homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Royal Wedding: Who's in, and who's out? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Royal Wedding: Who's in, and who's out?
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a private wedding at a private chapel. Why should the guest list be made public?

There was some news coverage in the UK around the possibility of Prince Harry inviting the Obamas and the chances of political fall out, mostly following his guest editorship of the BBC R4 Today Programme which included an interview with Obama (and his father). But even our most avidly royal watching tabloids are not that interested.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13674 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For those not quite on the ball, that's Harry's father, not the ex-president's.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 469 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
For those not quite on the ball, that's Harry's father, not the ex-president's.

...fortunately, since the latter is deceased.

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 14914 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sadly, it seems, since 1982, at the age of only 46.

How proud he would have been of his son!

But yes, this Royal Wedding is a Private Affair. Still, I do hope the Obamas are (a) invited, and (b) attend. It'll be worth putting the telly on for.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This sounds kind of gossipy and hearsayish, but gives all you Brits a clear plan of action: Trump to cancel UK visit if the Obamas are invited to the wedding.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6022 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
O please, Mr. Obama, accept that invitation!

Save us from The Great Gropo!

Please!

[Axe murder]

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This sounds kind of gossipy and hearsayish, but gives all you Brits a clear plan of action: Trump to cancel UK visit if the Obamas are invited to the wedding.

Is that supposed to be a threat? To me it sounds like the best incentive ever to invite the Obamas.

--------------------
Don't keep calm. Go change the world.

Posts: 9640 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If incentive were needed...... [Big Grin]

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the Daily Mail online

Donald Trump could act vindictively and scupper any planned trade deal with the UK if he is not invited to the upcoming wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, claims Michael Wolff. The author of Fire and Fury - the blistering biography of the president's first year in office - says that half-British Trump fears a 'Royal Wedding Snub' - especially as his mortal enemy Barack Obama is sure to receive an invite in May. Speaking to the DailyMail.com, Wolff said that Trump has little regard for the British obsession over the so-called Special Relationship between the US and the UK and unless he gets his seat at the Windsor Castle wedding he will unleash his notorious temper on Britain. 'He doesn't like being snubbed and wants to be the center of attention all the time,' said Wolff. This latest bombshell widens the fallout from the publication of Wolff's book across the Atlantic. Indeed, on Saturday, the president made an unprecedented rebuttal of Wolff's claims that Trump's mental health is a concern in the White House. Taking to Twitter, Trump said that he was in fact completely competent and classed himself a 'very stable genius'.

Posts: 2130 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let him scupper it [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12822 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If he survives as 'president' that long.....

It's time the Usanians deposed their deranged Emperor, in order to give the world a break. Who gives a sh*t whether The Barking Dog is offended?

I suppose, if push comes to shove, that Harry and The Sparkle might decide not to invite the Obamas.

Which would be a shame, as Barack and Michelle have the ability to brighten any event they attend, unlike The Great Orange Goblin, and the poor, imprisoned, and possibly ensorcelled, Melan(chol)ia.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A reminder of happier times:

The Obamas and Oprah Winfrey

If I'd been there, I would have stood up and cheered, too.

Usanians, what have you done to deserve such a contrast between these two, and The Great Goblin and Melancholia* (poor thing)?

IJ

*Some warlock or wizard will, hopefully, be along soon to free her from the Evil Orange Spell.

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I fear that rather than risk a tempter tantrum and the resulting tweets either your government will wuss out, not issuing an invite, or the Obamas will be gracious and decline to attend, to save the US the embarrassment. You say emotional blackmail, I say emotional blackmail. This man was not potty trained correctly, seventy years ago.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6022 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The invitations are not a matter for the government.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The invitations are not a matter for the government.

Alas, one of the downsides of royal status (or so I'm told) is that private concerns and the concerns of the state are never really entirely separate. Somehow I feel that a copy of the guest list will be seen in Downing Street and that it is even possible that they may have suggestions. Still, I think that, should Prince Harry & Ms Markle be faced with the possibility of Mr Trump's appearance, they may well elope at a registry office near Sandringham or, given Ms Markle's residence in Toronto, the city hall on Queen Street (although she will need to go through Service Ontario to register a name change-- cost-free for Ontario residents).
Posts: 6212 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why would she change her name? Is that still a thing?

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 14914 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Why would she change her name? Is that still a thing?

Yes, it's still a thing. I have a couple of female friends who didn't change names on marriage, and a couple who did the invent-a-new-surname thing, but the vast majority went with the traditional husband's name option. Among the young folks who are marrying now, I don't see much of a difference: the traditional option still seems to be the norm.

