Charles and Camilla 2

[tabitha2]

Ah! A classic glorious southern delicious sloppy as hell party.  I’ll bring the prerequisite sweet tea of course. 
 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by tabitha2

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, TN-peach said:

A day off and everyone having neighborhood parties... it does sound like fun.

 

We would have barbeque or grilled meat of some sort if it was in TN.  (There is a difference between barbeque and grilling meat like steak or hamburgers).

There've only been 245 street party applications filed for Charles' coronation.  Over  16,000 were filed for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee.

That's 245 applications compared to 16,000.

And the deadline has passed, so there won't be any more. The country is clearly not celebrating.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/looking-for-a-coronation-party-heres-why-you-might-struggle-jwn2r0xps

 

 

[Lollipopgirl]

8 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

 Do the British really want to celebrate with broad bean quiche? (Also, potatoes as the side dish? Really?)

This Brit certainly doesn’t. It sounds disgusting to me but I hate broad beans and I’m not overly fussed about quiche. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Lollipopgirl said:

This Brit certainly doesn’t. It sounds disgusting to me but I hate broad beans and I’m not overly fussed about quiche. 

Charles doesn't seem to be connecting with people, even through food. 

[AmazonGrace]

Charles didn't invite Sarah it seems

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11994025/Sarah-Ferguson-breaks-silence-Coronation-invite-snub.html

The "breaks silence" headlines are a bit funny to me.  Somebody says anything and they "break the silence". Like do they expect that everyone should be on TV constantly? If you're not getting interviewed for three days in a row your next one is breaking the silence.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Did anybody think Fergie was going to be invited anyway? 

[Jackie3]

She doesn't seem to mind at all, judging from what she says. Sounds like she's glad to be watching it in comfort on the telly. I'm sure she's been to enough grand occasions to have her fill of them.

[Baxter]

It's a slimmed down coronation. I would have been really surprised if she had been invited. Apparently she has been invited to some other vip thing at Windsor afterwards. Maybe the concert? So it's not like she's being shunned. I heard she mentioned that maybe she would take Queen Elizabeth's dogs and go to the street party in Windsor. I'm assuming she was probably joking. But honestly that sounds like way more fun than going to the actual coronation itself. 

[viii]

Yeah, Fergie has been pretty clear that she understands the difference between state events and family events. She doesn't seem too cut up about it. I hope she does take the dogs out. 

[Jackie3]

On 4/21/2023 at 7:12 AM, viii said:

Yeah, Fergie has been pretty clear that she understands the difference between state events and family events. She doesn't seem too cut up about it. I hope she does take the dogs out. 

She's probably relieved. She's done plenty of grand royal events and can probably happily sit this one out.

[samurai_sarah]

On 4/19/2023 at 7:25 PM, TN-peach said:

A day off and everyone having neighborhood parties... it does sound like fun.

 

(snip)

It does sound great and lovely- and nothing against you-, but the additional holiday isn't all that great for people employed on zero-hour contracts. We're in a pretty bad economic situation in the UK, in which the prices for staples have risen above and beyond.

Losing a day's wages is dire for a lot of people, who are struggling as is. And jumping off of that, I dislike the king's idea of having a day of volunteering. Anyone who's ever volunteered for longer than a day knows that a sudden influx of volunteers-for-the-day just disrupts things (excepting picking up litter).

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

It does sound great and lovely- and nothing against you-, but the additional holiday isn't all that great for people employed on zero-hour contracts. We're in a pretty bad economic situation in the UK, in which the prices for staples have risen above and beyond.

 

A man like Charles would never understand something like that, nor would his tone-deaf courtiers.

[klein_roeschen]

19 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

It does sound great and lovely- and nothing against you-, but the additional holiday isn't all that great for people employed on zero-hour contracts. We're in a pretty bad economic situation in the UK, in which the prices for staples have risen above and beyond.

Losing a day's wages is dire for a lot of people, who are struggling as is. And jumping off of that, I dislike the king's idea of having a day of volunteering. Anyone who's ever volunteered for longer than a day knows that a sudden influx of volunteers-for-the-day just disrupts things (excepting picking up litter).

In the light of what happens at the moment in the UK, even a slimed down coronation seems so frivolous and a desperate clinging to an importance that is long gone. And how many people are even garanteed that extra day off? For many out there it will be a usual workday.

[Coconut Flan]

I've said it before, but here it is again - there is SO much waste involved.  Maybe the royal family does bring in tourism, some people like the pageantry and I'll admit I watch some of it here and there, and perhaps they serve a diplomatic function.  Outside of that what do they really bring to the country?  Am I missing something?  Do their engagements really benefit the organizations or would all the same organizations go on just as well without them?  I don't live in the UK so I really don't know.  How much of it is this is what we've been doing for hundreds of years so let's keep going?  I've read some people are upset Charles is trying to modernize and cut back on the coronation.  They want the full pageant to go forth.  All I can ask is why?  Why not ditch the robes and wear suits and ditch the whatever century costumes?  People don't dress like that any more so why do it for an hour long church service?  

