Ship of Fools: Royal Wedding: Who's in, and who's out?

Thread: Royal Wedding: Who's in, and who's out? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020409

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Harry and Barak seem to have developed a close relationship. Looks like Michelle and Barak will receive an invitation. Question: will the Trumps?

And if the Trumps do, will they go if the Obamas are there?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O, I do hope the Obamas are there! Worth turning the TV on for...

As for the egregious Great Orange Goblin (and poor imprisoned Melancholia), no.

No. No. No. No.

In any case, the security logistics would be difficult, to say the least.

And who would want the Chief Of Goblins anywhere near such engaging ladies as Markle The Sparkle, and Michelle Obama? Not to mention the Obamas' daughters?

[Paranoid]

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Unlike the Cambridge wedding which was a state affair held in the hoopla of the City of London, the former spare's wedding will be held in Berks. at St George's Chapel which, although a venue of large size, is more suited to a "family" wedding. I have no doubt the TVs will be there, but the guest list is likely to be friends and family. I don't think Le Grand Orange qualifies whereas the senior Obamas do. The place might be packed out with Harry's former girlfriends, though. [Killing me]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Since Trump is going to have to come here anyway at some point next year, he might as well combine his visit with attendance at the wedding. I assume it would be diplomatically advantageous.

The police will be out in full force anyway so they might as well pull out all the stops for a bunch of VIPs in one fell swoop rather than having to look after the president on a separate occasion.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Since it is not a state wedding, I assume that countries do not necessarily need to send official representatives.

Though I assume commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia should send representatives.

Question: Is it a rule that the ABC must officiate all royal weddings?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

The thing about security for Trump is that it would not only involve UK security, it would perforce involve US security, ie the Secret Service. That would take more finangling and bother, and the Happy Couple might not want the fuss.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Since the wedding appears to be on the same day as the Cup Final, the country will be too busy practising its religion (worship of Sport and Slebrities) to turn out for the Great Goblin.

In any case, as Uncle Pete says, the wedding is likely to be a 'family' affair, though no doubt there will be a few hardy souls in the streets of Windsor. Hardly enough to gratify the huuuuuge desires of the Great Goblin, who only wants the bigliest crowds out to adore Him. Covfefe.

IJ

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

A small point, the Obamas still have secret service protection though the detail is greatly reduced.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes indeed, but presumably much less than that required by the Great Orange Goblin.

The idea of combining the Royal Wedding with the not-really-wanted State visit by the GOG is, frankly, ridiculous.

I'm sure Harry and the Sparkle have more sense, and, indeed, good taste.

IJ

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Since Trump is going to have to come here anyway at some point next year, he might as well combine his visit with attendance at the wedding. I assume it would be diplomatically advantageous.

Actually, T is likely to cause some sort of diplomatic incident. Better for him to go to his Mar-A-Lago resort, and watch it on TV. (And someone should hide his phone.)

Or play golf, and not watch it at all.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, the newspapers are saying Trump will come here for a 'working visit' at some point in the new year. The fact that he's unpopular in the UK doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to keep him away indefinitely.

[ 27. December 2017, 23:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What is the proportion of rich rubbish** to normal humans present at one of these affairs? Would the gooey orange puffball make any differencr?

**defining rich rubbish as doesn't and never has worked for a living, and / or inherited some title. Nothing earned. All given.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

No one with the sense Christ gave a goat would want Crooked Don near them at their wedding.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No one with the sense Christ gave a goat would want Crooked Don near them at their wedding.

...or anywhere else.
[Disappointed]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The guest list is likely to be similar to that for, say, Edward and Sophie. In other words, the only heads of state were such foreign royals as are family friends because its not a "state" wedding.

I'd expect a full-house of Windsors, plus royals from Denmark and Norway, maybe the Dutch and Spanish, Constantine of Greece. Not Monaco or Belgium.

Some from armed force's charities plus people Harry served with. And, of course, friends of the bride.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What is the proportion of rich rubbish** to normal humans present at one of these affairs? Would the gooey orange puffball make any differencr?

**defining rich rubbish as doesn't and never has worked for a living, and / or inherited some title. Nothing earned. All given.