(In the case of the non-name-changers, one of them gave the kids Dad's surname and the other hyphenated, so the kids are called Dadname-Momname.)

Of course, in the case of Ms. Markle, it doesn't much matter whether she changes her surname or not, because nobody other than the tabloid press is going to use it again. She'll be HRH Princess Henry of Wales, or probably HRH The Duchess of Sussex

Posts: 4940 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Augustine the Aleut, of course yes, but in the ultimate a matter for the government to comment on rather than give advice.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She can't be Princess of Wales. She isn't marrying Prince Charles.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 469 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456

 - Posted      Profile for lily pad   Email lily pad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Why would she change her name? Is that still a thing?

For the last ten years or so, every young woman I know has taken her husband's name. As a former church youth worker, this has made my Facebook contacts list look like someone else's as so many that I knew so well as teens have different names now. I don't know any who have kept their own name.

--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!

Posts: 2409 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
She can't be Princess of Wales. She isn't marrying Prince Charles.

She won't be Princess of Wales simpliciter. As she's marrying Prince Harry of Wales, she will be as said, Princess Harry of Wales - unless he's given some other title in the meantime.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, he is officially Prince Henry of Wales KCVO, though I doubt if anyone ever calls him 'Henry' (apart from Grandma, if/when she's cross with him.....).

It will, of course, be mildly interesting to see if The Sparkle and he are given other titles.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Why would she change her name? Is that still a thing?

For the last ten years or so, every young woman I know has taken her husband's name. As a former church youth worker, this has made my Facebook contacts list look like someone else's as so many that I knew so well as teens have different names now. I don't know any who have kept their own name.
This.

Being of an age for this sort of thing (friends getting married) I've just done a trawl of my facebook. From a grand total of 43 girls of my acquaintance married in in the last 4 years, a total of er, none, have not changed their surname to that of their husband.

FWIW a casual enquiry of my girlfriend has elicited the info that, were such a thing ever to happen, she too would be becoming Mrs Betjemaniac.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1453 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My son took his wife's name when they married.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12822 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Prince H.'s elder brother and his wife are now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I have no doubt he will be given a Royal Dukedom on marriage (though we will be running out of counties). I agree Sussex is likely.
Of course when Charles eventually succeeds to the throne, William will be made Prince of Wales, hopefully without the slightly embarrassing flummery that attended his father's investiture.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 469 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Over the past few weeks, I have been doing genealogy research. I note most of the time the women have taken their husband's last name, but every once in a while the woman would retain her name, usually because of a title.

As I recall, Queen Elizabeth wanted to take Prince Phillip's last name but Downey street objected. I see there is a new documentary on that wedding.

My son and his wife have retained their own last names because his wife is a noted chef in Portland Oregon. Sometimes, though, they will combine their names when they are doing joint ventures. They do not hyphenate though, just put their names together.

I bet there are times the royal couple are thinking maybe they should just elope,

Posts: 2130 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eirenist said:
quote:
Of course when Charles eventually succeeds to the throne, William will be made Prince of Wales, hopefully without the slightly embarrassing flummery that attended his father's investiture.
O God, what a load of tosh that was. Alas, my Mum and Dad (staunch Royalists, both) insisted on watching the whole thing on telly.

[Disappointed]

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9729 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Prince H.'s elder brother and his wife are now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I have no doubt he will be given a Royal Dukedom on marriage (though we will be running out of counties). I agree Sussex is likely.*snip*

There is a fair bit of frothing on monarchist bulletin boards on this very topic, but Sussex seems to be winning. There are a few votes for Clarence, and one for Inverness (the title given to the most recent Duke of Sussex' semi-official wife). Connaught is no longer in the running.... and Windsor is thought undesirable, perhaps because they want to keep one in reserve for future abdicated monarchs as well on account of the circumstances of the title's previous holder.

Leopold of Belgium's title of Duke of Claremont, which was given to him when it looked as if he would be Prince Consort to Princess Charlotte as queen, but who died in childbirth in 1817, seems to have been forgotten by everybody.

I suspect that there is a Downing Street memorandum in process being drafted by an official happy to be out of today's cabinet shuffle paperwork.

Posts: 6212 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tangent and perhaps i should start a new thread, but ...
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Dadname-Momname.

I'm always slightly nervous when Isabella Dadname-Momname, spawn of course of dadname and mo(/u)mname, meets and marries Murgatroyde (how the hell do you spell that? [Eek!] ) Daddyname-Mummyname and their spawn become Children Dadname-Momname-Daddyname-Mummyname ...

