William and Kate are the most boring, vanilla royals ever…

[wintermom]

27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

THIS SITE. Literally, that's where I get my 'royal' news. That's primarily where I see it discussed in depth and the adoration for some is obvious and OTT. I just happened to see a story about the first 'official' portrait being unveiled of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on my *WORK* news feed, courtesy of Microsoft, and thought for the umpteenth time...BUT WHY???.

Well I guess you now have another source of news about the British royal family. 

Yup, some people really seem to be fascinated by the royal family. I'm not one of them. I guess it's a little like having a distant relative who is famous, but you've seen her picture on your money and stamps and stuff. your whole life. It doesn't change my daily life in any way, so I don't pay much attention. I don't really care if her kids are a little out of control or not. That's pretty normal for most families. Seems like this kind of behaviour is also standard for the British royals throughout the centuries as well. Some monarchs are racy, some crazy, others are on the dull side. 

[Sneezyone]

25 minutes ago, wintermom said:

Well I guess you now have another source of news about the British royal family. 

Yup, some people really seem to be fascinated by the royal family. I'm not one of them. I guess it's a little like having a distant relative who is famous, but you've seen her picture on your money and stamps and stuff. your whole life. It doesn't change my daily life in any way, so I don't pay much attention. I don't really care if her kids are a little out of control or not. That's pretty normal for most families. Seems like this kind of behaviour is also standard for the British royals throughout the centuries as well. Some monarchs are racy, some crazy, others are on the dull side. 

True. I do kind of resent the intrusion into my newsfeed tho but file it in the Kardashians/Hiltons bucket. These folks are more 'respectable' than the Ks and Hiltons but serve the same purpose. There are far more effective cause/entertainment personas/advocates out there.

I'm not a citizen of the Commonwealth tho. Maybe their citizens feel differently. I haven't cared enough to investigate. I just think 20-30 more years of boring won't end well when commoners are hurting. It's not lie they'll be exemplars of relatable wartime (recession-time) economizing.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Rosie_0801]

40 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That might be a nice evolution.

Not really. They *are* diplomats. A lot of the gulf states prefer to deal with British royals, rather than those Johnny-come-lately prime ministers and foreign affairs ministers, bless their snobbery.
Even Prince Andrew did a huge amount of work as an ambassador of British trade.

The Queen donated a whole lot of money to the bushfire appeal here a few years back, when our PM wasn't in a public service mood. She's also doing a fair bit to conserve forests around the world. One may be sceptical about the method, but it's getting the job done.

[wintermom]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

True. I do kind of resent the intrusion into my newsfeed tho but file it in the Kardashians/Hiltons bucket. These folks are more 'respectable' than the Ks and Hiltons but serve the same purpose. There are far more effective cause/entertainment personas/advocates out there.

I'm not a citizen of the Commonwealth tho. Maybe their citizens feel differently. I haven't cared enough to investigate. I just think 20-30 more years of boring won't end well when commoners are hurting. It's not lie they'll be exemplars of relatable wartime (recession-time) economizing.

Maybe you do not know that citizens of the Commonwealth cared and still do care greatly for their connection to their monarch and Great Britian that we've entered two world wars that left thousands of our own men and women dead and wounded. The role of the British monarch is so much different than the Kardashians role on reality TV that you sound pretty oblivious to even make that comparison. Just wow. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Not really. They *are* diplomats. A lot of the gulf states prefer to deal with British royals, rather than those Johnny-come-lately prime ministers and foreign affairs ministers, bless their snobbery.
Even Prince Andrew did a huge amount of work as an ambassador of British trade.

The Queen donated a whole lot of money to the bushfire appeal here a few years back, when our PM wasn't in a public service mood. She's also doing a fair bit to conserve forests around the world. One may be sceptical about the method, but it's getting the job done.

That is so interesting to me WRT Andrew. As someone who believes in technocrats and merit, it's odd to see someone like that elevated to a position of authority (former POTUS notwithstanding). If familiarity with the culture of the ruling class is paramount (and it may well be) that makes sense tho.

I can totally see the selflessness and charity WRT the current monarch.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, wintermom said:

Maybe you do not know that citizens of the Commonwealth cared and still do care greatly for their connection to their monarch and Great Britian that we've entered two world wars that left thousands of our own men and women dead and wounded. The role of the British monarch is so much different than the Kardashians role on reality TV that you sound pretty oblivious to even make that comparison. Just wow. 

