Royal visit to Canada

Warrigal

Warrigal

SF VIP
Location
Sydney, Australia
I love this photo of Prince William and his family being welcomed to Canada.
It looks so informal and so normal, best clothes notwithstanding.
I love the way Justin Trudeau is interacting with Prince George.

Royal visit to Canada.JPG
 

They have a funny way of keeping them out of the public limelight which they say they are determined to do.

I don't particularly care for the mewling, piking brats in my own family. let alone other broods.
 
Looks like the young royals are getting a warm reception in our west coast cities and they seem to be enjoying it too. Tsk tsk, Laurie.

I'm not exactly one to fawn all over the monarchy, but they are cute and seem harmless enough, although this is costing Canadians a pretty penny.
 
Every high profile visitor is expensive, none more so than the US President or the Pope.

I would like to see Australia become a formal republic but that does not mean that I have anything against the English monarchy or members of the Royal family.
 
Apparently Prince George declined to high-five with PM Justin Trudeau, maybe has no idea what it is or too tired to care.
 
The press are having a field day with it, for sure.
Maybe they don't do high-five in UK? Never seen it on British TV shows.
 
I'm afraid I'm a bit prejudiced by the total obsession with children over here.

One cannot open a newspaper or watch a news bulletin without a variety of 3 to twelve year olds giving their opinion on everything from foreign policy to the competence of their head teacher.

Parents deny their children nothing and can see no fault in them no matter what they do.

I remember a police officer friend telling me, when we were discussing his being attacked by a 17 tear old, "You've got to remember, Laurie, that I am the first person ever in their lives yo say "No!" to them".

"The headlines are screaming that he does not shake hands with commoners."

Doesn't take after his grandmother them. She did a lot more than shake hands with them!
 
The royals have been marrying commoners for decades -- Kate is a commoner, the Queen Mother was a commoner, Sarah Ferguson, a commoner, the list goes on and on. The papers were just tongue in cheek (kidding) with the commoner remarks. They have to marry commoners, or else its going to limit the gene pool and you know what that means (inbreeding!)
 
"the Queen Mother was a commoner"

Hardly.

She was The Honourable Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore, a noble house dating from 1606!
 
She may have been a blue blood, but that does not make her a royal.
Marrying a royal made her one but I do think she was a commoner before marriage.
 
Warrigal said:
She may have been a blue blood, but that does not make her a royal.
Marrying a royal made her one but I do think she was a commoner before marriage.
Click to expand...

You may think what you like, of course, but none of the peerage would be regarded as commoners for this purpose. In fact no member of the Upper Ten Thousand could be regarded as a commoner.

Your link is hardly an authoritative source, nor is it even accurate.

Four of Henry VIII's wives were commoners, as was Elisabeth Woodville wife of Henry IV, and so was John of Gaunt's wife.

It should also be borne in mind that since he was neither sovereign nor heir when he married, it could not, in the generally accepted sense, be a morganatic marriage.

"Marrying a royal made her one"

Not true even as a generalisation

No-one would describe Diana as a royal, or the Ferguson woman.
 
Laurie said:
You may think what you like, of course, but none of the peerage would be regarded as commoners for this purpose. In fact no member of the Upper Ten Thousand could be regarded as a commoner.

Your link is hardly an authoritative source, nor is it even accurate.

Four of Henry VIII's wives were commoners, as was Elisabeth Woodville wife of Henry IV, and so was John of Gaunt's wife.

It should also be borne in mind that since he was neither sovereign nor heir when he married, it could not, in the generally accepted sense, be a morganatic marriage.

"Marrying a royal made her one"

Not true even as a generalisation

No-one would describe Diana as a royal, or the Ferguson woman.
Click to expand...
Really? I know several Brits of the "cut glass accent" variety, who hold a vastly different opinion of Diana than the perjorative one you continue to espouse. It is a common human behavioural characteristic to assume that others share our prejudices. Often, they do not.
 
Just been watching pretty good documentary 'The Royals' on Netflix. Worth the time and very interesting. It too states that Queen Mum was technically a commoner, although she was a daughter of a lord, in fact these titled folks are just as much commoners as everyone else. They seem to receive their titles after they do something special in the eyes of the monarchy, like making a lot of money and being famous (e.g. Paul McCartney).

I would say Diana was more of a royal in essence than all of them put together.

Laurie, did you forget to drink your prune juice again?
 
Cookie said:
Just been watching pretty good documentary 'The Royals' on Netflix. Worth the time and interesting. It too states that Queen Mum was technically a commoner, although she was a daughter of a lord, in fact these titled folks are just as much commoners as everyone else.

I would say Diana was more of a royal in essence than all of them put together.

Laurie, did you forget to drink your prune juice again?
Click to expand...

LOL. Agree with your Diana comment.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top