American Princess

[Feologild]

On 5/25/2018 at 8:14 PM, Pony Empress Jace said:

The concept of 'royalty' is offensive to me.

 

Damn your life must be a living hell if you get that easily offended.

 

 

Also she is a Duchess not a princess. Only women born into the royal family gets the title princess.

[TrueMetis]

10 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

I wasn't aware that the existence of female jedi characters contradicted the gender repartition of the franchise fans... mate.

So because the majority of fans of star wars are male wanting to be associated with it is a boys thing. That's fucked up.

 

Quote

ETA: I mean this does not change my question about gender essentialism: if it's really a choice, why is this fantasy an almost exclusively feminine one? Maybe I'm missing something and there are a majority of men fantasying about passively rising above their station by virtue of being chosen by a princess?

It's not really any different than passively rising above your station by virtue of being chosen by the force. At least being chosen by a princess/prince might be due to you.

[DMC]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:58 PM, Yukle said:

The problems with Commonwealth countries come from the legacies of monarchy, in particular offices such as governors and governor-generals. These offices hold supreme executive power. While they tend to be ceremonial, they can wield actual power and occasionally have done so.

There was a good article at vox during all the wedding shenanigans that argued not only are constitutional monarchies more democratically legitimate, they're more democratically accountable than parliamentary systems with a nominal president as the head of state.  

[Yukle]

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

There was a good article at vox during all the wedding shenanigans that argued not only are constitutional monarchies more democratically legitimate, they're more democratically accountable than parliamentary systems with a nominal president as the head of state.  

Interesting.

55% of the time constitutional monarchies changed their head of government because there was an election, compared to 42% for indirectly elected and 37% for directly elected presidents.

I hadn't thought of it from the perspective that a monarch (or their representative) tends to lack any vested interest in what happens in a parliament.

I like the way that a constitutional monarch works, in effect, without any particular overlaid executive power. There's the parliament, the executive (drawn from that parliament) and the courts. But then, that's it. The lack of a president means there's no more executive layers of power. It also means that, in practice, executive power tends to be spread across several people.

The prime minister has the most power, but not ultimate authority. And most deadlocks require an election to settle. My favourite part of Australia's electoral system is that if the Senate rejects legislation twice, then the government can request for an early election. Effectively, the people vote on a new government with the contentious issue becoming the focus of the campaign. This is how our universal healthcare system was adopted, among other things.

And throughout each of those elections, the governor-general (who represents the Queen) didn't have any direct input. They just determined whether the legal requirements were met to have the election, and if the winning party had a stable majority afterwards. Then they went back to napping in their mansion, I imagine.

[Mosi Mynn]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:04 AM, mankytoes said:

The Plantagenets are impressive in that they gave us so many monarchs, and pretty much none of them are held in high regard, and quite rightly. They make the Targs look positively functional. My favourite is Henry the Second, who had four sons, all of whom rose in rebellion against him. Four out of four! What a bunch of absolute shits. 

Ooh - can we have a Plantagenets thread?  My favourite "British" dynasty.  They were all nuts - but in their own individual ways.  And such a fascinating period of history.  You're right: they're like the Targs, but without the dragons or the incest!

Speaking of Henry II - Eleanor of Aquitaine has to be one of the most awesome, fascinating, and incredible historical figures of all time.  I would love to have sat in on conversations with her and Henry's mum, Empress Matilda - with some sort of babelfish.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 5/25/2018 at 6:37 PM, Pony Empress Jace said:

How dare you question my higher birth, peasant!

I do deny it!

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

Ooh - can we have a Plantagenets thread?  My favourite "British" dynasty.  They were all nuts - but in their own individual ways.  And such a fascinating period of history.  You're right: they're like the Targs, but without the dragons or the incest!

Speaking of Henry II - Eleanor of Aquitaine has to be one of the most awesome, fascinating, and incredible historical figures of all time.  I would love to have sat in on conversations with her and Henry's mum, Empress Matilda - with some sort of babelfish.

If I ever want to feel better about modern leadership, I read about those times. Richard I openly sneered at the English, barely spent any time in the country, left it broke due to fighting completely egotistical crusades, got captured, which made us even more broke, as we had to pay something insane like half the GDP to ransom him. And he's seen as one of the best ones... The main thing English people don't understand is that we were essentially a colonised people. Especially in the early days, these were Norman, French, or at best Anglo-French rulers. They spoke French and explicitly did not consider themselves to be of the people. 

There are plenty of strong female figures in that period, you've got Edward the Second's wife, Isabella the she-wolf of France, who overthrew him, and Henry 6's wife, Margaret of Anjou, who basically fought his wars for him and ruled for him throughout the Wars of the Roses. 

I don't know about American princesses, but I've read enough to not want to fuck with French one's. 

[Mosi Mynn]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

There are plenty of strong female figures in that period, you've got Edward the Second's wife, Isabella the she-wolf of France, who overthrew him, and Henry 6's wife, Margaret of Anjou, who basically fought his wars for him and ruled for him throughout the Wars of the Roses. 

