A comment a friend made on the royal wedding, and I agree (bigly)

[AmandaRuth]

" I'm enjoying the way the Royal Wedding is embracing the diversity of today's Britain. An in depth look at his conservation work in Botswana. A commentary on HIV research. A woman wearing a sari to represent India."

I get the criticism of the Royals, but they are here, and the above is how it is (or should be-looking at you USA) done.

[Siwsan]

1. There have been great strides made

I've been following the Royals since before I was born. My mom spent the week before my birth watching everything about the Coronation. And once I was able to read, she started giving me books on the current family, and those that came before. I couldn't begin to count how many books I've read on British Royalty.

The Royals have always done a whole lot of charitable work but pre-social media, it didn't get the attention and publicity would have been deemed as unseemly. And their lives were always so restricted. Any breach with tradition would result in near banishment - look at The Duke of Windsor. Although he would have been a DISASTER as King, during WWII. The Queen actually forbade her own sister to marry the love of her life - Peter Townsend - because he was divorced. I think a lot of her earlier decisions were influenced by her mother who was old school royalty, to the max.

Just in the last decade, or so, I've seen so many changes with lots of barriers falling. The 'mystique' is evaporating and they are becoming much more connected to the people. No doubt this was partially due to the lasting Diana influence, and to the passing of the Queen Mother. And to technology. Apparently the Queen is no Luddite! She's far more in touch with what's going on than a lot of people realize.

[Leith]

16. I've Never Understood the Whole "Aversion to Divorce" Thing

The church of England was founded by a king who wanted to divorce his wife. Now we're being asked to believe that the tradition is against divorce?

It's more of a flimsy excuse.

[Siwsan]

17. I agree!

I think the objection to Wallis Simpson might have had a lot to do with her being kind of a vile person who, it was suspected, was using the Duke for her own notorious purposes. And, like I said, The Queen Mother was a stickler for outdated, Victorian era standards along with being ultra sensitive to the scandal of "The Windsors".

All in all, I see the evolution of the British Royals as fascinating. And, heading in a very positive direction.

[Ilsa]

26. I have always wondered if W Simpson might have

been a spy. Either for the US to make Edward fall for her, then he would have to abdicate, keeping him off the throne. Or, for the Axis, to influence him toward Germany.

[Siwsan]

27. She was definitely a fan of Hitler

As was the Duke. Nothing but good came from his abdication. He was a man with few real skills or redeeming qualities but I kind of felt sorry for him, towards the end of his life. She really used him up.

[Freddie]

28. I've also read many books about the Royal Family

Fascinating to me. Maybe because my grandfather came over on the boat from Cornwall when he was a baby. Sometimes I wish he’d stayed there.
Anyway, the most likely explanation for the whole Wallis thing is that he really did not want to be King. He was leading a frivolous life of parties and affairs with married women and he didn’t want to give that up. Insisting that he marry her (instead of keeping her as a mistress which was the “royal” thing to do back then) was a great way of getting out of his obligation. He also knew that his solid, sober, married-with-children brother would be a far better King.

[Leith]

30. Yeah, Me, Too

I remember when she was "Lady Di." A friend was enthralled though she tried to hide it. Like everyone else, I was aware of all the hoop-la, but I couldn't really care. It was only later that I heard about the work she did with trying to eradicate landmines and how she hugged children with AIDS in Africa. I think that was the turning point for me that there might be some good to landed gentry - in some of them, anyway.

I wish Megan and Harry all the best. A young woman who already made it on her own now marries a real life prince. I guess that's nice.

[Dalida]

2. I only have one comment:

Fuck them all.

[DURHAM D]

3. Nice.

Please list all that you hate?

What time does the ibrary close.

[Dalida]

8. I hate monarchies and monarchs, for one

And I think it's ridiculous and pathetic for people - and purported liberals especially - to fawn over them in the 21st century.

I was born in France, and I think we solved the problem of monarchy quite nicely. And so did America, but you would hardly know it from reading this forum today!

[Voltaire2]

11. I agree about Monarchy.

The fawning over “the royals” here in America is peculiar.

I disagree about the French solution to monarchy. You kept getting them back again, either as Bourbons or Bonapartes until the 1870s.

[politicaljunkie41910]

14. So what's your beef? Today's monarchy has no political power and is the equivalent of today's

rock stars. They're England's version of the Jackson Five or like going to Disneyland. You know Mickey Mouse and Cinderella aren't real but you go anyway. Big Deal. Besides, it brings in a lot of tourism and put's money in their coffers. And no one's been beheaded in the Tower of London in years now, thank goodness. Take it or leave it but why get your blood pressure up? If you don't care for it, don't watch and don't comment. But don't pass judgement on people who don't share your view. If the whole world was vanilla ice cream, it would be boring.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. +1000000!

[JI7]

22. The British vote for their leaders. There is no political monarchy

[treestar]

25. Nobody is fawning

An African American girl who is very talented and educated in her own right marries a prince. It is worth seeing and enjoying.

[shraby]

4. Your comment says a lot more about you than you may know.

[Cary]

6. You have had 14 comments.

That may be about it.

[enough]

10. What, someone's going to get banned from DU for speaking impolitely of monarchy? NT

[Voltaire2]

12. Weird.

[Cary]

15. Seemed a little broader sweeping to me

I didnt alert it though.

[Duppers]

18. The royals?

Make your case please.

[Aristus]

5. Prince Phillip was making disgusting racist comments back when Donny Trump was frantically trying

to get out of serving in Vietnam.

A royal advisor may plead with him to keep his wrinkled old mug shut, but that can't change what he thinks.

We had an African-descended member of the national family well before Britain did.

[Cary]

7. This is symbolic progress, right?

[Aristus]

9. I'm not saying I won't take it.

Just that having Trump as POTUS doesn't negate the progressive strides we made before the UK did.

We're still 230 years ahead of them in not elevating someone to power just because they were born into a certain family. The Adamses, the Harrisons, and the Bushes are the exceptions, not the norms.

[Duppers]

19. Yes, we did!

Thank you...

[JI7]

24. London has a muslim south asian mayor and there are other minorities in political office

Those are the ones comparable to obama. The royals are more like entertsinment figures in the US.

[JI7]

23. London had a muslim south Asian mayor.

[Gothmog]

13. Amjoy agrees

Link to tweet

[JI7]

21. The woman wearing the sari runs some charity in india that meghan supports

[Aristus]

29. Is there a picture?

I love saris and other traditional Indian garb.