I don't have any personal reference for blind obeisance to an unelected person, that is true. I do respect experience and works. I'm just not seeing how the experience or works of the rising royals are different from those who attained their positions of influence through intellect, savvy, luck and gumption alone. Do you?

[Melissa in Australia]

28 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

True. I do kind of resent the intrusion into my newsfeed tho but file it in the Kardashians/Hiltons bucket. These folks are more 'respectable' than the Ks and Hiltons but serve the same purpose. There are far more effective cause/entertainment personas/advocates out there.

I'm not a citizen of the Commonwealth tho. Maybe their citizens feel differently. I haven't cared enough to investigate. I just think 20-30 more years of boring won't end well when commoners are hurting. It's not lie they'll be exemplars of relatable wartime (recession-time) economizing.

How very American 

[wintermom]

16 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don't have any personal reference for blind obeisance to an unelected person, that is true. I do respect experience and works. I'm just not seeing how the experience or works of the rising royals are different from those who attained their positions of influence through intellect, savvy, luck and gumption alone. Do you?

Yes, I do hold respect for certain positions based on tradition and history, particularly when the position has meaning and serves an important purpose. The act of voting in a person isn't the only measure of that person being worthy of respect. In fact, most politicians are much less worthy of my respect because their actions are often deeply flawed and selfserving. Queen Elizabeth is definitely a monarch worthy of respect. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by wintermom

[Rosie_0801]

19 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That is so interesting to me WRT Andrew. As someone who believes in technocrats and merit, it's odd to see someone like that elevated to a position of authority (former POTUS notwithstanding). If familiarity with the culture of the ruling class is paramount (and it may well be) that makes sense tho.

I can totally see the selflessness and charity WRT the current monarch.

*shrug* Using other people's snobbery, deference, lack of resistance to whatever charms he has, got his country some good deals. It'd be stupid to waste a resource like that, really. If some blue collar workers kept their jobs longer because a prince convinced some other country to import their product, he's been more use than "getting a proper job" and working in a factory himself. They couldn't have gone and schmoozed themselves, because they haven't the training in it or the brand recognition.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, wintermom said:

Yes, I do hold respect for certain positions based on tradition and history, particularly when the position has meaning and serves an important purpose. The act of voting in a person isn't the only measure of that person being worthy of respect. In fact, most politicians are much less worthy of my respect because their actions are often deeply flawed and selfserving. Queen Elizabeth is definitely a monarch worthy of respect. 

TRUE THAT. How do you think the commonwealth will respond to the coming global recession? Can the royals escape scrutiny by keeping a low profile/maintaining a robust schedule of events?

3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

*shrug* Using other people's snobbery, deference, lack of resistance to whatever charms he has, got his country some good deals. It'd be stupid to waste a resource like that, really. If some blue collar workers kept their jobs longer because a prince convinced some other country to import their product, he's been more use than "getting a proper job" and working in a factory himself. They couldn't have gone and schmoozed themselves, because they haven't the training in it or the brand recognition.

You know I am dying right now, yes? Laugh or cry, laugh or cry.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

ITA. These are only my impressions. Like I said, unpopular opinion. I don't really understand why *any* of it shows up in my news feed at all. They are totally irrelevant WRT policy as far as I'm concerned. Their only value is as entertainment.

Since feeds are determined by algorithms which guess what you’re going to click on, they’ve either goofed big time or they hit the nail on the head since apparently you click on them looking for drama. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Since feeds are determined by algorithms which guess what you’re going to click on, they’ve either goofed big time or they hit the nail on the head since apparently you click on them looking for drama. 

Yeah. this was my *WORK* feed which isn't determined by what *I* click but by what thousands of other people serviced by MS Edge click as their 'top o' the mornin'' digest but, thanks? The only thing I saw was the headline and photo of the portrait.

[Ceilingfan]

I think I read Jon Stewart (but maybe it was someone else) say something like: 

As an American, I don't necessarily understand the British monarchy, and I think the whole thing can seem a little silly.

But: imagine if once a week, the president had to tromp on over to the Lincoln Memorial and meet with an embodied metaphor of Uncle Sam - a living, breathing, representation of the founding power of the state, sort of. Like a symbol but also alive. And to Uncle Sam, every week, the president had to give a little status report, sort of defend in broad terms how well he was leading the country.

That quote (and I mangled it ofc) is the only thing that's gotten me close to understanding the British monarchy.

