American Princess

[TrueMetis]

23 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

Thanks!   I still don't quite understand the whole shebang, but since I'll never be tested on it, it probably doesn't matter. 

Another odd quirk of the British royals, while the wives of Kings are titled Queen, whereas the husband of a Queen is the Prince Consort.

So in general per my understanding of how the British Monarchy works. The reigning monarch is King or Queen, the wife of a reigning King can be a Queen, but the husband of a reigning Queen is not a King but Prince consort. The heir apparent is granted the title of Prince/ss of Wales, along with the title Duke of Cornwall, with their spouse getting the opposite titles. All the rest of the royal family are Prince/ss but their spouses are not, they are opposite number to the royal dukedom that their spouse has. All these dukedoms are honourary and just the title, with the exception of the ones held by the Monarch and heir apparent. Those come with actual duchies.

[Jace, Extat]

18 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Would it be easier to say Diana was the wife of the Crown Prince of Dragonstone?

Now you're speaking a language I understand. 

[Denvek]

Princess Diana was Princess of Wales because "Prince of Wales" was a specific title held by her husband. The highest ranking specific title Harry has is Dukes, so Meghan is therefore the Duchess of Sussex.

Technically, Camilla is now the Princess of Wales, but she chooses not to use that title because of how closely associated it is with Diana.

[lessthanluke]

2 hours ago, Denvek said:

Princess Diana was Princess of Wales because "Prince of Wales" was a specific title held by her husband. The highest ranking specific title Harry has is Dukes, so Meghan is therefore the Duchess of Sussex.

Technically, Camilla is now the Princess of Wales, but she chooses not to use that title because of how closely associated it is with Diana.

Plus we don't want her.

I mean having Charles as Prince of Wales is insulting enough.

[mankytoes]

15 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Duchess Kate is not inbred at all and has very common ancestry. She plays a role that she accepted in Williams family firm.

Harry lost girlfriends because they were already upper class and didn’t want the high pressure PR job. Meghan is a self made confident actress and enthusiastic charity supporter. She and Harry will make an awesome team for their many charities and I’ll bet this notion drives their happiness.

I used to be more Republican until I lived in the States, and caught onto the political system, that rips the people off, gives nothing back, and has an insane amount of presidential and national bs. The monarchy of the commonwealth know their place and a lot of the ceremonial stuff they do is probably horribly boring and confining. If they get political they would lose their jobs, but they are expected to promote commonwealth interests and do so. Does Trump...the poster child of indecent and self enriching? Melania? The first daughter, who promoted her own patents?

Politicians in Canada can’t legally do the things that American ones do as routine. It would fall under bribery and treason.

They should, but in practise they don't. Charles has interfered in politics extensively, including lobbying the PM about fox hunting, a highly contentious issue in this country. He should not be allowed to take the throne, he should pass it straight through to his son. 

[Yukle]

15 hours ago, Denvek said:

Technically, Camilla is now the Princess of Wales, but she chooses not to use that title because of how closely associated it is with Diana.

 

12 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Plus we don't want her.

Be fair, she is an inspiration to horses everywhere for managing to become the highest-ranking equine in royal family history.

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

 

Be fair, she is an inspiration to horses everywhere for managing to become the highest-ranking equine in royal family history.

Don't insult horses that way.  It's mean. And don't insult mules or donkeys either, they are pretty cool too.  Maybe a bog lemming.   Yeah, a bog lemming sounds right. 

[Wall Flower]

11 hours ago, Yukle said:

 

Be fair, she is an inspiration to horses everywhere for managing to become the highest-ranking equine in royal family history.

 

8 hours ago, LongRider said:

Don't insult horses that way.  It's mean. And don't insult mules or donkeys either, they are pretty cool too.  Maybe a bog lemming.   Yeah, a bog lemming sounds right. 

Maybe I'm a little sensitive, being no oil painting myself but ouch, those comments seem a little below the jewelled royal belt. I mean you don't have to like what Camilla represents but do we women really need to call each other equines or rodents? Her looks aren't really the point.

Sorry, end of lecture!

[Yukle]

17 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

 

Maybe I'm a little sensitive, being no oil painting myself but ouch, those comments seem a little below the jewelled royal belt. I mean you don't have to like what Camilla represents but do we women really need to call each other equines or rodents? Her looks aren't really the point.

Sorry, end of lecture!

Yeah, that's true. I'm in the wrong here.

[mankytoes]

9 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Maybe I'm a little sensitive, being no oil painting myself but ouch, those comments seem a little below the jewelled royal belt. I mean you don't have to like what Camilla represents but do we women really need to call each other equines or rodents? Her looks aren't really the point.

Sorry, end of lecture!

Camilla gets a lot of shit for being a stereotypical "other woman" and being less conventionally attractive than the "people's princess" (she does a lot of charity work too, but you won't see her unphotogenic face all over your tabloids). Charles was the 32 year old man who agreed to marry a teenage girl he didn't love because his granny made him. 

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Camilla gets a lot of shit for being a stereotypical "other woman" and being less conventionally attractive than the "people's princess" (she does a lot of charity work too, but you won't see her unphotogenic face all over your tabloids). Charles was the 32 year old man who agreed to marry a teenage girl he didn't love because his granny made him. 

We Aussies will never accept Captain Big Ears as King. Don't even try it, Poms. Do you really want another bunch of colonials rebelling on you?

ETA: To respond to this with more sense than I did the first time around, yes, you're correct about that. I doubt Camilla would be judged as much if she wasn't "the mistress" and I include my own poor judgement there.