[viii]

I want the full pageantry and tradition because if they don't go all the way, then why bother? They're not relevant at all. The UK would probably make MORE money tourism wise if the monarchy was abolished. They really serve no purpose - all of their patronages will function without them. So to me, I think they should either go big before they're sent to go home. 

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Outside of that what do they really bring to the country? 

I think the illusion of stability and continuity, which considering some of the drama the Royal family has brought (1936 was peak) is a bit odd. Also the world's most expensive soap opera, as a distraction from the actual issues. The monarch's power is limited, the country runs (or doesn't) with or without them.

1 hour ago, viii said:

I want the full pageantry and tradition because if they don't go all the way, then why bother?

For the Coronation and things like opening Parliament yeah go the full hog of costuming - the whole point is the tradition (and if you don't more people might start asking why it's even needed, because it isn't really. Although I'd still like them to keep the ban on the monarch entering the House of Commons - just extend it to the rest of Parliament and have a one day exemption to open Parliament in full regalia, and in extenuating times if needed with the permission of the elected representatives.)

[just_ordinary]

I was surprised by the Quiche. It doesn’t sound too appealing to be honest. I will try my hand at it but I suspect I will use more cheese and more spices. The tarragon/beans/spinach combination could be very bland.
But my main problem is that I definitely don’t associate a Quiche with the UK. The jubilee trifle (even though not my favourite flavour) was more like it. 

[Coconut Flan]

I'm not going near the quiche with tarragon and beans in it.  It doesn't sound British at all, but I've read that Charles loves egg dishes so that part fits him.  

[Jackie3]

On 4/24/2023 at 1:01 PM, Coconut Flan said:

Do their engagements really benefit the organizations or would all the same organizations go on just as well without them?

Actually, a study showed that royal patronages do not really help charities.

https://giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

Edited April 26, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

There's something about a grown man waiting around for 74 years to become a ruler that just rubs people the wrong way. Especially when the man has done very little of note during those 74 years. 

There's something about a mistress "winning" -- and an innocent woman dying--than rubs people the wrong way, too.

That's why I don't think this coronation is getting the traction Charles would like it to get.

[hoipolloi]

Guessing these folks will not be be pledging an oath of allegiance to Charles on Coronation Day:

 

[noseybutt]

3 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Guessing these folks will not be be pledging an oath of allegiance to Charles on Coronation Day:

 

My favorite response on the Twitter thread...

"...the royal quiche might as well be green and white. What more do they want?"

 

[rosamundi]

The entirely predictable trajectory of the invitation for the public to swear allegiance is fascinating (and a tiny bit alarming) to watch.

It's just the Common Worship urge for congregational involvement, writ large and with more shiny hats. It's the same urge that sees the congregation being asked to promise they will pray for the newly-married couple at a wedding, or the newly-baptised baby and their family at a Christening, or the newly-confirmed at a Confirmation.

Unfortunately, Lambeth Palace (or whoever's idea this was) didn't think through the potential issues. However well-meaning, there is a significant risk of turning what is normally a nice gesture at a private(ish) event with a congregation of invited guests into some sort of litmus test of whether people are appropriately loyal or British.

I can see, distressingly easily, anyone who doesn't look white enough, "British" enough who goes to a public gathering to watch the Coronation getting side-eyed to check that their "oath of allegiance" is sufficiently clear and fervent even though the wording is "all those who so desire, in the Abbey and elsewhere, say together..." [emphasis mine].

The BBC tweeted it as "Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles". The news article the tweet links to changed "asked" to "invited" [a weaker word].

The version of the story that's spreading sounds like "Everyone is supposed to pledge allegiance to the King," whereas it's more like "if you want to, you can say this bit wherever you happen to be watching the ceremony," and the homage of the peers has been replaced with the homage of the people to make it more inclusive and to enable everyone who wants to to participate.

Edited May 1, 2023 by rosamundi

[viii]

May the king live forever LOL. William's probably thinking "I fucking hope so!". He's always been reluctant about the crown. 

[samurai_sarah]

14 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Guessing these folks will not be be pledging an oath of allegiance to Charles on Coronation Day:

 

Well, to be fair, it is Glasgow's Celtic FC chanting. Finding a monarchist amongst the fanbase would be rather rare, considering that they strongly draw on a heritage of mainly Catholic Irish immigration accompanied by anti-monarchist sentiments.