[Shoeless]

I disagree that Will and Kate serve the same purpose as the Kardashians. I don't know that the Kardashians serve any purpose, tbh. 

Obviously, I am not hanging out with either Kim and Pete or Will and Kate, so I don't know what any of them did today or what is in their hearts. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by MissLemon

[Dianthus]

48 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

How very American 

Really makes me cringe though I haven't read far up thread.

 

As an American, I admire the British tradition of duty that the queen exemplifies.  Maybe I romanticize it. Wow, imagine if more people did what was right and did their duty no matter what others were doing. Would we be boring? I think we'd be happier.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

I think I read Jon Stewart (but maybe it was someone else) say something like: 

As an American, I don't necessarily understand the British monarchy, and I think the whole thing can seem a little silly.

But: imagine if once a week, the president had to tromp on over to the Lincoln Memorial and meet with an embodied metaphor of Uncle Sam - a living, breathing, representation of the founding power of the state, sort of. Like a symbol but also alive. And to Uncle Sam, every week, the president had to give a little status report, sort of defend in broad terms how well he was leading the country.

That quote (and I mangled it ofc) is the only thing that's gotten me close to understanding the British monarchy.

I can appreciate this. I just wonder, how does the embodiment of 'Uncle Sam' fare in the public consciousness when he/she is deeply flawed and/or uninspiring? Dunno. I just speculate. I will be relieved when US media stop reporting on these folks as tho they're functional heads of state and social media.

2 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

I disagree that Will and Kate serve the same purpose as the Kardashians. I don't know that the Kardashians serve any purpose, tbh. 

Obviously, I am not hanging out with either Kim and Pete or Will and Kate, so I don't know what any of them did today or what is in their hearts. 

What do the Kardashians do? Their TV- and People- and Newsweek-authorized exclusives/moments exist to a) generate views and b) celebrate whatever causes and business they support. It makes people feel good to think the royal imprimatur is above those sorts of negotiations/business considerations but it's called 'THE FIRM' for a reason. I have *ZERO* idea what these folks do in their personal lives. I readily admit that. The idea that they're the representation of you or I tho is laughable.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Spirea said:

Really makes me cringe though I haven't read far up thread.

 

As an American, I admire the British tradition of duty that the queen exemplifies.  Maybe I romanticize it. Wow, imagine if more people did what was right and did their duty no matter what others were doing. Would we be boring? I think we'd be happier.

If you've watched the congressional testimony, you know the people who did what was right shut their mouths for fear of vilification and/or death. I don't think they're happy.

[Dianthus]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

If you've watched the congressional testimony, you know the people who did what was right shut their mouths for fear of vilification and/or death. I don't think they're happy.

I was trying to explain crooked politics to my kids. I gave up and ordered Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" from our library. Great movie. We watched it together and they kind of got it. Amazing how these politicians of modest means go to Washington and come out as millionaires from kickbacks.

[Melissa Louise]

I don't know why anyone not in the Commonwealth cares, tbh. 

[wintermom]

38 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

TRUE THAT. How do you think the commonwealth will respond to the coming global recession? Can the royals escape scrutiny by keeping a low profile/maintaining a robust schedule of events?

I'm not an expert on the world economy. I don't even know of 'the commonwealth' has that much economic strength as a collective. I know that Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and Britian has more trade within Europe, and I'd assume Australia has China as a major trading partner. I would hope that the friendly relations that the British commonwealth has maintained would prove useful surviving the global recession. I'm sure that economic and diplomatic relationships are very complex and evolve over time. 

Why would the royals need to keep a low profile? Coming out of the Covid pandemic, and limited public events, I'd think that they would be very active in getting out and being seen to support their various charities, environmental concerns, etc. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I don't know why anyone not in the Commonwealth cares, tbh. 

Because it's pimped out like lollipops and cupcakes at every turn.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, wintermom said:

I'm not an expert on the world economy. I don't even know of 'the commonwealth' has that much economic strength as a collective. I know that Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and Britian has more trade within Europe, and I'd assume Australia has China as a major trading partner. I would hope that the friendly relations that the British commonwealth has maintained would prove useful surviving the global recession. I'm sure that economic and diplomatic relationships are very complex and evolve over time. 

Why would the royals need to keep a low profile? Coming out of the Covid pandemic, and limited public events, I'd think that they would be very active in getting out and being seen to support their various charities, environmental concerns, etc. 

