Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,739,075 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
You make a good point and it's very true of course that Canadians don't want to get lumped in with the USA. Why would we when we have no reason to want to? Canada, Mexico (you forgot to mention Mexico) and United States might share the same continent of North America but Canada is a completely different country with different people and with a border separating it from USA. Plus Canada is a monarchy by choice, not a republic by choice like USA and Mexico, and it's one of the 16 commonwealth nations that all share the same monarch, and our monarch's Royal Family also happens to be Canada's Royal Family too, including Meghan. There are far more differences than there are similarities between the people of Canada and USA and Canada likes it that way, so there's no reason why Canadians would want to lump themselves in with USA.
.
Oh, I didn't forget about Mexico, but didn't see any poster who appeared to be Mexican in this thread. I wanted that poster to be aware that he or she had overlooked our Canadian neighbors.
Wait a MINUTE! You mean the baby is actually named 'ARCHIE'? This is actually the name on his birth certificate (or whatever equivalent document Brits have)? ...not 'Archibald', but just-plain ARCHIE? ...so glad I clicked on this thread!
That is so ignorant! It's like something people back in my native Mississippi would do. The Deep South's culture is matriarchal, and males are considered less-than-human. So, males are frequently stuck with cutesy names ending with an 'e'/'ie' sound, or the improper/informal versions of names (i.e. "little boy names"). In this case, the poor babe got BOTH - a name which is both improper and cutesy-sounding. I know Meggin (or whatever her name is) has no respect for the Royal Family, and that she thinks she can remold her little part of the Royal Family, to reflect her downmarket Disneyland worldview. But truly, I can't believe that 'The Palace' wasn't able to thwart her inappropriate naming of the poor baby.
Obviously the Palace has greater concerns.
All of Queen Elizabeth's children had marriages that were utter disasters. Not wishing to repeat this she and the palace decided to let their grandchildren live however they want to.
You make a good point and it's very true of course that Canadians don't want to get lumped in with the USA. Why would we when we have no reason to want to? Canada, Mexico (you forgot to mention Mexico) and United States might share the same continent of North America but Canada is a completely different country with different people and with a border separating it from USA. Plus Canada is a monarchy by choice, not a republic by choice like USA and Mexico, and it's one of the 16 commonwealth nations that all share the same monarch, and our monarch's Royal Family also happens to be Canada's Royal Family too, including Meghan. There are far more differences than there are similarities between the people of Canada and USA and Canada likes it that way, so there's no reason why Canadians would want to lump themselves in with USA.
.
Just wanted to say that your opinions which I bolded are shared by many Americans. Everybody wins!
We don't have a royal family here. We find them fascinating.
The thing is, I think it's ridiculous for some citizens of the UK to pretend that the royal family isn't that popular or interesting to other folks in their countries. Clearly many, many UK citizens consider them to be very interesting and also worth the investment to continue to support.
I think British history is very interesting and it's also an integral part of my genetic and family history. No apologies for my interest though I wouldn't say I was "fascinated" by royalty. What I think is interesting is how totally human and so like us they are in so many ways - and the ways in which they differ are due, in my opinion, to their upbringing and surroundings rather than human nature.
It looks the Queen is certainly making a loud and clear statement here about Meghan, Harry, and other members of the family with their missing photos during her Christmas speech. Wow. Pretty bold move on her part.
Just wanted to say that your opinions which I bolded are shared by many Americans. Everybody wins!
Oh yes, we're fully aware of that, always have been. And it's exactly right, just as it should be with a good balance maintained between two neighbours of fundamentally different character not to be mistaken for each other. As you say, it's a win win situation for everyone.
.
The thing is, I think it's ridiculous for some citizens of the UK to pretend that the royal family isn't that popular or interesting to other folks in their countries. Clearly many, many UK citizens consider them to be very interesting and also worth the investment to continue to support.
I think British history is very interesting and it's also an integral part of my genetic and family history. No apologies for my interest though I wouldn't say I was "fascinated" by royalty. What I think is interesting is how totally human and so like us they are in so many ways - and the ways in which they differ are due, in my opinion, to their upbringing and surroundings rather than human nature.
Yes, I think I went too far with the descriptor "fascinating" but maybe intriguing is a better word and for the very reason you mentioned - they are all too human. And, I love the continuity of the royal family, how their history stretches back in one continuous line with characters that changed history.
Yes, how could the British people not care about the royal family? They support them. Also, they have tabloids that have the royal family's pictures splashed across the front page all the time. If they weren't so popular or interesting, then the royal family news would be pushed back to some small item on the back page. There are magazines specifically about royals (royals of all countries, too) and they are published in the UK. No other country has magazines dedicated to royal coverage, not even in the US. That saids a lot.
Oh yes, we're fully aware of that, always have been. And it's exactly right, just as it should be with a good balance maintained between two neighbours of fundamentally different character not to be mistaken for each other. As you say, it's a win win situation for everyone.
.
I think most humans are more alike than dissimilar at the core. That being said, I'm always fascinated by the differences in cultures. It's what makes travel so interesting to me.
I think we should always start from a point of respect for fellow human beings if we want human interaction to be successful and if we want to truly understand other perspectives.
That's why I don't judge (and you won't hear me saying it's a shame or anything negative like that) the whole concept of "the monarchy" and "royalty" and all that in UK countries (or elsewhere for that matter).
I'm not voting or paying taxes there so live and let live.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