Mind you, some of the rich rubbish swan around the world on their yachts being decorative, and some work hard to contribute to those with less. People like Harry don't just give their name as a sponsor of a charity but get stuck in to make a difference – and he took after his mother. And his grannie has a non-stop schedule, which you'd think would be a killer at her age, but she sees it as a duty, and she does make an impression on people which the GOPB wouldn't if he ever went to the trouble of meeting the Hoi polloi unless it was a way to make a few million bucks.
Does he bother to go and even talk to people when there's been a cyclone or a bush fire?

Pardon the rant. Maybe I've eaten too much of my Christmas chocolate. I'm not a Royal watcher, but there's more than one kind of rich and famous.

GG

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd expect a full-house of Windsors, plus royals from Denmark and Norway, maybe the Dutch and Spanish, Constantine of Greece. Not Monaco or Belgium.

The Grimaldi, of course, are not royal, nor is the Prince of Liechtenstein. The Queen's relationship with the present Belgians is not the same as it was with Baudouin and Fabiola.

The groom is now 5th in line, and soon to be 6th. It's not really a State affair. Even so, I'd expect an offical guest from each of the countries of which HM is queen - but not from other Commonwealth nations. No official guests from any other country, only personal ones. Of course if the Trumps were invited, Prince Phillip could always try out his different sense of humour on them.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Why do we care? We're not invited, we don't get a say. We just get the bill.

Bunch of pointless dole scroungers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Harry and Barak seem to have developed a close relationship. Looks like Michelle and Barak will receive an invitation. Question: will the Trumps?

Isn't there something in the Handbook of Royal Protocol about not inviting someone to the wedding if they've bragged about how they could've banged the groom's dead mother? Aside from the general overall loathsome unpleasantness of Donald Trump there's an additional specific skeeviness factor in play here.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

If there isn't anything in the said Handbook, then there bloody well ought to be.

If it's true (and it's in the Daily Heil, so It Must Be True), then here's yet another reason for banning the Great Goblin from even entering our airspace, let alone actually setting foot on our soil.

[Mad]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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. And we pay directly for the security.

It's one of the few areas where I'd go along with Russ's model of being able to opt out of contributing to things. We don't need them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Maybe they could all go to one of Trump's golf clubs and have their wedding there. Or isn't there a rocky island somewhere in the Atlantic, perfect for an intimate family gathering? Or how about Alcatraz?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

They can go where they f***ing well like, as long as they don't invite The Great Orange Goblin here.

I wonder how feasible it would be to engineer a minor earthquake, so that, if and when The Great Orange Goblin sets foot on this sceptred isle, the earth opens, and swallows him up.....

.....thereby releasing the accursed but sympathy-worthy Melancholia from her bondage.

Not to mention the world at large, of course.

IJ

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I thought the money for the sovereign's and royal family expenses came from money from crown lands which were given to Parliament in the 18th c. when George the whatever was in debt?

So the money only comes from us very, very indirectly if at all - if you believe crown lands shouldn't be crown lands, I suppose.

M.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Actually, come to think of it, the earthquake scenario would make a nice little fillum, no?

Alec Baldwin as the Great Goblin, of course, and perhaps Markle the Sparkle as a mightily-relieved Melancholia?

[Two face]

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Och, let them get on with it. Why waste all this hot air.

*It isn't a state wedding - as said already.
*It is in St George's Chapel which is enclosed inside Windsor Castle. So not so public friendly for viewing as St Paul's or Westminster.
*The Royals are paying for it themselves.
*The guest list, we are told, is who they want. Let them do it their way. We have no say.

At least Harry and his brother have done some "real" work. I knew a lady who's neighbour was involved in a road accident in Suffolk and William was the pilot of the air ambulance that picked her up. It was his job. Don't see the big orange monster or some other celebs doing that as a job!

Harry stared the Invictis Games among other things. My son worked as a techie on the games and said that and Harry was very nice and funny and treated everyone the same. Can't say that for other celebs. Some he has worked with in the theatre and entertainment have been very nasty and full of themseleves, even to those who work with them, he says .....but not Harry.