I would think, given the high price of petroleum, that a) traveling would be unseemly, b) being feted would be similarly untoward and c) being uninspiring provides no rationale for continued public support. I've ZERO idea how this turns out and watch more as a spectator sport than a fan. If the commonwealth wants to keep the status quo, totally on them. 

[wintermom]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I don't know why anyone not in the Commonwealth cares, tbh. 

In Europe, there are tabloid newspapers that include members of the royal families from all over Europe. We don't get much exposure to other countries royal families in Canada. My relatives in Norway loved the British royal family, and a lot of that was because of the support Norway received from Great Britian during WWII. The Norwegian royal family lived in England while Norway was occupied by Germany.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, wintermom said:

In Europe, there are tabloid newspapers that include members of the royal families from all over Europe. We don't get much exposure to other countries royal families in Canada. My relatives in Norway loved the British royal family, and a lot of that was because of the support Norway received from Great Britian during WWII. The Norwegian royal family lived in England while Norway was occupied by Germany.

AGAIN. I appreciate the history. I'm just wondering, aloud, what happens when the monarch tied to that history is gone?

[Shoeless]

Maybe European memory isn't as short as American.  Just because the Queen won't be around forever doesn't mean everyone forgets the relationships that were built in troubled times. 

[wintermom]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

AGAIN. I appreciate the history. I'm just wondering, aloud, what happens when the monarch tied to that history is gone?

It wasn't Queen Elizabeth II who was the monarch during WWII. It was her father. The history and relationships don't just disappear when the monarch dies. 

[wintermom]

Ok, superficial 'theory' on the fly about America's fascination with royals - Disney movies created by an American built the foundation that princesses and princes were exciting and a great fantasy to admire. Real-life royal princesses and princes don't match up to the American fantasy expectation. Therefore, they must be worthless, dull and unnecessary. 

And it's not just Disney - count how many American movies on Netflix are are an American girl meeting a prince who lives in a castle. They seem to be especially popular at Christmas. 

[Rosie_0801]

55 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The idea that they're the representation of you or I tho is laughable.

Not in the sense that they're living an average life like the 99%, but they are certainly representing them. They are public servants.
I said about Prince Andrew previously being an ambassador for British trade.
Between them they do enormous amounts of charity work. Posing for photos and allowing "HRH Patron" on a letter head helps organisations scrounge money for whatever work they're doing for ordinary people. *Should* that work? Maybe not, but it works so yay for the administrations who keep getting paid and the recipients of their work who no doubt need it. 

When the Queen moves on, Prince Charles will inherit her projects like the forest canopy preservation thing she was talking to David Attenborough on camera about and diplomacy with the Middle East, just like Prince Edward took on most of Prince Philip's projects, like the Duke of Edinburgh award, when he retired. Princess Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal and will no doubt inherit a fair amount of what Princess Anne is currently doing.

Other people can't do that kind of stuff to nearly the same degree because they don't have the money, time or branding. Whatever they are in their private lives, and we all know they aren't all respectable, their work lives are to better their country. They are plenty rich enough to sit on their behinds doing nothing if they wanted to.

Probably when the queen dies, Charles will do much the same stuff and people will continue to think whatever they always thought of him. He's a weird guy who does a lot of good work, oh well, he'll die soon enough and we'll have William who is a much less weird guy. Whatever.

Most people don't seem to know what they do anyway, so a change of face on the currency has no real reason to change people's opinions.

[Rosie_0801]

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

AGAIN. I appreciate the history. I'm just wondering, aloud, what happens when the monarch tied to that history is gone?

Same as when there's a new Dr Who. Everyone whinges about how the old ones were better, but keeps watching anyway. 😂

[Clarita]

I admire Kate's parenting style and her fashion sense. I guess they are vanilla compared to some of the monarchs of the past. Although if I lived in a country with a monarch I'd prefer my monarchs vanilla vs. ones that decapitate anyone who disagrees with them, steals women from the countryside to become part of their consort/wives collection, etc.    

Different countries are governed differently. We don't all have to be the same. No one can say the US with our presidents is a perfect governing system and have no issues whatsoever. If you need an example look at our military spending vs any other countries and we still have poor people in our country so...

[Shoeless]

27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

AGAIN. I appreciate the history. I'm just wondering, aloud, what happens when the monarch tied to that history is gone?

You Keep Calm and Carry On. 

