Queen Elizabeth II's health

[amadeus]

Possibly. I'm not even sure I understand what you say as I have a very low level of knowledge about British royal History, my teaching being more focused on the French case. Are you saying that royals are only marrying with other royals? I thought some were picking husbands and spouses among the aristocracy in general.

It sure seems like it. Even some of the abolished royal houses, their members marry other (fake) princes and princesses. They’re really committed to the bit.

 

[Uncle Paul]

I'm Irish and German. How long would I have to live in the UK to become British by blood? Would my kids be british by blood? Grandkids?

Yes, everyone in England should go back to their ancestral lands.

Spoiler size :

(Sorry about size, map of anglo-saxon migration to Britain.)

You will never be ethnically British...if you married someone who was, had kids with them, and your descendants continued to have kids with ethnic Britons, eventually they would be mostly British with minor foreign roots.

George VI was approximately half-German, and the Queen Mother was very much British, making the late Queen one-quarter German at most. Prince Philip was of Danish, German and Russian descent, which means that Charles is of rather mixed heritage, but mostly British.

George VI had virtually no British ancestry.

The Ethnic ancestry of Prince William

"Royal" is treated as an ethnicity there, which I don't agree with, but the "Royal" ethnicity is overwhelmingly German, as the author of this page admits...Queen Victoria had very distant British ancestry, so distant it doesn't even show up on that page (i.e. less than 1%). Her husband, Prince Albert was German. Their son, Edward VII, married Princess Alexandra of Denmark, their son George V, married Mary of Teck (German), and their son, George VI, married the Queen Mother, who was actually British by descent, making Elizabeth II the first British monarch in centuries to have any meaningful amount of British heritage. Prince Philip wasn't ethnically British (he had less than 1% of British ancestry, from Queen Victoria), but Princess Diana was mostly British (although she had distant Armenian and Indian roots, in addition to some Irish and Continental blood). Kate Middleton is 99.9% British ancestrally (distant Huguenot), making Prince George ~80% British ethnically. I would consider Prince George essentially ethnically British, since he's more than 3/4 British ancestrally, and almost all of the rest of his ancestry is from closely related groups.

Culturally, of course, the Royal Family have been exclusively British for over a century.

The Queen Mother was the one who Anglicized the Royal Family. They still spoke German among themselves until WWI.

European Royalty are effectively an ethnic group in their own right, given that they married almost exclusively amongst themselves for over four hundred years, and had a very strong preference for in-group marriage for centuries before that. My impression is that this is kind of how they privately think of themselves, but for obvious reasons they could never admit it publicly.

The Ethnic ancestry of Prince William

This guy agrees with you on that - I don't, I think they're a subset of mostly Germans...the younger members (William, Harry, etc...) are more than 1/2 British, and they no longer follow the "marry a fellow royal" custom. I would assume that the younger generations of royals probably see themselves as British.

You picked a great handle, Bitterender, due to its strong association with US Confederate who tried their best to hold for million black people in perpetual bondage. By the way, my ancestry is mostly French with smatterings of Irish, English, and German -- yet I live in the US. Guess I need to back my ancestral home as well, eh?

Bittereinders - Wikipedia

af.wikipedia.org

Bittereinder (not Bitterender) is an Afrikaans word from the Boer Wars, it has nothing to do with North America.

Hopefully you were just being sardonic. Otherwise, that is grotesquely bigoted.

Civic "nationalism" is to actual nationalism as Messianic "Judaism" is to actual Judaism.
(For those who don't know, Messianic Judaism is a Christian group that pretends to be Jewish in hopes of converting Jews to Christianity)

No necessarily, you're mixing two different things into one.

Not believing in something is not necessarily a religious thing. This is especially true for atheists who don't believe in any god claims presented so far. Rejecting one god claim due to believing one or several other such claims might have religious basis but there're other reasons for doing so. Even if a claim is a religious one reason(s) rejecting it doesn't have to be. Not believing something supernatural doesn't even remotely have to be religious. Not believing tooth fairies, unicorns or Santa Claus is very rarely called a religious belief.
There's also a vast gap between between claims "there're no god(s)" and "I don't believe god xyz". The latter is the gist atheism while the first goes much further and furthermore, atheism is still not a religion.

Atheism isn't an organized religion, but it is a religious belief.

It sure seems like it. Even some of the abolished royal houses, their members marry other (fake) princes and princesses. They’re really committed to the bit.

They don't want to have a morganatic marriage.

 

[amadeus]

They don't want to have a morganatic marriage.

And I don't want to have hemophilia. Takes all kinds!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Atheism isn't an organized religion, but it is a religious belief.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't ever be true. Christians have been using it for decades, at least, as a kinda "gotcha' against atheists.

 

[Uncle Paul]

No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't ever be true. Christians have been using it for decades, at least, as a kinda "gotcha' against atheists.

Do single people have a marital status?

 

[Sarin]

"Hard" atheism is belief in non-existence of any god, and thus is a religious belief in itself.