I don't know about American princesses, but I've read enough to not want to fuck with French one's. 

Isabella was awesome - Edward II was an idiot.  I'm surprised his son, Edward III, is not more prominent in the media.  He had to forcibly take back his throne as a teen, then he went on and had too many sons, including John of Gaunt (who should have been the eldest - would have saved a lot of trouble), which ultimately led to the War of the Roses!  

Poor Margaret suffered horrendous libel at the pen of Shakespeare.

[Derfel Cadarn]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

If I ever want to feel better about modern leadership, I read about those times. Richard I openly sneered at the English, barely spent any time in the country, left it broke due to fighting completely egotistical crusades, got captured, which made us even more broke, as we had to pay something insane like half the GDP to ransom him. And he's seen as one of the best ones... The main thing English people don't understand is that we were essentially a colonised people. Especially in the early days, these were Norman, French, or at best Anglo-French rulers. They spoke French and explicitly did not consider themselves to be of the people. 

There are plenty of strong female figures in that period, you've got Edward the Second's wife, Isabella the she-wolf of France, who overthrew him, and Henry 6's wife, Margaret of Anjou, who basically fought his wars for him and ruled for him throughout the Wars of the Roses. 

I don't know about American princesses, but I've read enough to not want to fuck with French one's. 

Not to mention all those German immigrants (ie the English) who displaced the natives to Wales.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:23 PM, Pony Empress Jace said:

Bah! Why you gotta go and make sense and whatnot!

Really I made the thread on a whim after seeing an article headlined 'Why Megan Markel will still have to curtsey to Kate Middleton'. That's the shit that really gets me. I don't want to say something overwrought and stupid like "I bow to no man." but I swear to fucking Darwin that I'd kick a bitch in the throat before I fucking curtsied to some inbreed loving halfwit who likes being a porcelain doll.

The bowing thing in Japan and China or whatever, that's one thing 'cause it's like a mutual respect situation in my understanding. But dipping your knee to make someone else feel powerful in their impotence? No fucking way, it's sick and degrading.

 

this was the perfect thing to end my day on. just 5 more minutes and I can leave work (to rephrase: my body can catch up to my mind )

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

 

this was the perfect thing to end my day on. just 5 more minutes and I can leave work (to rephrase: my body can catch up to my mind )

I'm here to serve.

[mankytoes]

38 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Not to mention all those German immigrants (ie the English) who displaced the natives to Wales.

A terrible fate...

The book I'm reading said that we have been ruled by Normans, then Welsh, then Scots, then Germans. Reigning over ourselves ended with an arrow through the eye at Hastings. Personally, I think trying classify Tudors as "Welsh" in any meaningful way is a stretch, but it's an interesting perspective. Of course, as you say, you can view the Angles and Saxons themselves as immigrants, and only the British race as "original" inhabitants.  Really these are more cultural identities than biological or geographic ones. If you're at the bottom of the pile, do you really care who is stepping on you?

[HoodedCrow]

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.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Damn, I only just noticed this post from @Feologild.

Both the content and the avatar were so reminiscent of this Vox piece on the weirder realms of the alt-right.  

At any rate, Feologild, it all just came across to me like you could be another Moldbug or something.  Apologies if you are not.  

Ooh! What's a Moldbug? Don't hold out on me you damn, dirty, ape!

[Tears of Lys]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:29 AM, Feologild said:

 

Damn your life must be a living hell if you get that easily offended.

 

 

Also she is a Duchess not a princess. Only women born into the royal family gets the title princess.

Why was Diana referred to as "Princess Diana"?  Was it an honorary title?  I know very little about how these things work. 

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Read the Vox piece I linked to you...you...your Magnificence!?!?

Yawn. Weren't nothin' new in that schlock. It was a fine breakdown I suppose, but I was hoping for some REALLY sick shit. By Nazi standards all the shit in the article was pretty tame. Funny how 18 months makes reactionary blathering seem almost quaint.

[Yukle]

3 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

Why was Diana referred to as "Princess Diana"?  Was it an honorary title?  I know very little about how these things work. 

She was married to the Heir Apparent. Her husband (while they were married) was Charles, Prince of Wales. Normally a Duke outranks a Prince, but convention says not in that case.

Although she and Charles also held duchies anyway.

All of the British Titles are honorary except for: King / Queen (obviously) and Prince(ss) of Wales. Those carry estates with incomes from the Crown. The others are all honorary.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

But at least I educated you about teh moldbug....

I ain't learned nothin' and I never will! Ya hear!?!

[Tears of Lys]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

She was married to the Heir Apparent. Her husband (while they were married) was Charles, Prince of Wales. Normally a Duke outranks a Prince, but convention says not in that case.

Although she and Charles also held duchies anyway.

All of the British Titles are honorary except for: King / Queen (obviously) and Prince(ss) of Wales. Those carry estates with incomes from the Crown. The others are all honorary.

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

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

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

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