Dillards 50: The big 5-0!

[JordynDarby5]

25 minutes ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

Seriously, what is it that people don't get about these two points? This should be a message that is spread far and wide. I fail to see how converting someone (or attempting to) is helpful in any way. Do something of actual value for goodness sake!

It should be. Forget about converting people. Focus on helping people. Help people in disasters, help kids in foster homes. help people who are sick. There's so many people who need help and so many ways you can help people. Isn't that the real message of Jesus anyways? Accept everyone and help those in need?     

[Four is Enough]

Oh, the royal wedding... when I was small, my uncle got me a cup with (young) Prince charles' picture on it. Later, when he and Diana got married, another person was over there, and brought me a cup with Charles and Diana on it. I'd love to have a cup of William and Kate, and another of Harry and Meghan..

[nst]

3 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Oh, the royal wedding... when I was small, my uncle got me a cup with (young) Prince charles' picture on it. Later, when he and Diana got married, another person was over there, and brought me a cup with Charles and Diana on it. I'd love to have a cup of William and Kate, and another of Harry and Meghan..

it will be on at 4 am here. 

 

[Four is Enough]

6 minutes ago, nst said:

it will be on at 4 am here. 

 

I'll wait for the recap, LOL!

[NotQuiteMotY]

17 hours ago, lizzybee said:

The lock-screen pose is just squicky to me. Almost like something that's just meant for the spouse's eyes only or something. I mean, good heavens, I'm glad she's into her husband because he's her husband. But I wish she wouldn't have shared. Not saying it's meant to be sexual, but to me it feels oddly sexual. I can't put my finger on why but it's just...squicky. 

I think because it's intimate. I get the same feel: it's not meant to be sexual, but it feels voyeuristic because of the nature of the shot.

[DillyDally]

We usually get extensive coverage for royal weddings on German TV, so my plan is: Sit on the couch, eat cake, have some wine and wonder why/how Rachal ended up marrying Prince Harry instead of Mike (while my husband will avoid the living room and just give me some very hard eye-rolling) 

I have been to Windsor Castle once while we lived in the UK, beautiful place in a beautiful village. Much more romantic than London/Westminster Abbey in my opinion.

[SweetJuly]

6 minutes ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

I think because it's intimate. I get the same feel: it's not meant to be sexual, but it feels voyeuristic because of the nature of the shot.

Is he in bed? It looks like he's in bed, and makes me feel as if I am there with him *shudder*

It's indeed a very intimate picture, one that is not openly sexual but still meant to remain private.

Oh Jill, you are truly your father's daughter!

[VelociRapture]

25 minutes ago, DillyDally said:

We usually get extensive coverage for royal weddings on German TV, so my plan is: Sit on the couch, eat cake, have some wine and wonder why/how Rachal ended up marrying Prince Harry instead of Mike (while my husband will avoid the living room and just give me some very hard eye-rolling) 

I have been to Windsor Castle once while we lived in the UK, beautiful place in a beautiful village. Much more romantic than London/Westminster Abbey in my opinion.

It’s ok. Mike (Patrick Adams) was wondering the same thing:

[libgirl2]

20 hours ago, lizzybee said:

The lock-screen pose is just squicky to me. Almost like something that's just meant for the spouse's eyes only or something. I mean, good heavens, I'm glad she's into her husband because he's her husband. But I wish she wouldn't have shared. Not saying it's meant to be sexual, but to me it feels oddly sexual. I can't put my finger on why but it's just...squicky. 

I saw it.... my eyes, they burn! Seriously though, it is an odd picture. 

[HarleyQuinn]

Her lock screen is gross, but most photos of dWRECK are. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

@nst- We are!!! DH and I bought our plane tickets the day Harry/Meghan announced their wedding date.

We stay in the Notting Hill/Kensington/Holland Park area when we're in London, so we'll take the train out to Windsor to grab a spot on the procession route. We toured Windsor, including St. George's Chapel, in May of last year. As @DillyDallysaid, it's beautiful, but I do prefer Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral.

[victoriasponge]

I never visited Windsor Castle, but I did visit Legoland Windsor next door and drove past so that's basically the same thing right  I also forgot we'd pass Buckingham Palace to get to the park once and wondered what all the crowds were about. I'm not that observant.

my family's anti monarchy so yeah whoops, smashing english stereotypes one radical family member at a time

[CorruptionInc.]