Actually I've never got the whole name change thing, and Kuruman remains Kuruman while I remain Zappa. We married twenty years ago.

So, if (to return to the subject) I were Price Whatshisface I'd prefer to be married to the woman I loved, Thingammy Whastername, without name change histrionics royal or otherwise.

/tangent

[ 08. January 2018, 19:56: Message edited by: Zappa ]

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18872 | From: scarily close to 40° | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Names can be a bit of a minefield.

I've worked with women who have retained their original name at work, but used their husband's name at home, and among non-work friends and acquaintances. So if you know them in one circle and encounters people who know them in the other, they don't know who you're talking about.

If one is going to hyphenate the two names together, isn't the wife's name supposed to come first and the husband's second. I think that's also the usual practice in much of the Spanish speaking world.

I've a theory - for which there's very little evidence - that except where there's an extra 'Mac' involved, it's difficult to get a multiple name to stick and get passed on if it gets above three syllables.

[ 08. January 2018, 21:40: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7473 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
There is a fair bit of frothing on monarchist bulletin boards on this very topic, but Sussex seems to be winning. There are a few votes for Clarence, and one for Inverness (the title given to the most recent Duke of Sussex' semi-official wife). Connaught is no longer in the running.... and Windsor is thought undesirable...

Clarence has unfortunate connotations (although I always thought that being "drowned in a butt of Malmsey" probably meant that he was a drunk).

Can anyone imagine expecting a man to simply dump so important an aspect of his identity as his surname upon marrying? Why do we expect - even demand - it of women?

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 14914 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Can anyone imagine expecting a man to simply dump so important an aspect of his identity as his surname upon marrying? Why do we expect - even demand - it of women?

When I got married I had a choice of keeping my father's name or taking my husband's name -- I chose to go with my husband's. Either way I was going to be using a man's last name. I refused, however, to use the name "Mrs. John Smith" -- I took my husband's last name, but not his first. I also did not do what many women do, making my maiden name my middle name. I continued to use the name by which I was baptized.

When I divorced I kept my married name -- no one in Arizona would recognize me by my maiden name, which was, of course, my father's name. (An alternative used by some women is to take their mother's maiden name -- but again, that would just be my grandfather's name. It always goes back to a male somewhere unless you make up a new name from scratch.)

--------------------
Don't keep calm. Go change the world.

Posts: 9640 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

Can anyone imagine expecting a man to simply dump so important an aspect of his identity as his surname upon marrying? Why do we expect - even demand - it of women?

Well you could take into account the province of Quebec, where it is illegal for a woman to take the name of her husband.

A friend of mine who married 50 years ago outside Quebec later divorced but kept her married name because of her children,. She moved to Quebec when she was in her late 60s. She was forced to get new ID, driver's license and health documents and so on in her maiden name, which she had not used for some 40 years. She moved with relief out of QUebec after a year or so, and was able to revert to the name she preferred and that her friends and famiiy knew.

John

Posts: 5920 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
During a fit of insomnia last night, I did a roladex check to see how many of my married women friends have adopted their husband's name, and it was 3 of 61. In one instance, I understood it (long story omitted out of charity to shipmates), but not the other two. There was a single instance of a husband taking his wife's name.
Posts: 6212 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
It always goes back to a male somewhere unless you make up a new name from scratch.)

Although there are exceptions. King Sweyn II Estridsson of Denmark carried a matronym as a surname. There are a few modern examples of matronyms in Iceland as well.

[ 09. January 2018, 20:31: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 4940 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The present Queen of Australia etc did not take her husband's surname on marriage.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously, we discussed this before we married. Madame has had her own (very successful) career and ha always used her name there. Even in the stages of making arrangements for her semi-retirement from that, her name will continue as that of the business, and it's a valuable asset in that process.

There have been some few items where she uses my name. At the time we were married, it would have been very difficult to have kept her name on the electoral roll, so that changed. It is also on the certificates of title for the few bits of real estate which we own together as the bank would not give mortgages in her proper name rather than the married one. I can't explain that but it was the position. As Dlet uses my name as his surname (Madame's surname is very suitable as one of his given names) she used that at pre-school and then school. Socially, there's a bit of a mix but as surnames are rarely used there it's not an issue.

