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

[wintermom]

1 hour 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.

The script is starting to make sense now - sounding like semi-borrowing of British humour but without the pizzazz: 😅

"I don't want to talk to you no more you empty-heded, animal-food-trough wipers!... I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."

[KungFuPanda]

1 hour ago, Spirea said:

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.

It’s a flavor, not a color. 

[WildflowerMom]

“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

😆 

vanilla means blandness, plainness, unexciting, etc. it has nothing to do with color.  

[Terabith]

Why the heck did vanilla start to mean boring anyway?  It's produced from the seeds of tropical orchids, a flower that blooms for a single day before dying.  Vanilla is the second most expensive spice in the world.  

[Spy Car]

Moving beyond vanilla, I think it is best that the British Royal family strive to be as boring as possible, as--whenever they appear to be "exciting"--it never really goes well. 

Bill

[Melissa Louise]

There's some cultural boorishness in this thread. 

W & K are heads of state in waiting. They're not American entertainment fodder. 

Being 'vanilla' is part of the role.  It's absolutely unremarkable. 

 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

It is beyond  cultural boorishness, but a deliberate attempt to be as offensive of other cultures as possable. 

[Terabith]

28 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

It is beyond  cultural boorishness, but a deliberate attempt to be as offensive of other cultures as possable. 

I am quite certain that @Sneezyone was not attempting to be offensive towards other cultures.  Saying something is vanilla is a pretty benign "insult," and "boring" isn't really all that strong of a critique either.  

[kbutton]

21 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I will be relieved when US media stop reporting on these folks as tho they're functional heads of state and social media.

They are heads of state. Well, the Queen is, and maybe that's what you mean--report on the Queen vs. the rest of them, though the rest play a supporting role and often represent her. Unless she clones herself or gets younger, she can't be everywhere. https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy 

Quote

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.

 

17 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

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

...

Very interesting!

 

[Melissa in Australia]

Tebaith I strongly disagree.

Repeatedly people in  commonwelth countries on this thread have pointed out that the royals are doing a job and part of the government structure, not for USA entertainment. and some people in America on this thread keep repeating that they are not entertaining enough for them and liking them to sone sort of trashy entertainment people. I find it deeply culturally offensive. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Melissa in Australia

[theelfqueen]

21 hours ago, wintermom said:

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. 

Americans were fascinated by the entire Wallis Simpson scandal and the abdication long before Walt Disney was involved ... the American press broke all of the scandalous stories and followed it closely. 

[wintermom]

20 minutes ago, theelfqueen said:

Americans were fascinated by the entire Wallis Simpson scandal and the abdication long before Walt Disney was involved ... the American press broke all of the scandalous stories and followed it closely. 

Sure, but no little girls are dressing up like Mrs. Simpson. Being a fairy tale princess and living in a castle is the dream. 

Grace Kelly did it, and now Megan has. This is the stuff that grabs Americans' attention. It's a nice distraction from your own political leaders, who are mostly men. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by wintermom

[Sneezyone]

55 minutes ago, kbutton said:

They are heads of state. Well, the Queen is, and maybe that's what you mean--report on the Queen vs. the rest of them, though the rest play a supporting role and often represent her. Unless she clones herself or gets younger, she can't be everywhere. https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy 

 

Very interesting!

 

That is what I mean. These extras are not heads of state. A portrait was released. Whoop dee do! Rome is burning but look…squirrel!

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Tebaith I strongly disagree.

Repeatedly people in  commonwelth countries on this thread have pointed out that the royals are doing a job and part of the government structure, not for USA entertainment. and some people in America on this thread keep repeating that they are not entertaining enough for them and liking them to sone sort of trashy entertainment people. I find it deeply culturally offensive. 

If you find this rather mild and mostly in fun critique DEEPLY offensive, may I suggest you have a word with your fellow subjects? Because the voices coming from the Caribbean and other royal subjects are much, much worse.

[Shoeless]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That is what I mean. These extras are not heads of state. A portrait was released. Whoop dee do! Rome is burning but look…squirrel!

They aren't extras. She delegates responsibilities to them. They are working members of the royal family. They do tons of charitable and diplomatic work on behalf of the queen and the Commonwealth. 

William and Kate will become heads of state one day. They aren't extras. 