10 minutes ago, victoriasponge said:

I never visited Windsor Castle, but I did visit Legoland Windsor next door and drove past so that's basically the same thing right  I also forgot we'd pass Buckingham Palace to get to the park once and wondered what all the crowds were about. I'm not that observant.

my family's anti monarchy so yeah whoops, smashing english stereotypes one radical family member at a time

I'm honestly not very into the monarchy either. My mum is, but her and I are pretty different people. 

Also the country I was born in is a republic now and has been for over 20 years...

[victoriasponge]

4 minutes ago, CorruptionInc. said:

I'm honestly not very into the monarchy either. My mum is, but her and I are pretty different people. 

Also the country I was born in is a republic now and has been for over 20 years...

I'm less anti than my family are... but if there was a peaceful referendum on it, I'd vote to get rid of them. Sorry America, your tabloids would have fewer kids dressed as evacuees in them under my watch 

or at least stop spending all our taxpayers money on their fifteenth cousin twenty eight times removed and the five billion buildings they bloody own. and dress your kids like it's 2018. and casually put charles in a retirement home. he can retire before he even got the job! most people would kill for that!

[Glasgowghirl]

I am not a massive Royal fan but judging by the last few years and how many idiot presidents have been elected, maybe a constitutional monarchy isn't so bad. The Queen or King in the UK has the power to reject a Prime Minister, with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg after Theresa May's job, that veto is something Elizabeth or Charles if she passes should consider using. 

[Georgiana]

52 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

I am not a massive Royal fan but judging by the last few years and how many idiot presidents have been elected, maybe a constitutional monarchy isn't so bad. The Queen or King in the UK has the power to reject a Prime Minister, with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg after Theresa May's job, that veto is something Elizabeth or Charles if she passes should consider using. 

I've got no horse in this race, but considering the uproar that has happened from FAR less meddling from the monarch, I would say they'd be FOOLS to ever use that veto.  The history of the monarchy has made rather clear time and again in the 20th century that the British may tolerate a monarch so long as they play nice and stick to performing fun rituals and wearing expensive hats and being a focus for general national identity, but they ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT tolerate ANY sort of political maneuvering by said monarch in the SLIGHTEST.  Victoria faced a governmental crisis just because she refused to appoint ladies of the ruling party.  Can you imagine a monarch in this century refusing to recognize a PM?  

Its a courtesy, a ceremony, and they know it well.  The day they fail to perform will be the day Britain rids itself of the royals.  

[singsingsing]

50 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

I am not a massive Royal fan but judging by the last few years and how many idiot presidents have been elected, maybe a constitutional monarchy isn't so bad. The Queen or King in the UK has the power to reject a Prime Minister, with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg after Theresa May's job, that veto is something Elizabeth or Charles if she passes should consider using. 

They technically have the power, but I can't imagine them ever exercising it. I remember when gay marriage was being made legal in Canada, some people were petitioning the Queen to veto it as a last resort. Of course that was an utter pipe dream.

There is some semblance of that, though. A few years back we have a minority government, and two of the opposition parties decided that they were going to form a coalition to govern instead. This is something that is technically allowable in Canada, but was definitely not usual. The prime minister went to the governor general and asked her to prorogue parliament, which she did, thus killing the possibility of the coalition.

In any case, speaking as someone who lives in a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy, I do think it's a good system. It's not without its flaws, but I'd much rather have this system than the States'. 

Sidenote - I got up at 4 a.m. to watch Will and Kate's wedding. Zero regrets. I fully plan to do the same when Prince Harry gets married. I like the spectacle. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

7 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I got up at 4 a.m. to watch Will and Kate's wedding.

I took the day off work.

I also got up at 3am to watch Charles and Diana's wedding.

Therefore, I am SO STOKED to be in Windsor for Harry & Meghan's wedding. I just hope we actually get to SEE them in the procession. I'm hopeful we'll get there early enough in the day that we'll only be 4 or 5 people from the front (assuming others will have camped out).