However, most people called atheists are "soft" atheists or agnostics, which are not religious beliefs.

 

[Arakhor]

Is black a colour or the absence of colour?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ethnic heritage.

I don't think it's fair for migrants to Europe and their offspring to expect to be treated as if they were actual Europeans, they're not. If they want to fit in and be regarded as part of the mainstream, they should return to their ancestral lands.

Hey, let's ALL go back where we came from! Quick, someone let everyone in the East African regions know that they're about to increase their population by however many billions of people don't already live there (damn, it's going to get crowded and I don't do very well in hot, dry climates).

Funny thing about "go back where you came from"... the username I have on my news site has a bit of an Asian/Indian aspect to it (it's the name of a character in one of my favorite science fiction novels). Someone took a typical right-winger's offense to something I said one day and told me, "Go back to where you came from!" I told him I am already where I came from, as I still live in the city where I was born and raised - as a 3rd-generation Canadian (my paternal grandmother being the first in the family to be born in Canada to parents who immigrated from Sweden pre-WWI).

Funny thing, too, about Jagmeet Singh: Someone hold him to go back where he came from. He was out in Western Canada at the time - BC, I think, or possibly Alberta - and he laughed about it to the news reporter. He said, "He wants me to go back to Ontario?"

Actually, we will all eventually go back where we came from anyway. It's going to take several billion years, but that's cosmic recycling for you - it happens long-term, for the Sun to vaporize our planet and then lose part of its outer layers to a planetary nebula... some parts of which will eventually become a new solar system billions of years later. I'm okay with that.

I'm Irish and German. How long would I have to live in the UK to become British by blood? Would my kids be british by blood? Grandkids?

Yes, everyone in England should go back to their ancestral lands.

Spoiler size :

(Sorry about size, map of anglo-saxon migration to Britain.)

The map is fine. it's not too large at all. Thank you for posting it, as it's interesting information I hadn't known.

Are they though? When was the last time Betty stood in a queue, went to a chippy, or watched Love Island? Beyond being born in a similar geographic area (though Phil was Greek), I'm not sure what similarity they have with the overwhelming majority of British people.

She might have watched Love Island, though it's not likely. It's not like the Royal Family is forbidden to watch TV. They have their favorite shows like everyone else.

William has stood in a queue and had fast food. Diana made sure of this, when she took the kids out. She refused offers to let them go to the front of the line, saying it was important that they learn not to expect special privileges.

You picked a great handle, Bitterender, due to its strong association with US Confederate who tried their best to hold for million black people in perpetual bondage. By the way, my ancestry is mostly French with smatterings of Irish, English, and German -- yet I live in the US. Guess I need to back my ancestral home as well, eh?

Hopefully you were just being sardonic. Otherwise, that is grotesquely bigoted.

He's not being sardonic.

I think it's the European aristocracy which should be designated as such. In the 18th century, the concept of aristocracy refered as blood purity was pretty mainstream all accross Europe. It only started getting challenged with the French Revolution and the following Napoleonic wars.

Roots of this are very archaic. Origins of the concept is dating back to the 4th and 5th century AD, when the Roman military progressively got more and more lead by Germanic generals protecting the limes, the Roman Empire border. Over time, those generals eventually crowned themselves as kings in the 5th and 6th century AD, founding this way European nobility (replacing the former Roman Imperial rule).

Since the Western Empire fell in 476 CE, the timing fits.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't ever be true. Christians have been using it for decades, at least, as a kinda "gotcha' against atheists.

Oh, he's still on about that, is he?

Funny how some people just can't wrap their minds around the fact that some people are non-believers who don't worship anything. Someone in the SCA once told me (after I told her I'm atheist), "NO. You're PAGAN." She wouldn't listen when I told her no, I'm not pagan. Atheism and paganism are not remotely the same thing. She just couldn't handle the idea of someone not worshiping anything at all.

Ideally, it would be nice if believers would just leave the definition of atheism to atheists. After all, we know what we do or don't believe. It's tiresome, constantly having people 'splain it to us as if we're too stupid to understand it ourselves.

Status is an odd thing in Canada. Not only does the tax department and most other financial/government agencies want to know our marital status (single, never married for me), but they also want to know if we have any degree of status regarding indigenous ancestry or current residence/claims. I've been asked if I'm Metis (no), or am indigenous with or without treaty status (no, and no; unless there was some incident on my mother's mother's side - I found out after her death that she was American, though the family likely was originally from Ireland - I have no indigenous ancestry whatsoever).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do single people have a marital status?

By bureaucratic definition marital status is usually thought of as a binary choice: yes, married, no, not married. Sometimes it gets expanded into: married, not married, never married, separated, and even divorced. The context is important. If it is legal or tax related, then the available choices may change from what one might say if it is in the context of a potential partner. Linking it to religion is a poor affiliation.