Give them a break. It's not their fault they were born into an anorcharistic family. At least they are trying to modernise it!

There are more important things in the world to worry about.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Harry and Barak seem to have developed a close relationship. Looks like Michelle and Barak will receive an invitation. Question: will the Trumps?
Isn't there something in the Handbook of Royal Protocol about not inviting someone to the wedding if they've bragged about how they could've banged the groom's dead mother? Aside from the general overall loathsome unpleasantness of Donald Trump there's an additional specific skeeviness factor in play here.

As Omar would say. "Oh, INDEED!"

If Harry and Meghan want to troll our Brexit establishment they will invite Barack and family and have the whole thing presided over by +London. The shrieks of "GAAAH! Beryl!" and the exploding heads, a la Scanners will be joyous to behold. It will be the joke about asylum seekers discovered to be the natural predators of paedophiles made flesh.

It will also make up for the last Royal Wedding, to which a bunch of insubstantial Tory chancers were invited - I'm looking at you Jon "ERM and Bosnia" Major and you Dave "Referendum" Cameron,, but not the Prime Ministers who, respectively, saved the Monarchy and ended the civil conflict in Northern Ireland and helped save the global economy. But I bet Charles and the Establishment get involved and scotch any subversiveness.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't there something in the Handbook of Royal Protocol about not inviting someone to the wedding if they've bragged about how they could've banged the groom's dead mother? ...

Ewww. I missed that one, but then I was never a watcher of either Trump <ptui> or the royals. I'm not a fan of Diana's, but this is really loathesome, even for the Orange Goblin.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

That's beyond "ewww" and out the other side. What a total slimeball.

**shudder**

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O Earth! Open up, gape wide, and swallow Him......!

Earth gaped.

And the World breathed again....

(with apologies to E R Eddison)

IJ

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

q--

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Maybe they could all go to one of Trump's golf clubs and have their wedding there. Or isn't there a rocky island somewhere in the Atlantic, perfect for an intimate family gathering? Or how about Alcatraz?

Alcatraz? You want them to get married at an abandoned prison?

Which is also a tourist attraction?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
q--

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Maybe they could all go to one of Trump's golf clubs and have their wedding there. Or isn't there a rocky island somewhere in the Atlantic, perfect for an intimate family gathering? Or how about Alcatraz?
Alcatraz? You want them to get married at an abandoned prison?

Which is also a tourist attraction?

Why not just send Trump to Alcatraz?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Why burden the people of the SF Bay Area with his presence, especially when they are trying to enjoy themselves by looking across the Golden Gate or at the Bay?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why burden the people of the SF Bay Area with his presence, especially when they are trying to enjoy themselves by looking across the Golden Gate or at the Bay?

There must be a secure cell out of view of the tourists. I've never been there -- do they have a dungeon?

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

He could be tipped, rolled, overboard on the way there. I remember hearing about sharks when I visited.

Then again ... sharks have taste. He may just have to freeze.

Everytime I think he has slipped to his lowest, something else pops up. God knows what will be next.

[ 28. December 2017, 23:33: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Ian--you have heard of air travel, have you not? If it weren't for DT getting to use AF1, I could hope the engines would drop off the wings about mid-flight. But I would not want to lose AF1.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

SPK--

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why burden the people of the SF Bay Area with his presence, especially when they are trying to enjoy themselves by looking across the Golden Gate or at the Bay?

Amen!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Pigwidgeon--

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why burden the people of the SF Bay Area with his presence, especially when they are trying to enjoy themselves by looking across the Golden Gate or at the Bay?
There must be a secure cell out of view of the tourists. I've never been there -- do they have a dungeon?

This may help.

Official National Park Service site for Alcatraz. Pics, history, etc.

I've made a point of never going there. There is an option for tourists to be briefly locked in a cell. I so don't want even my imagination to go there.
[Paranoid]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I've been to Alcatraz. I did not opt for the locking-in. I disliked the place intensely.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Look on the bright side. It will be amazingly quiet anywhere outside that day as everyone else will be inside staring at the flummery of the royal soap opera or the bladder kicking.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Not a football fan, then? [Devil]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm looking at you Jon "ERM and Bosnia" Major and you Dave "Referendum" Cameron,, but not the Prime Ministers who, respectively, saved the Monarchy and ended the civil conflict in Northern Ireland and helped save the global economy.