[Shoeless]

Court Circular

Hopefully that will work. It's a link to the Court Circular which shows all the events and engagements of the royal family. 

[Resilient]

On 6/23/2022 at 5:16 PM, Sneezyone said:

Fair enough. Their faces pop up in local media fairly regularly and I'm over here like...BUT WHY?

I really don't mean to be antagonistic, but the same thing could be said for about 85% of the American faces that pop up on the news feed as "celebrities" for doing...what? WHY? At least stars used to have to know how to ... tap dance or something.  Now it is just famous for being famous.  

Maybe there's something we crave as humans that makes for these situations.  

 I am a bit of a royal follower.  At least they dress well and behave themselves...and when they don't they get taken to the woodshed as opposed to getting the halftime show at the SuperBowl.  

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Resilient said:

I really don't mean to be antagonistic, but the same thing could be said for about 85% of the American faces that pop up on the news feed as "celebrities" for doing...what? WHY? At least stars used to have to know how to ... tap dance or something.  Now it is just famous for being famous.  

Maybe there's something we crave as humans that makes for these situations.  

 I am a bit of a royal follower.  At least they dress well and behave themselves...and when they don't they get taken to the woodshed as opposed to getting the halftime show at the SuperBowl.  

 

I don’t disagree at all. I am annoyed by celebrity adoration in general.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

Court Circular

Hopefully that will work. It's a link to the Court Circular which shows all the events and engagements of the royal family. 

Shall I publish my work calendar/appts for shits and giggles? I mean, CEOs do this work too. It’s not especially remarkable.

[Shoeless]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Shall I publish my work calendar/appts for shits and giggles? I mean, CEOs do this work too. It’s not especially remarkable.

Lol, k. 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

I am quite certain that @Sneezyone was not attempting to be offensive towards other cultures.  Saying something is vanilla is a pretty benign "insult," and "boring" isn't really all that strong of a critique either.  

It's not insulting, it's just a bit bemusing. 

I think USians today have better things to worry about than some nations' head of state or future head of state. 

If we have these people as our future heads of state, and we're not worrying about their levels of vanilla, not sure why anyone else finds it worth remarking on. 

My algorithms give me very little Royal info. I am blissfully unaware of whatever has inspired this thread. I don't really follow much 'celebrity' news. 

I do think Kate takes some lovely photos of her kids. 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

Would that I could stop seeing celeb drama in my work feed. News o’ the day automatically pops up when I log in. It’s obnoxious. Anyone know how to disable that MS Edge function? I heard about the Caribbean thing from my Belizean college roomie who dotes on her grannie (a devotee of royal goings on). All is not well and the Commonwealth continues to shrink.

[TravelingChris]

On 6/23/2022 at 11:41 PM, Melissa Louise said:

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

I agree.  My dh and I disagree sometimes and this issue og monarchy is one of them.  He id super anti-monarchy.  Very much into merit based and values-based ( by values. I mean things like honesty, hard worker, bravery, etc).  But yes, I consider especially non British royalty but European, to be mainly diplomatic and symbolic for the country. In many European countries w royalty, the kids have totally normal jobs.  The pagotery only or almost always just involves the king or queen.  Also,another reason I don't quite like my dh's super republican ( not the party but our form of govt and what he thinks other countries should have) is that while I do not have any kings or queens in my ancestry, my mother's family on both sides were wealthy landowners who were in the ruling class some centuries ago.  Same w my father's ancestry but his was not still like that when he was born- was like that in the 18th century and before.  And because of that background, I sort of dislike hizo utter contempt for royalty.  I did tell  him the last time he brought it up which was probably some news piece about Queen Elizabeth celebration 9f length of serving as Queen, that our kids have my ancestry too so he should shut up about lords, etc because many of their ancestors were such officials.

And I think it is much better to have boring royalty versus celebrity royalty  or scandalous royalty or ......