You seem to tuck "belief in god" into a larger context called "religion" that also holds "not believing in god as if religion is the more encompassing." Since religion is mostly an organized "belief in god", I would make it the larger circle that holds not only all religions, but also all of the numerous non western forms of believing in god(s). then outside of the "belief in god" one would find all of those who do not believe in god. If I could draw well and easily, imagine this:

A large hard edged circle labeled Believes in God. One is either in the circle or not. Within it one fines all religions and all versions of God, even the Unitarians! Outside of said circle are all those who disavow the existence of any god found within the circle. But wait there is more! There is a fuzzy grey strip clinging to the outside edge of our well fenced circle. Those are the folks for whom the answer is not clear: agnostics. Those closer to accepting the existence God hang out closer to the circle and those that are less certain are a bit further away.

I think such a model describes reality pretty well and even allows for Venn diagrams and arrows, etc. of how all the religions within the circle are connected and related.

 

[Ajidica]

Since the Western Empire fell in 476 CE, the timing fits.

Well yes, but actually no.

 

[amadeus]

Do single people have a marital status?

Yes… single.

 

[Joij21]

"Hard" atheism is belief in non-existence of any god, and thus is a religious belief in itself.

However, most people called atheists are "soft" atheists or agnostics, which are not religious beliefs.

Atheism is atheism, there is no such thing as hard or soft. You either believe in the supernatural or you don't. Your "hard" definition is the only true definition, however it's still not a belief but rather the lack of any belief.

If one is being a "soft" atheist they're really a theist who's really shy and doesn't want to tell others what they truly believe.

 

[RobAnybody]

Funny how some people just can't wrap their minds around the fact that some people are non-believers who don't worship anything. Someone in the SCA once told me (after I told her I'm atheist), "NO. You're PAGAN." She wouldn't listen when I told her no, I'm not pagan. Atheism and paganism are not remotely the same thing. She just couldn't handle the idea of someone not worshiping anything at all.

Ideally, it would be nice if believers would just leave the definition of atheism to atheists. After all, we know what we do or don't believe. It's tiresome, constantly having people 'splain it to us as if we're too stupid to understand it ourselves.

I don't want to derail too much, so I'll just say - I am an atheist, I identify with almost all your points when you talk about religion &/or atheism on this board, but I think the bolded part of your post (my bolding) is literally how it is. They cannot grok that we don't believe. It's not something they can comprehend. And I don't mean that as a judgment - just as a fact. I have fervent believer friends IRL & they just cannot comprehend how I do not *believe*, similar to how I do not comprehend how these otherwise intelligent people (for others reading along, apologies, but that's how I view them) *believe*.

 

[Joij21]

Humans are biological robots. This is why it is impossible for two brains wired differently to ever see eye to eye.

Discourse died with the Greeks, so why are we still even trying to get along? Let's just start killing each other like the Russians and Ukrainians and be done with it!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Humans are biological robots. This is why it is impossible for two brains wired differently to ever see eye to eye.

Discourse died with the Greeks, so why are we still even trying to get along? Let's just start killing each other like the Russians and Ukrainians and be done with it!

The Greeks were were no better or worse at being murderous thugs than the rest of humanity and their discourse did little to contain it.

 

[RobAnybody]

Humans are biological robots. This is why it is impossible for two brains wired differently to ever see eye to eye.

Discourse died with the Greeks, so why are we still even trying to get along? Let's just start killing each other like the Russians and Ukrainians and be done with it!

That is... a terrible conclusion when exploring the human condition, IMO.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well yes, but actually no.

The previous post mentioned the 5th century. Is there some reason that 476 CE is not part of the 5th century CE?

 

[Ajidica]

The previous post mentioned the 5th century. Is there some reason that 476 CE is not part of the 5th century CE?

I was responding to the idea that the Western Roman Empire "fell" in 476 AD.

 

[Grendeldef]

Really? I thought atheism meant no God, gods, spirits, demons, angels, life forces, supernatural activity, etc. period.

Being discriminatory with one's atheism wouldn't make someone an atheist, you'd just be the same as any other theist. Because every theist believes their belief is the sole belief and all others are false.

You are not the only one, by far, - not even the only one in this thread, apparently. And to soften the label people throw in title agnostic which only cofuses the issue as it answers to a different question. The hint is in the title. Atheist is a reactionary stance to a god claim. One makes a god claim and one doesn't believe it -> atheist towards that particular god. If there isn't a claim there isn't an atheist and every single person (within reason) is an atheist towards some god(s) - most followers of monotheistic religion do not believe any other god(s) hence they are atheists, too. Those usually called atheists just go one god further.

Atheism isn't an organized religion, but it is a religious belief.

This is wrong on multiple accounts.

Atheism isn't a religion - organized or otherwise nor does it have a stance on any religion. It only deals with a god claim(s) - and you seem to work from the premise that every atheist makes the claim that gods do not exist which isn't true. Usually they just don't believe that any god claim people have made are true. Part of the problem is the stupid language which doesn't properly separate unjustified beliefs from those made based on evidence of some sort.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I was responding to the idea that the Western Roman Empire "fell" in 476 AD.

Did someone rewrite the history books? That's the date I learned.