Quite right, John Major should certainly get no credit for ending the civil conflict in Northern Ireland. It was all that nice Mr Hand-of-history-on-my-shoulder-bringer-of-peace-throughout-the-globe, from a standing start, from May 1997 [Roll Eyes]

OTOH, the fact that he was made guardian of William and Harry following the death of their mother might have something to do with his invitation....

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Callan

quote:
It will also make up for the last Royal Wedding, to which a bunch of insubstantial Tory chancers were invited - I'm looking at you Jon "ERM and Bosnia" Major

As is pointed out above, It was John Major who put in the spade-work for the Northern Ireland Agreement, not Mr Blair; and it was John Major who tried to walk the tight-rope between the Wales's from the time of their separation onwards and, in particular, urged that they should be allowed to divorce rather than just remaining separated.

quote:
... and you Dave "Referendum" Cameron,

Mr Cameron was invited to the wedding of the Cambridges because he was PM at the time and William is second-in-line to the throne. You may well think there was no need for a referendum but, having promised one during the run-up to and the campaign for the 2015 election Mr Cameron was in honour bound to hold same: just because you didn't approve of it happening or like the result doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened - and the result was in large part guaranteed by the stupidity of Herr Juncker and EU politicians who failed utterly to understand the nature of the UK electorate or our electoral processes.

quote:

...but not the Prime Ministers who, respectively, saved the Monarchy and ended the civil conflict in Northern Ireland

Don't believe everything you see on screen. The mass hysteria that erupted following the sudden and untimely death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was at least in part encouraged by the lunacy of the initial statement made by Mr Blair: the catch in the voice and the people's princess nonsense may have made sense in a novel but was wholly inappropriate at the time. Anyone else remember the annoyance expressed by Downing Street with Diana and her trip to Angola to see the work of the HALO Trust? Alastair Campbell made no secret of the fact that they thought she was and air-head who was grandstanding and journalists were not only leaked to on those lines but there were questions in the House of Commons about the visit and Blair (and his government) did nothing to offer support or approval of it. And during the week of national hysteria when the press and public rounded on the queen, Blair did nothing to calm things down by pointing out the bleeding obvious which was that children who had just lost their mother should be allowed to stay out of sight with granny and their father, rather than being paraded in front of a mob and expected to emote to order.

quote:
...and helped save the global economy.

!!! Having been warned for 9 years that the ever-more-lax regulatory framework he put in place for banking in the UK was a recipe for disaster, Brown then guaranteed a collapse at RBS/NatWest by refusing to call-in their takeover of ABN-Amro when it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was crazy. And the Lloyds TSB-BoS scheme wasn't too clever either. Moreover, having failed on those counts, he then took the one area where Northern Rock-Bradford & Bingley were profitable (Buy-to-Let lending) and insisted that those loans be shut down and/or sold on at a loss rather than putting them into a government owned institution which could have made a profit to offset the cost of some of the billions he decided to use propping up RBS. The most sensible thing he could have done, not only for UK but for world banking, would have been to have allowed one major UK bank to fail - pour encourager les autres (to encourage the others) and concentrate minds in the financial sector onto something other than their own financial ends and goals.

quote:
But I bet Charles and the Establishment get involved and scotch any subversiveness.

I just love the way people talk about "the establishment" as if it actually existed: it doesn't and never has, save in a few generally accepted rules to do with protocol and polite behaviour.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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. And we pay directly for the security.

It's one of the few areas where I'd go along with Russ's model of being able to opt out of contributing to things. We don't need them.