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

I agree.  My dh and I disagree sometimes and this issue og monarchy is one of them.  He id super anti-monarchy.  Very much into merit based and values-based ( by values. I mean things like honesty, hard worker, bravery, etc).  But yes, I consider especially non British royalty but European, to be mainly diplomatic and symbolic for the country. In many European countries w royalty, the kids have totally normal jobs.  The pagotery only or almost always just involves the king or queen.  Also,another reason I don't quite like my dh's super republican ( not the party but our form of govt and what he thinks other countries should have) is that while I do not have any kings or queens in my ancestry, my mother's family on both sides were wealthy landowners who were in the ruling class some centuries ago.  Same w my father's ancestry but his was not still like that when he was born- was like that in the 18th century and before.  And because of that background, I sort of dislike hizo utter contempt for royalty.  I did tell  him the last time he brought it up which was probably some news piece about Queen Elizabeth celebration 9f length of serving as Queen, that our kids have my ancestry too so he should shut up about lords, etc because many of their ancestors were such officials.

And I think it is much better to have boring royalty versus celebrity royalty  or scandalous royalty or ......

 

When they are doing their job right, they are vanilla. Spicy is doing the job wrong. 

Systems of handing down wealth, power and privilege exist the world over. With royalty, it's overt. Other places, it's covert. I don't really see that much difference. 

I voted yes to becoming a republic when we had a referendum on it decades ago. The referendum was defeated, and honestly, I think reviving it is so far down the list of priorities it doesn't even need discussion. 

I'm not sure how I'd vote if we went to another referendum. Constitutional monarchies seen relatively stable. There's worse ways of doing business. 

 

 

[kiwik]

That shows they are doing their job.  They are not paid to be drama queens.

[TexasProud]

Well, since my sister described us as the most boring couple she has ever met, I take that description of them as a compliment. 🙂 LOL. 

[Clarita]

14 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Would that I could stop seeing celeb drama in my work feed. News o’ the day automatically pops up when I log in.

If you don't share that computer with anyone else, stop clicking on the articles you don't want to see and actively click on the articles you do or don't mind seeing, pretty sure all those things track your clicks. I don't think you have to read the articles just click on them so the algorithm gets to know your preferences. 

[Granny_Weatherwax]

On 6/24/2022 at 11:43 AM, Spirea said:

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.

* I haven't read through the entire thread yet so this may have been addressed.

I don't have feelings for the royals either way but I, too, was surprised by the use of the term vanilla. I'm not trying to be controversial so please don't rake me over the coals but where I come from the use of the term vanilla, when describing white people, is derogatory. It is akin to calling someone a closed minded, middle class bore, typically a minivan driving churchgoer with conservative viewpoints. 

No, it isn't as controversial as other terms but it still has a negative connotation.  I guess the modern antonym would be 'woke'; a vanilla person would not be woke. I wonder if it is a regional term.

*off now to read through the rest of the thread

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Granny_Weatherwax said:

* I haven't read through the entire thread yet so this may have been addressed.

I don't have feelings for the royals either way but I, too, was surprised by the use of the term vanilla. I'm not trying to be controversial so please don't rake me over the coals but where I come from the use of the term vanilla, when describing white people, is derogatory. It is akin to calling someone a closed minded, middle class bore, typically a minivan driving churchgoer with conservative viewpoints. 

No, it isn't as controversial as other terms but it still has a negative connotation.  I guess the modern antonym would be 'woke'; a vanilla person would not be woke. I wonder if it is a regional term.

*off now to read through the rest of the thread

It's a term that comes from kink, to have a descriptor of non-kinky practices and people who don't engage in kink, as far as I know.

It's derogatory, but all it really means is boring and straight-laced. There's no racial element to it. 

It is entirely true that W & K are not presenting as thrillingly subversive in their person or practices. That's deliberate. That's the job. The point the OP misses. 

I think this is a silly thread to start, but it's not racist. Not even close. Plenty of vanilla Black, Brown and other people. 

 

 

 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

10 minutes ago, Granny_Weatherwax said:

* I haven't read through the entire thread yet so this may have been addressed.

I don't have feelings for the royals either way but I, too, was surprised by the use of the term vanilla. I'm not trying to be controversial so please don't rake me over the coals but where I come from the use of the term vanilla, when describing white people, is derogatory. It is akin to calling someone a closed minded, middle class bore, typically a minivan driving churchgoer with conservative viewpoints. 

No, it isn't as controversial as other terms but it still has a negative connotation.  I guess the modern antonym would be 'woke'; a vanilla person would not be woke. I wonder if it is a regional term.