[Melissa in Australia]

A  democracy with a constitutional monarchy is a better form of government than a republic . I found this article but there are a gazillion that say basically the same thing

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy

quote

Monarchs are more effective than presidents precisely because they lack any semblance of legitimacy. It would be offensive for Queen Elizabeth or her representatives in Canada, New Zealand, etc. to meddle in domestic politics. ...... As Margit Tavits at Washington University in St. Louis once told me, "Monarchs can truly be above politics. They usually have no party connections and have not been involved in daily politics before assuming the post of the head of state." But figurehead presidents have some degree of democratic legitimacy, and are typically former politicians. That enables a greater rate of shenanigans 

Oxford political scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones have found that presidents, whether elected indirectly by parliament or directly by the people, are likelier to allow governments to change without new elections than monarchs are. In other words, they're likelier to change the government without any democratic input at all:

The British monarchy is not an anachronism. It is not a waste of money. It is a vital part of the United Kingdom that makes British democracy more responsive to the concerns of citizens at little or negative cost to British taxpayers. Americans have an unfortunate tendency to get huffy about Britain's superior political system.

[Lucy the Valiant]

4 hours ago, Spirea said:

As an American, I admire the British tradition of duty that the queen exemplifies.  Maybe I romanticize it. Wow, imagine if more people did what was right and did their duty no matter what others were doing. Would we be boring? I think we'd be happier.

*why we study history

 

*why others seek to obscure it 

[TexasProud]

5 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Same as when there's a new Dr Who. Everyone whinges about how the old ones were better, but keeps watching anyway. 😂

Just quoting because I cannot like it.  This made me LOL!!!!

[madteaparty]

The thing that annoys me about these kids is that they never say anything. Even when they speak, I mean what are you saying? Also they are just as out of touch as the rest of the ridiculous get up—see visit to the Caribbean, really, cringe. 

[Lady Florida.]

12 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Maybe he didn't feel that he was ready for marriage before Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles. He was probably enjoying himself too much, or maybe he just wasn't 100% sure she was the one for him. Also, even if he wanted to marry her, his family didn't approve of Camilla, and he probably wasn't confident enough back then to defy his family and tradition. 

If I understand correctly he couldn't simply defy his family. He would have needed permission from the queen to marry her and that was unlikely to happen. So his choices were move on from her or wind up up like his great uncle. 

[Sneezyone]

7 hours ago, wintermom said:

It wasn't Queen Elizabeth II who was the monarch during WWII. It was her father. The history and relationships don't just disappear when the monarch dies. 

Love that. Not confused about that. She was still alive and cognizant and active in the effort, yes? Hence..."TIED TO". The latter part of the 20th century was far more dramatic than the last 30 years. No monarch since then has been called upon/looked upon as a 'leader' in the same way. That was my point. FTR- I have zero care about whether a monarch, any monarch, continues to rule. I'm just wondering aloud about the sustainability. I do foresee the commonwealth continuing to shrink.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

7 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Not in the sense that they're living an average life like the 99%, but they are certainly representing them. They are public servants.
I said about Prince Andrew previously being an ambassador for British trade.
Between them they do enormous amounts of charity work. Posing for photos and allowing "HRH Patron" on a letter head helps organisations scrounge money for whatever work they're doing for ordinary people. *Should* that work? Maybe not, but it works so yay for the administrations who keep getting paid and the recipients of their work who no doubt need it. 

When the Queen moves on, Prince Charles will inherit her projects like the forest canopy preservation thing she was talking to David Attenborough on camera about and diplomacy with the Middle East, just like Prince Edward took on most of Prince Philip's projects, like the Duke of Edinburgh award, when he retired. Princess Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal and will no doubt inherit a fair amount of what Princess Anne is currently doing.

Other people can't do that kind of stuff to nearly the same degree because they don't have the money, time or branding. Whatever they are in their private lives, and we all know they aren't all respectable, their work lives are to better their country. They are plenty rich enough to sit on their behinds doing nothing if they wanted to.

Probably when the queen dies, Charles will do much the same stuff and people will continue to think whatever they always thought of him. He's a weird guy who does a lot of good work, oh well, he'll die soon enough and we'll have William who is a much less weird guy. Whatever.

Most people don't seem to know what they do anyway, so a change of face on the currency has no real reason to change people's opinions.

Thanks. This is, truly, the spirit with which I am wondering aloud. I can see how this is a valuable addition.