I'm no big fan of the royals, but to be fair, until recently Prince William was employed full time as an Air Ambulance pilot. He donated his salary (on which he'd paid tax and national insurance) to charity.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I'm not a royalist, but I get it. You all might complain about your royals, but the monarchy is how you don't have someone like Trump as head of sta [Projectile]

Ugh, I can't even finish that sentence. It's too much. [Help]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

The fact of Donald Trump in the White House makes me yearn to have the gracious Queen Elizabeth II as my monarch. And I'm not a royalist.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm not a royalist, but I get it. You all might complain about your royals, but the monarchy is how you don't have someone like Trump as head of sta

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but someone like Trump could still, if the citizens of the UK went mad as some of your populace did, be PM. And be jet-setting around the world representing England, or Scotland or Wales or NI. Not Head of State, some small mercy, but the PM has a larger role if I understand it day-to-day.

I now have a vision of Trump conducting Brexit negotiations. I think I need a lie down.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm not a royalist, but I get it. You all might complain about your royals, but the monarchy is how you don't have someone like Trump as head of sta
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but someone like Trump could still, if the citizens of the UK went mad as some of your populace did, be PM. And be jet-setting around the world representing England, or Scotland or Wales or NI. Not Head of State, some small mercy, but the PM has a larger role if I understand it day-to-day.

I now have a vision of Trump conducting Brexit negotiations. I think I need a lie down.

I have long that that there are two advantages of the Queen system; one of which is that the person who symbolizes the nation is not a party figure, important when partisan sentiment and distrust is high. The other is that PMs can be shuffled out the door by their cabinet if their visible inadequacy gets too much (such as happened in the UK with Anthony Eden or, closer to home, in Ontario with premiers Hepburn, Robarts, and Harris). And this can even be done with the slimier sort of monarch (Edward VIII?).

However, one of my (republican in inclination) political science academic friends suggests, a monarchy denies the top spot to the ambitious A-Type personalities who normally ascend the greasy pole of politics. She regrets that most political party structures do not facilitate the ascent of the best of the nation, and that our better angels are not always in charge of our voting patterns. Sometimes the luck of the gene pool brings us better returns. Still, Mr Trump is an outlier in US politics, where their system will often end up bringing very capable candidates to the top, even the accidental ones (e.g., Harry Truman), so perhaps he is not the best example on which to build a constitution.

But perhaps this is for another thread.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

[returning to what's really interesting; one of my great hopes for the future is that some day, oh! golden prospect! we will never see or hear of our current president ever, ever again, neither his image nor his voice nor his clubs nor his hotels, the full Voldemort, never spoken, tabu as the vilest and most horrible crimes are never mentioned...]

Ahem.

At what point will the guest list be made public? I assume that there has to be some lead time for invitations. If the wedding is in May, everyone who's going will know by, say, early April. You gotta give time for women to get their fascinators made, and the shoes dyed to match the gown. And, calculating back, you don't announce that list until you're pretty sure that everyone on it has accepted the invite. Which means that the invites must go out sometime in March, even February.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

For those not quite on the ball, that's Harry's father, not the ex-president's.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O please, Mr. Obama, accept that invitation!

Save us from The Great Gropo!

Please!

[Axe murder]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

If incentive were needed...... [Big Grin]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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'.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Let him scupper it [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The invitations are not a matter for the government.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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).

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Why would she change her name? Is that still a thing?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Augustine the Aleut, of course yes, but in the ultimate a matter for the government to comment on rather than give advice.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

She can't be Princess of Wales. She isn't marrying Prince Charles.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son took his wife's name when they married.

[Smile]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

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.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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,

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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 ]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.)

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

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

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The present Queen of Australia etc did not take her husband's surname on marriage.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

The lesbian couple I know hyphenated both their last names. The gay male couple I know kept their own names.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

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.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

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!

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

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?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

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.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

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. ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

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.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

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

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The British, on the conquest of Québec, allowed the civil courts to continue according to the Custom of Paris. This was guaranteed by the 1774 Québec Act, which students of the War of Independence will recall as one of the Intolerable Acts, and which gets a reference in the Declaration of Independence. This continues as part of Canada's constitution and, as John Holding notes, is why 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices must be qualified in the civil code. *end of boring background*

Québec's peculiarity in this matter stems from several factors coming together: 1) there is a fairly limited number of family names among the roughly 5 million francophone Québécois; 2) after the introduction of divorce and remarriage in the 1960s, remarrying women were adopting the names of spouse no. 2 (or even no. 3) and driving the civil registry folks insane-- one of 13,000 Diane Dubois became one of 7,349 Diane Lefebvres became one of 12,474 Diane Boissoneaults, and then took her maiden name back again. The confusion became so problematic that feminists and law-reform types suggested that no name change following marriage be accommodated, effective in 1976. The Civil Registry breathed a sigh of relief.