[VelociRapture]

I definitely don’t understand all the pros and cons to the monarchy. That said, I find the idea of having an impartial or neutral national figurehead really appealing in some ways. I wish we had someone like Queen Elizabeth in the States who could serve as a reassuring and calming figure for us all. All we have are a petulant orange toddler as President, a bitterly divided Congress, and Silas the Albino from “The DaVinci Code” as our Vice President. 

[singsingsing]

I have to say, as a member of the Commonwealth, I do like the monarchy and would like to keep it around. That's 100% just my personal opinion though, and I can understand and respect the opposite opinion. But I would personally be sad to see it go. It's kind of weird for the people involved, though, and I think it's only going to get weirder. Imagine being born into it, and you just know that you're going to be king one day - you don't really have much of a choice. Of course you could always abdicate or whatever, but then you would still forever be known as the-guy-who-was-supposed-to-be-king. It'll be interesting to see how the monarchy adapts (or doesn't) over the next few decades.

[AtlanticTug]

The Australians will be the first to get out of the Commonwealth IMO. Generally, the ties to the Commowealth in western nations like Oz, Canada, etc will only weaken as globalization increases because immigrants simply do not have any emotional or historical ties to the Crown (and plenty of them have negative colonial ones). So the support for the monarchy will be diluted more and more. I think they'll survive so long as they're sort of these figureheads who really do nothing and do not cost those countries anything directly. Any sort of meddling and they'll be gone asap.

I personally find it revolting that in 2018 we think that some random person is fit to be our King/Queen merely based on their birth. Is there anything more offensive and regressive than that...

[Daisy0322]

2 hours ago, victoriasponge said:

and dress your kids like it's 2018. 

Okay, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I totally thought that was weird that they dress their kids like they are in the shining too! My husband and I actually debated whether it was in style for Brits to dress their kids old timey. like how bow ties and suspenders are popular here for little boys (not for daily wear though). Is this normal there? Do people think it's cute? 

[singsingsing]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticTug said:

I personally find it revolting that in 2018 we think that some random person is fit to be our King/Queen merely based on their birth. Is there anything more offensive and regressive than that...

I don't find it revolting, because they have no power or authority. They're basically celebrities. I'm much more concerned about some of the people who are democratically elected and can actually cause an immense amount of pain, suffering, chaos and destruction, than figureheads who go and cut ribbons, provide tabloid fodder, do some good via charity work and raising awareness for various causes, cost the taxpayers next to nothing and provide entertainment and tourist revenue. But again, just my personal opinion. I understand the opposite view.

2 minutes ago, Daisy0322 said:

Okay, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I totally thought that was weird that they dress their kids like they are in the shining too! My husband and I actually debated whether it was in style for Brits to dress their kids old timey. like how bow ties and suspenders are popular here for little boys (not for daily wear though). Is this normal there? Do people think it's cute? 

I've heard that they dress their kids like that at public engagements so that they'll be less likely to be recognized when they're out in private. I'm not sure how much truth there is to it, but it makes sense to me.

[lynn0810]

1 minute ago, Daisy0322 said:

Okay, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I totally thought that was weird that they dress their kids like they are in the shining too! My husband and I actually debated whether it was in style for Brits to dress their kids old timey. like how bow ties and suspenders are popular here for little boys (not for daily wear though). Is this normal there? Do people think it's cute? 

I love Royal thread drift lol. I have read quotes from journalists who cover the royals and they have said the constant knee socks and things Prince George wears for public outings is just a nobility, traditional thing. They have said William and Kate dress their kids in regular kids clothes in their daily life. I remember Prince Harry talking about  Diana dressing them like that as kids and that he will have a great time doing that to his kids. He was commenting on how ridiculous they looked.

 

[WiseGirl]

5 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

some of the people who are democratically elected and can actually cause an immense amount of pain, suffering, chaos and destruction,

Hmm let me think who would fit that description? Is it orange? Does it use Twitter too much? Did it make it into a parade, albeit not probably how it wants? (German parade and floats). 

Give me a placid ribbon cutter any day.

Oh this royal geek was up early with a horrible lung infection to watch Charles and Di marry, watched William and Kate, and looking forward to Harry and Meghan. Windsor is so pretty, the castle, the village. I even took the boat from Runnymede to Windsor.