Certainly she is getting a hard rap for something that her husband is not nearly as vilified for.

Perhaps I should take cues from the same family a couple of generations back, when a king abdicated for love of a woman and everyone said it wouldn't last. Decades later, at his death, still married, they showed the world what a mistake that assumption was.

[HoodedCrow]

1)Captain Big Ears where he will have to cut ribbons, plant treas, promote organic gardening, help youth, smother his political beliefs, do charity events with the woman he actually loved, do dreary rituals and live with full knowledge of his mistakes and shortcomings and a parliamentary system or 2) have a Trumpine accident king it over the world with little whispers in his ear from a fine upstanding poison/assassination loving sponsor, who plays racist games, loves dictators, wars with the free press, incites violence with a corrupt hawkish gun crazy Congress? I realize that’s a false dichotomy, but if you did have to choose?

[Yukle]

10 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

1)Captain Big Ears where he will have to cut ribbons, plant treas, promote organic gardening, help youth, smother his political beliefs, do charity events with the woman he actually loved, do dreary rituals and live with full knowledge of his mistakes and shortcomings and a parliamentary system or 2) have a Trumpine accident king it over the world with little whispers in his ear from a fine upstanding poison/assassination loving sponsor, who plays racist games, loves dictators, wars with the free press, incites violence with a corrupt hawkish gun crazy Congress? I realize that’s a false dichotomy, but if you did have to choose?

My earlier comment was a joke.  

I've asserted above that I much prefer constitutional monarchs with ceremonial roles to actual presidents with power. Upthread there's a link to a study showing the stability of such systems - conditional on the monarch being a figurehead, that is.

[HoodedCrow]

Yukle, we agree, I’m posing this to the group at large. Big Ears or Trumpanzee?  Most people where I reside don’t read the small print, but thanks for your elegant words.

[Yukle]

To go first: I'd prefer an actual chipmanzee to Trump.  

[HoodedCrow]

Yukle, so would I. It would cut down on the hostility, the reckless tariffs and the garbage tweets.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

I’m posing this to the group at large. Big Ears or Trumpanzee?  Most people where I reside don’t read the small print, but thanks for your elegant words.

As you said, that's a false dichotomy.  Cuz I'm bored, I'm gonna treat this question theoretically - as in what would be your optimal constitutional design?  Because changing to a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch would actually be worse in a two party system - Trump would control both the executive and the legislative in a more direct manner.  So, we've gotta change the electoral system to PR in order to change the party system. 

For the US, that's complicated, but since I'm god or George in this thought experiment, I'd mandate all states elect their MCs by PR, albeit with a comparatively high threshold, say 15%.  I'd keep a bicameral legislature - and codify the 60% filibuster - but the Senate would be proportionally allocated as well with a minimum of 1 per state with 200 members (I realize about 12 states - if you count DC! - would be under the .5 percent that would warrant 1 Senator, but the partisan split within those 12 is pretty even).

For the courts, I'd mandate the Missouri plan for all state appellate judges.  Actually, I'd do the same for all Federal Circuit Court judges as well (don't really care how District Court judges are chosen).  This may be one of my more "radical" positions - I am very firmly in the behaviorist school of thought when it comes to judicial decision making.  You're not gonna convince me they aren't pure politicians as well.  But, the Missouri Plan is a nice compromise that safeguards against unqualified candidates.  For SCOTUS, I'd keep it as is, just because I don't want to see a national retention election for a deciding seat.  Man how ugly that'd get.

Finally, yes, I'd split the head of state and head of government aspects of the executive into two separate positions.  This has never really been done completely separate from the legislature (at least to my knowledge), but there's no reason that it can't be conceptually.  The head of state would be completely ceremonial, while the head of government would basically be the president running the bureaucracy just with a much clearer schedule.  Now, this may be a little bit like the WWE creating the "universal" championship because the world championship has been so thoroughly degraded in credibility, but I'd want the executive branch separated from the potential instability of electing a new House every two years.  I would, however, institute an easier legislative failsafe check on the executive - a confidence motion.  It couldn't be simple majority with this much polarization, but I'd make it 60% - for both chambers - so as to make it more achievable than impeachment and conviction.

[Wall Flower]

20 hours ago, Yukle said:

Yeah, that's true. I'm in the wrong here.

 

10 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Camilla gets a lot of shit for being a stereotypical "other woman" and being less conventionally attractive than the "people's princess" (she does a lot of charity work too, but you won't see her unphotogenic face all over your tabloids). Charles was the 32 year old man who agreed to marry a teenage girl he didn't love because his granny made him. 

 I'm no saint myself when it comes to judging other women, it's a shame that it seems such an easy trap to fall into. 

Charles and Camilla should have just married each other in the first place. She would never have had Diana's star quality but the two of them might have been happier. Hopefully, William and Harry have learnt from their parent's mistakes and the royal system has been dragged into the 21st century.

[HoodedCrow]

Good thoughts dmc. I another country, Trump would be in prison and the Republicans would not be stuck with Trumps Pence pick. The party could vote for another leader at a leadership convention. The problems with corruption would be better addressed.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On 5/31/2018 at 9:55 PM, Yukle said:

To go first: I'd prefer an actual chipmanzee to Trump.  

At least then we'd clearly be able to see the shit being flung at us for what it is.

 

(by "we" I mean Americans in general, as it seems so many fail to realize the truth of a lot of things, even non trump supporters)