*off now to read through the rest of the thread

That is what the op was intending.  To be insulting. All the rest of her posts confirm this 

[Lecka]

I have to say I like Prince Harry for going to Afghanistan and (as it seems to me at least) attempting to be low-key and not take advantage of his title.  And at the same time — our country (the US) is not one where, in particular, children of political elites are serving in the nation’s wars.  I am aware of Sarah Palin’s son and Pres. Biden’s son, and that’s it.  
 

I have also not heard vanilla as an insult.  I can easily see, after it has been mentioned here, how it could be an insult, but it’s new to me.

I would have thought of it as neutral to me, before.

 

But it’s good information for me.  

[Granny_Weatherwax]

2 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

That is what the op was intending.  To be insulting. All the rest of her posts confirm this 

I get that. It just surprised me that the term was used.

@ Melissa Louise - I have never heard the term vanilla used in relation to a person of color. I find that quite interesting. (insert Spock raising his famous eyebrow). Again, I wonder if it is a regional thing.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

As a boring middle aged conservative libertarian who drives a minivan and attends church when I’m not working, at least I now understand why vanilla is my favorite milkshake.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

1 minute ago, Granny_Weatherwax said:

I get that. It just surprised me that the term was used.

@ Melissa Louise - I have never heard the term vanilla used in relation to a person of color. I find that quite interesting. (insert Spock raising his famous eyebrow). Again, I wonder if it is a regional thing.

Edited: TWTM has given me quite the education this past few months - from furries to vanilla, I had no idea there were so many 'options'.

[Lecka]

I don’t know if this will copy well, but basically Prince Harry is giving an interview and sees everyone else running to do something — we just don’t have comparable to this in the US.  I do find it moving. 

[Granny_Weatherwax]

1 minute ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

As a boring middle aged conservative libertarian who drives a minivan and attends church when I’m not working, at least I now understand why vanilla is my favorite milkshake.

Oh, how I love this reply.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Granny_Weatherwax said:

I get that. It just surprised me that the term was used.

@ Melissa Louise - I have never heard the term vanilla used in relation to a person of color. I find that quite interesting. (insert Spock raising his famous eyebrow). Again, I wonder if it is a regional thing.

It's the kind of mild insult that isn't really one, imo, because it's so childish. Adult equivalent of 'not cool like me'. I'd guess it's just not a thing you hear grownups actually say much, so hard to extrapolate. 

I'm very vanilla. Straight edge. No drink, no drugs, no scandals, no kinks. I'm happy to be vanilla 🙂 Its an insult without much sting. 

 

[Lecka]

In the meantime — the US has John Kerry saying soldiers are stupid https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/stupid-soldiers-central-the-lefts-worldview

and Donald Trump saying wrt John McCain that he prefers war heroes who weren’t captured.

Nothing agains Track or Beau — but I will take Prince Harry any day.  

[Granny_Weatherwax]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's the kind of mild insult that isn't really one, imo, because it's so childish. Adult equivalent of 'not cool like me'. I'd guess it's just not a thing you hear grownups actually say much, so hard to extrapolate. 

I'm very vanilla. Straight edge. No drink, no drugs, no scandals, no kinks. I'm happy to be vanilla 🙂 Its an insult without much sting. 

 

Your statement has made me think a bit longer about my recent exposure to the term. No, I haven't heard middle aged or older adults use the term.  I heard it used by young adults ages 18-22 attending a very liberal private college where being anything other than woke was considered undesirable. If you didn't know what she/her/hers meant over they/them/their you were vanilla. If you fought against same sex restrooms, you were vanilla. I have to be careful not to give political examples but these are my most recent (3-5 years out) experiences with the use of the term.

Makes sense that it might be generational and possibly regional.

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Lecka said:

In the meantime — the US has John Kerry saying soldiers are stupid https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/stupid-soldiers-central-the-lefts-worldview

and Donald Trump saying wrt John McCain that he prefers war heroes who weren’t captured.

Nothing agains Track or Beau — but I will take Prince Harry any day.  

If you live in a Republic, you don't have to take any of them! 🙂

I am very confused as to why you guys are interested. It would sort of be as if I had a preferred 'side' in some intra-factional party war in French politics. 

 

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

If you live in a Republic, you don't have to take any of them! 🙂

I am very confused as to why you guys are interested. It would sort of be as if I had a preferred 'side' in some intra-factional party war in French politics. 