As an aside, what are gay/lesbian couple doing when they marry? Does anyone know? The couple we know well changed their surnames years ago, Mr Smith becoming Smith-Jones and Mr Jones bcoming Jones-Smith.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As an aside, what are gay/lesbian couple doing when they marry? Does anyone know? The couple we know well changed their surnames years ago, Mr Smith becoming Smith-Jones and Mr Jones bcoming Jones-Smith.

Among my acquaintance, most have not changed names. I know a lesbian couple who took the surname of one of them, and a gay couple who both became Mr. A-B. I don't know anyone who has done the mirror-naming that you mention here.
Posts: 4940 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The lesbian couple I know hyphenated both their last names. The gay male couple I know kept their own names.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11736 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know a gay couple who are Mr and Mr [Jones] (having decided between them to take the surname of one of them).

And another who are Mr and Mr [Jones Smith] (no hyphen).

I recently took part in a fascinating workshop on 'unconscious bias' at work, and the observation was made that attitudes to hyphenated names were changing. Whereas a few years ago, you might assume that your new colleague Joanna Cunningham-Smythe would be a bit posh, these days she might just be hyphenating her name with that of her partner, or keeping her maiden name, or on her second marriage and keeping the same name as her children... all sorts of possibilities.

--------------------
Searching for a new sig...

Posts: 9216 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294

 - Posted      Profile for georgiaboy   Email georgiaboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Clarence has unfortunate connotations (although I always thought that being "drowned in a butt of Malmsey" probably meant that he was a drunk).


I read somewhere (possibly in Morris's 'Oxford') that new members of a certain Oxford college were warned that a certain wine in their cellars 'still tasted of the Duke'. Which says a great deal about the vintages there, but rather less about their quality. (And rather more about the 'humour' of the dons!

--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.

Posts: 1666 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Karl, other than security details, I think the family will be paying for the wedding. As I recall, they reported the Windsor family paid for William's wedding.
The BBC Report

They get their money from us.
They are paid by the state. It's their money.

As a civil servant, I am paid by the state. Do you pay my mortgage?

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1017 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once again. The royal family aren't paid by the state. There is a grant given out of Crown lands that were handed over to government by George the something or other (2nd?) when he couldn't pay his debts.

M.

Posts: 2280 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As an aside, what are gay/lesbian couple doing when they marry? Does anyone know? The couple we know well changed their surnames years ago, Mr Smith becoming Smith-Jones and Mr Jones bcoming Jones-Smith.

Among my acquaintance, most have not changed names. I know a lesbian couple who took the surname of one of them, and a gay couple who both became Mr. A-B. I don't know anyone who has done the mirror-naming that you mention here.
They did it with full parental blessing and approval. Remember that this was in the days when gays anywhere could not get married, so the name-changing was treated as the best available formality.

[ 11. January 2018, 08:43: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6890 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Once again. The royal family aren't paid by the state. There is a grant given out of Crown lands that were handed over to government by George the something or other (2nd?) when he couldn't pay his debts.

M.

OK, but it's still out of public money. My point stands.

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1017 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you believe that income from Crown lands belongs to the state.

A bit Louis the whoever* with 'L'Etat, c'est moi' (the state, it is I), perhaps.

M.

*i really must brush up on my kings and queens.

[ 11. January 2018, 10:56: Message edited by: M. ]

Posts: 2280 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whichever way, and I accept that the Crown isn't the same as the state, it's still money given to the Royals as a form of payment. (Whether they earn it, or are worthy / deserving of it is a different argument).

The public aren't paying for the wedding, the Royals (presumably mostly Harry) are. Same as my salary is paid out of public money, but the public don't pay my bills, I do.

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1017 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
If you believe that income from Crown lands belongs to the state.

A bit Louis the whoever* with 'L'Etat, c'est moi' (the state, it is I), perhaps.

M.

*i really must brush up on my kings and queens.

Louis XIV
Posts: 691 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... Well you could take into account the province of Quebec, where it is illegal for a woman to take the name of her husband. ...

If that really is a matter of law, that sounds like Quebec's Kinder egg.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7473 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... Well you could take into account the province of Quebec, where it is illegal for a woman to take the name of her husband. ...

If that really is a matter of law, that sounds like Quebec's Kinder egg.
In matters such as these, Quebec's legal code is distinct from law in the rest of Canada -- hence the requirement that there must be 3 (of 9) supreme court justices from the Quebec bar, so that there can be a quorum to hear appeals from that province. As (I believe) in France and other Napoleonic code countries, many things are prescribed or forbidden in Quebec which tend to be left less well defined in common law jurisdictions.

John

Posts: 5920 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools