really? You think Fox News knows what they are talking about when it comes to countries outside of Texas or Alabama when they can't even get **** right in their own country? How pathetic, even for you.

Also, she is considered part of the Royal Family by marriage and as such, is given the same treatment as other members who were born into it.

Same as any other Royal Family the world over.

[ealdwita]

Yamato, on 18 January 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

Then I retract my support and join William Wallace's modern protege.

Do you mean Wallace the murderer, terrorist and outlaw mercenary, or Mel Gibson's, anti-English blue-faced comic-book 'hero'?

[AsteroidX]

umm. Fox News is sooooooo legitimate. I mean cmon CNBC. Now they got there stuff way backwards. Or was it the other way around. These media outlet channels have me so confused I had to turn off my subscription. Cant trust a one of em.

[Mr Right Wing]

spud the mackem, on 18 January 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I like the flag but what happens if  bonney Scotland goes independant.

We send the tanks up lol

[TheLastLazyGun]

Hasina, on 14 January 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

My question is, why would Americans even care?

They DO care.  Americans are absolutely fascinated by the British Royal Family.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 20 January 2013 - 04:36 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

It has also emerged that should the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's baby be a girl she will become a princess:

With a long-awaited royal baby due in late spring or early summer, the monarch has issued what is known as a Letters Patent to announce that the couple's baby would become an HRH – His or Her Royal Highness – even if she is a girl.

In doing so, she rectified a century-old anomaly that meant a royal daughter would not automatically become a princess.

A decree made by George V in 1917 stipulated that while a son would become a prince, a daughter would not become a princess.

The king had ordered that the titles HRH and prince and princess should be restricted to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign's sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

That means that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie automatically had the title of princess at birth as Prince Andrew's daughters, but Zara Phillips did not – although her mother, Princess Anne, had already rejected titles for her children.

Prince Edward's son and daughter were similarly entitled but he and his wife Sophie chose for them to be styled as the children of an earl in order to give them a more 'normal' childhood.

They are now known as Lady Louise Windsor (9th in line to the throne) and James, Viscount Severn (8th in line to the throne). Royal sources said the Queen felt it was time such a long-standing imbalance was formally rectified.

The Queen's proclamation was issued through the House of Lords on December 31.


Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2IXAaMfh7

The child is due in July but it's not yet known whether it's going to be a boy or a girl.  It was speculated that Catherine was expecting twins, but she isn't.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 20 January 2013 - 04:39 PM.