They should have named her Sharia.
I have no idea what that picture represents.
And what about Andrew's daughters? I tend to think of them as "Beatrice and Eugenie, who are into funny hats and I can't think of anything else I've ever heard about them."
Didn't Princess Anne refuse titles for her children? And what about Andrew's daughters? I tend to think of them as "Beatrice and Eugenie, who are into funny hats and I can't think of anything else I've ever heard about them."
They especially enjoy marching through Catholic areas beating drums whilst wearing orange sashes and, curiously, bowler hats. Trolling, in fact.
Valka - they're orangists, and we've had them in Canada. A particularly nasty breed of British monarchist who like to go parade through Irish catholic neighborhoods just to rub their face into the NYUCK NYUCK YOU'RE LESSER THAN US AND YOU WILL NEVER BE OUR EQUALS.
And when I say we had them I mean they were big players. Pretty much controlled Toronto and large stretches of Ontario in the nineteenth century. They burned down the parliament buildings in Montreal in the 1840s for being too conciliatory to the French.
Four prime ministers - includin John A MacDonald - were members. Plus a bunch of Ontario premiers.
They eventually got tamer, their support dwindled, and their relevance faded as Canadian society evolved. Religion became less and less (and less and less) prominent ; the religious tensions gave way to linguistic ones, new waves of immigration from eastern Europe and further afield made the Irish/British difference seems pretty tame in comparison, and Canada developed more and more its own identity not tied in the Old World conflicts. Still, they were relevant into the 1960s, when Diefenbonker (the fourth and last Orangist PM) tried his darnedest to make sure Canada remained properly British and kept its proper British colony flag. Not that everything members of the Orangist did was bad - Tommy Douglas was one, too, in the later years of the organization - but still, not exactly good people to have around.
Thank you for the history lesson. I guess it's something that I never realized since nothing like that has ever occurred in Red Deer (Red Deer is what I meant by "here" in my previous post). At least not within my lifetime, and if it had ever occurred, it would have been written about by local historians and someone would have sponsored a Ghost statue about it.Valka - they're orangists, and we've had them in Canada. A particularly nasty breed of British monarchist who like to go parade through Irish catholic neighborhoods just to rub their face into the NYUCK NYUCK YOU'RE LESSER THAN US AND YOU WILL NEVER BE OUR EQUALS.
And when I say we had them I mean they were big players. Pretty much controlled Toronto and large stretches of Ontario in the nineteenth century. They burned down the parliament buildings in Montreal in the 1840s for being too conciliatory to the French.
Four prime ministers - includin John A MacDonald - were members. Plus a bunch of Ontario premiers.
They eventually got tamer, their support dwindled, and their relevance faded as Canadian society evolved. Religion became less and less (and less and less) prominent ; the religious tensions gave way to linguistic ones, new waves of immigration from eastern Europe and further afield made the Irish/British difference seems pretty tame in comparison, and Canada developed more and more its own identity not tied in the Old World conflicts. Still, they were relevant into the 1960s, when Diefenbonker (the fourth and last Orangist PM) tried his darnedest to make sure Canada remained properly British and kept its proper British colony flag. Not that everything members of the Orangist did was bad - Tommy Douglas was one, too, in the later years of the organization - but still, not exactly good people to have around.
One of the things about multiculturalism is that the bad stuff gets dragged in along with the good stuff.Wow! Orangemen made to Canada!
I never knew that. Though I can't say I'm surprised. Poor old Canada.
Nobody's attacking the sproglet, they're attacking the institution of the monarchy and its attendant cult. You can't ask us to set aside the chauvinism and exploitation which are intrinsic to the royal cult when it is only through this cult that the child gains any significance.Well, that's your point and you're entitled to hold that view, but the point of the OP (and me) is that this is a kid who's less than a week old. She hasn't had time to earn even a tiny fraction of the hate and vitriol that anti-monarchists are throwing at her.
Maybe in a few years, if she accidentally messes something up on a royal tour or something... but right now she's just a baby. And a really cute one, too (this coming from someone who is not normally even slightly goopy-minded about human babies).
People who want to see that can visit the nearest maternity ward. No need to waste time or money on my public news programming, for instance.Right now all she has to do is be cute. She's managed that quite nicely.
She hasn't earned the praise and adulation she receives either. Which is sort of the whole point.
A royal baby, according to people who buy into dynastic monarchy. That's basically what dynastic monarchy is about.What baby ever has?
I'm not just talking about the posters here. I'm referring to people who post on CBC.ca. Some of those comments are really vile.Nobody's attacking the sproglet, they're attacking the institution of the monarchy and its attendant cult. You can't ask us to set aside the chauvinism and exploitation which are intrinsic to the royal cult when it is only through this cult that the child gains any significance.
If I want to look at a cute human baby, in-person is not the way to do it (I have zero patience when said baby starts crying, which is yet another thing I should remember to mention to a certain poster here the next time babies come up in the conversation). Over a computer screen works just fine.People who want to see that can visit the nearest maternity ward. No need to waste time or money on my public news programming, for instance.
Either the kid is a public person already, then it's fair game to have a positive or negative attitude toward her. Otherwise it's her parents' job to shield her from exposure.
Baby Charlotte has earned my praise for being cute, because she just is. Same with the kid who plays little Avery Corinthos on General Hospital. That's also an incredibly cute baby.I can see that babies in general don't earn the praise they get. But I can't see that a royal baby earns the praise either.
And I don't think that the people who buy into dynastic monarchy could maintain that the baby has "earned" it's position of wealth and privilege either. It's inherited them. Not earned them. And that IS the whole point of dynasties, isn't it?