 

I’m interested because my grandmother was from England and she always liked the Royal family, so I guess she sort of passed that along to me. 🙂 

No insults or insinuations here! 

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Granny_Weatherwax said:

Your statement has made me think a bit longer about my recent exposure to the term. No, I haven't heard middle aged or older adults use the term.  I heard it used by young adults ages 18-22 attending a very liberal private college where being anything other than woke was considered undesirable. If you didn't know what she/her/hers meant over they/them/their you were vanilla. If you fought against same sex restrooms, you were vanilla. I have to be careful not to give political examples but these are my most recent (3-5 years out) experiences with the use of the term.

Makes sense that it might be generational and possibly regional.

Ah, OK.

Yep, probably varies by context then. 

Those kids are giving out some weak-ass insults, lol. 

Maybe it stings more when you're young. 

[Lecka]

It’s not that I care — but as far as I can tell it seems like they do expect Harry and William to do some kind of public service and/or military service.

 

It’s not that I care, but we just don’t particularly have that.  
 

In fact I would say I don’t care, but there’s just not particularly a culture here where there’s much of an expectation for children of politicians to serve in the military or public service vs be trying to make as much money as possible out of their positions.

 

Which I realize — it’s not like Harry and William are just not doing very well for themselves

 

And I do acknowledge Beau and Track.

 

But I just don’t think we have the same culture where political (or royal) scions are expected to go and do what Prince Harry did.

 

But at the same time — no, I don’t actually care.  

[Melissa Louise]

11 minutes ago, Lecka said:

It’s not that I care — but as far as I can tell it seems like they do expect Harry and William to do some kind of public service and/or military service.

 

It’s not that I care, but we just don’t particularly have that.  
 

In fact I would say I don’t care, but there’s just not particularly a culture here where there’s much of an expectation for children of politicians to serve in the military or public service vs be trying to make as much money as possible out of their positions.

 

Which I realize — it’s not like Harry and William are just not doing very well for themselves

 

And I do acknowledge Beau and Track.

 

But I just don’t think we have the same culture where political (or royal) scions are expected to go and do what Prince Harry did.

 

But at the same time — no, I don’t actually care.  

Elected politicians aren't the same as unelected heads of state in a constitutional monarchy. 

The children of our politicians aren't expected to do anything in particular either. 

 

[wintermom]

The absolute irony about this thread is that W & K have their gig perfected so well. They are extremely popular, and are always in the news in much more positive than negative ways no matter what the rest of the royals do. They just need to carry on as they're doing. Nailed it as future King and Queen. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by wintermom

[Catwoman]

13 minutes ago, wintermom said:

The absolute irony about this thread is that W & K have their gig perfected so well. They are extremely popular, and are always in the news in much more positive than negative ways no matter what the rest of the royals do. They just need to carry on as they're doing. Nailed it as future King and Queen. 

I agree. I don’t want them to be Harry and Meghan. I like them just as they are.

[Rosie_0801]

2 hours ago, Lecka said:

But I just don’t think we have the same culture where political (or royal) scions are expected to go and do what Prince Harry did.

And Prince Andrew and Prince Philip before him. 

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, Clarita said:

If you don't share that computer with anyone else, stop clicking on the articles you don't want to see and actively click on the articles you do or don't mind seeing, pretty sure all those things track your clicks. I don't think you have to read the articles just click on them so the algorithm gets to know your preferences. 

I am not clicking on this crap. For the love of god it’s just giant headlines and awkward photos.

[Lecka]

I guess it seems like now there isn’t going to be any Bush dynasty but it seemed like it might be for a while.  
 

I like that is expected of the British royalty but I don’t know if I actually miss it.

In WWII I think it was expected in the United States that children of Presidents might die in wars, but it’s not the case now.

It’s one of those things where I like and respect it for Prince Harry, and certainly believe he is part of a rich tradition, but I don’t know what I would think with pros and cons.  

[maize]

52 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I am not clicking on this crap. For the love of god it’s just giant headlines and awkward photos.

Their algorithm is weird then; usually content is better targeted. Is there anywhere in settings for this site/portal where you can click on interests or something so it shows you stuff you are more interested in?

I almost never see stuff about any royals on my various feeds.