If, however, a Québec bride really wants the new spouse's family name, she can go down to the Mairie and do a legal change-of-name application. The Director of Civil Status will authorize it on account of: 1) the continued use of a name not entered on the birth certificate; 2) a name of foreign origin, too difficult to pronounce or write in its original form; 3) serious prejudice or psychological suffering caused by the use of the name; 4) a name that invites ridicule or that is infamous (marked by disgrace, shame or humiliation); or 5) adding to the surname of a child under 18 the surname of the father or mother.

In practice, a woman normally goes by her own name (e.g., Diane Dubois), but the couple will be known as M et Mme Paul Lebrun. On her driver's permit or health card, she will always be Diane Dubois. Everyone seems to take this in stride.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Being able to explain something doesn't stop it from being a Kinder Egg. Doubtless there was once a reason for that prohibition. Whether it was child safety, protection of the native sweet industry or what, I don't know and don't particularly care.

What makes something a Kinder Egg is the state wading in with criminal penalties or enforceable prohibitions, to an area where citizens should be entitled to decide for themselves, elsewhere normally are, and (this is an important part) in a way which makes the state in question look silly and petty to citizens of anywhere else.

This effect is magnified where the province in question is part of a larger polity and the other provinces impose no such thing.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

What's a "Kinder Egg"?

(Other than a chocolate egg with a toy inside.)

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Enoch, you're restricting yourself to a common law mentalit'e (I can't do an aigu).

As well, you wrote:
This effect is magnified where the province in question is part of a larger polity and the other provinces impose no such thing.

Stephane Dion, former leader of the Liberal Party and our current ambassador to Germany and the EU, once said that Canada is a nation that in theory doesn't work. It works only because we accept its illogic. It's sort of a political koan.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Phantom Flan Flinger, a Kinder Egg is exactly what you think it is. It's become evident on these threads over the years that for some mysterious reason, it's quite a serious criminal offence to import one into the USA.

No Pangolin Guerre, I'm not restricting myself by having a common law mentalité. I was already aware that Quebec uses a French derived legal system, although as explained earlier on this thread, it appears to derive from the law of C18 France, not modern post-Napoleonic French law. Yes, I live in a country most of which uses Common Law systems, but a major part uses a partially Civil Law system.

As has already been explained by Augustine the Aleut, this can no more derive from Quebec's French tradition than the US's antipathy to Kinder Eggs derives from Common Law, but is a recent innovation from the 1970s.

Every jurisdiction has its Kinder Eggs. I stand by my view that this is one of Quebecs's.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think in this case the Directeur de l'état civil would register the immigrants Henry de Windsor and Meghan Markle, and their driving permits and health cards would bear these names, but the chef de protocol would refer to Leurs Altesses Royales le prince et la princesse Henry de Windsor (the abbreviation, for those who wish to save pixels, is LL.AA.RR.).

For those interested in the Québec civil code (all three of you), its mediaeval ramshacklery was napoleonized in 1866, with the unfortunate side effect that many of the property and civil rights of women were suppressed, there to lay dormant until the era of charters of rights and another revision in 1994.

Normal people would not know this, or particularly care, but I had the unfortunate experience of doing the paperwork for a grant for a study on this, Brian Young's "The Politics of Codification," which is a readable piece of work, should you find yourself snowed into a cottage somewhere.

There is an interesting discussion to be had on the advantages and disadvantages of the code as opposed to the common law, but that's likely for another thread, should anyone care to pursue it. Its continuance can be blamed on the British colonial authorities, who decided not to impose English law, suppress Catholicism, and replace the use of French with English, all of which options were reviewed in the 1760s.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0