[Dianthus]

3 hours ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

*why we study history

 

*why others seek to obscure it 

But the real problem is that there is not a standard of what is right that everyone follows. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes but the Lord pondereth the hearts." How can we do our duty by doing right when no one agrees on what is right.

[Scarlett]

17 minutes ago, Spirea said:

But the real problem is that there is not a standard of what is right that everyone follows. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes but the Lord pondereth the hearts." How can we do our duty by doing right when no one agrees on what is right.

QFT

[Dianthus]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

QFT

I google this and get quantum field theory.

[Scarlett]

Just now, Spirea said:

I google this and get quantum field theory.

Lol…….Quoted For Truth.  
 

Lol because I did the same thing when I first saw QFT

Edited June 24, 2022 by Scarlett

[Miss Tick]

Just now, Spirea said:

I google this and get quantum field theory.

😄 In this situation it stands for "Quoted For Truth"

[wintermom]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Thanks. This is, truly, the spirit with which I am wondering aloud. I can see how this is a valuable addition.

Really? What spirit is that, when the title of the discussion you started is "William and Kate are the most boring vanilla royals ever?" 

Tact and diplomacy are valuable communication skills. Thanks to the British royals for demonstrating how it can be effectively done. Worth every penny.

[WildflowerMom]

Honestly, William marrying Kate probably saved the whole family’s rep.  I think it will at least buy them time through George’s reign.   I really like seeing Kate with the kids because she seems like any mom you’d see at the park, church service, grocery store— trying to hold it together, while also giving the kids the death stare.   They seem like great parents.  But yeah, I get tired of hearing about them.  I get tired of all famous people though.   Most of them are 🤮.  

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, wintermom said:

Really? What spirit is that, when the title of the discussion you started is "William and Kate are the most boring vanilla royals ever?" 

You say this as tho I called them pond scum and kicked your puppy. I find them boring; you like them. *shrug* I do not aspire to make my opinions bland enough to please every palate.

[Dianthus]

20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You say this as tho I called them pond scum and kicked your puppy. I find them boring; you like them. *shrug* I do not aspire to make my opinions bland enough to please every palate.

I still am skeptical of the use of "vanilla". It feels like a racial slur to me. I don't think it would be taken kindly if similar comments were applied to other races. I understand you intend it to mean "boring". Perhaps just using the word "bland" or boring would be better.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Spirea

[Farrar]

Holy cow. Seriously? You're going to take racial offense on the term "vanilla"? Like, do you really want to go there considering the long list of pretty crazy actual racist stuff the royals have done or been associated with in the past? And not like, the super distant past either.

[Dianthus]

Just now, Farrar said:

Holy cow. Seriously? You're going to take racial offense on the term "vanilla"? Like, do you really want to go there considering the long list of pretty crazy actual racist stuff the royals have done or been associated with in the past? And not like, the super distant past either.

I don't follow the royals. I just see a color assigned and it feels wrong to me. I wouldn't say something like that ever.

[Ceilingfan]

12 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I can appreciate this. I just wonder, how does the embodiment of 'Uncle Sam' fare in the public consciousness when he/she is deeply flawed and/or uninspiring? Dunno. I just speculate. I will be relieved when US media stop reporting on these folks as tho they're functional heads of state and social media.

What do the Kardashians do? Their TV- and People- and Newsweek-authorized exclusives/moments exist to a) generate views and b) celebrate whatever causes and business they support. It makes people feel good to think the royal imprimatur is above those sorts of negotiations/business considerations but it's called 'THE FIRM' for a reason. I have *ZERO* idea what these folks do in their personal lives. I readily admit that. The idea that they're the representation of you or I tho is laughable.

 

It's something to do with separating the humanity/daily life of the actual person from the symbolic embodiment of the role.

I think maybe something similar happens with the Pope (although I've never been religious, so this is only a guess); in his role as Pope, he's different conceptually from his individual self, he's the embodiment of something else - divine religious authority, or whatever. 

In the US you can get sort of a vague sense of it with a briefly popular wartime president - Bush right after 9/11, say. For a short time he had approval ratings in the 90s; this wasn't necessarily people approving of him personally or even politically, but responding to the thing he represented, the symbolic authority/representation of the state.

 

I don't think the Kardashians are a terrible example of this phenomenon, actually - although they do it deliberately, consciously, instead of it being a thing that happens to them by circumstance - but there is a similar operation wherein they are the embodiment of a symbol, or an image.