Did someone say that?
"Her photos look to me like a professional took them." Not, "They are professional quality," or "They are as good as professionals'" and I interpret that as "A pro took them and they're being passed off as hers."
Wow. Are you looking to be offended on Kate's behalf? I thought I was complimenting her. I guess I have eville motives for anything RF.
Given how often you rag on them, I had context for the way I interpreted your post, but since I was wrong about it, I apologize.
www.bbc.com
Ooh, just like when the fiefs swore allegiance to their liege lords. Do the citizens get a choice to swear or not? KC said he was going to pare down the monarchy. IMO he should do away with bows & curseys instead of adding more medieval crap.Coronation: Public invited to swear allegiance to King Charles
The pledge is among several changes to the service, which will incorporate female clergy and other faiths.
I like the emphasis on a multi-faith coronation and (for lack of a better word) audience involvement. It’s savvy for sure, but I also think it’s genuine. It’s more modern than I expected of the monarchy.
Yeah, I’m not sure about this. I’m not a fan of pledges in general. I guess it’s fine for those who want to pledge allegiance to the king and his heirs but the optics don’t look great.
Pledging allegiance is not unique to the UK or the monarchy. Americans pledge allegiance as well.
, but once I read the details, I was immediately fine with it. I do think there are millions in the United Kingdom, and possibly in the Commonwealth, who will appreciate being included. And then there are others like me who think "not for me, but it's a nice idea."
Unless you become naturalized, because, as part of my citizenship oath, I had to swear or affirm to "to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors."Canadians are not enamoured with Charles and Camilla.
Don’t count on us to swear fealty.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/king-charles-coronation-canadian-weak-support-interest-1.6816980
I feel the same way. Ask me if Australia should be a republic (within the Commonwealth) and I'll give a resounding yes. Ask me if I think Britain should abolish the monarchy, I'll give an equally resounding no for similar reasons to the above.
Well, yes. There are various robes from previous coronations. Presumably, this one is a better fit for her than for Charles, who will be wearing his grandfather's robes.
Why this should provoke a strong reaction is beyond me. Camilla is the Queen Consort, deal with it.
Does anyone know if there is a difference between a robe of state for a queen regnant (such as QEII) and one for a queen consort? IMO, re-using robes makes sense, but if there is a difference between ruler's robe and consort's robe, Camilla should use a consort's robe.
Buckingham Palace has said she will be known as Queen Camilla after the Coronation.
By definition, she is a queen consort and not queen regnant, just as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was not referred to as "Elizabeth Queen Consort". Similarly, queens such as Letizia or Maxima are not known as "queen consort" as part of their official titles, but they do not have the same status as Queen Margrethe.
