Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'royalty'.
Found 4 results
In the explain your username thread, @viii mentioned her live of Tudor history and I proposed a thread for QFO Royalty. Here goes - my favourite Tudor figure is Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador. Lauren Mackay wrote the first in-depth biography of him a couple of years ago, and he's far more pragmatic than usually portrayed. His relationship with Princess Mary was fascinatingly protective as well.
Does anyone here besides me have a slight or not-so-slight infatuation with the royal families of Europe? Interesting to know they still exist, beyond the British Kate & William we tend to read more about in the U.S. press. The eventual queen of Sweden (after her grandfather the King and ger mother the Crown Princess) will be Princess Estelle of Sweden. I think she's four years old now and she is incredibly cute. Here's a picture of her with her parents. There are entire tumblr blogs devoted to her! Just another (more pleasant) rabbit hole to fall into.
Just asking, the bride was all beige, her bridal gown, complexion, hair, lips, smile, all beige.... http://abcnews.go.com/International/sli ... g-17525423 http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/luxe ... index.html
Doomed Harlottt posted a topic in Wide World of SnarkSo I am LAF-ing at LAF's post by batshit crazy British blogger Robin Phillips* in opposition to the anticipated new rules providing that first-born children born to British royalty shall have precedence in the line of succession to the throne over their younger siblings regardless of sex. He claims that, see, not everyone is literally "created equal." We are not all equally strong or smart or good. And there are clearly categories of people, such as children, who are not equal in capability to the rest of us and need to be ruled and led. Therefore, discimination in itself is not bad, only unjustifiable discrimination. So why is privileging men over women in the succession to the British monarchy justifiable? Well, Robin doesn't answer that question. He merely declares that the "burden of proof" is on those who are opposed to discrimination. Just because it is, I guess. I think the incredibly high proportion of amazing female rulers would be enough to sustain that burden of proof. In Britain, you have Elizabeth I, the conscientious Queen Anne, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. At worst, you have competence (Queen Anne), at best you have brilliance to match or exceed the best of the male monarchs (Elizabeth I). In other countries, there are all sorts of other examples -- Catherine the Great, the Empress Maria Theresa, and Queen Joanna of Naples all come to mind. Yet, why do I have the crazy feeling that this "proof" won't satisfy our friend, Mr. Phillips? ********************************** Mr. Phillips also makes a bizarre argument opposed to the supposed feminist notion that one's worth derives from one's role in life. He claims that feminists buy into the notion that women are worth less if they do not enjoy leadership roles in society. I would say that it is really the other way around: Because women are equal in value to men, women should have the same right to rule and influence their own lives, homes, and society. I would also that feminism recognizes the fact that society does not view those who fulfill lesser roles as equal in value. Mr. Phillips is basically saying that because women are equal in value to men pursuant to his theology, it therefore shouldn't matter to us if we are consigned to a subordinate role. I always come back to the question of why the hell does it matter if I am "equal in value" to men in some abstract way if this equality of value does not translate into equal rights and dignity under the law? ************************************* Naturally, the Thoughtless Housewife has to weigh in as well. In her view, it is obviously grossly unfair to allow a sister to strip her brother of his obviously superior right to the throne. In her view, boys and men are obviously more inclined and better suited to leadership than us females. How do we know this? Because the Housewife said so! (I am sure if one raises the examples of brilliant female monarchs, the Housewife would categorize these as not "normal" women. Apparently, any woman who does not fit her views of proper femininity is not a "normal" woman -- even if that's many or most women! That's awfully convenient for her argument, methinks.) *Actually I am not sure that he is British. I even found a video of him talking and I am still not sure if he is British or American. But according to his bio, he was educated in the UK, even though he is currently in Washington State working for the Chuck Colson Institute or some batshit place associated ith Colson. Also he has red hair. Also he started some internet site called the Alfred the Great Society. So he must be British. And besides, we Americans have way too many batshit crazy fundies as it is.