Unpopular opinions about the royal family

[Homehermit]

I am just interested to see your opinions about the royal family. No judgement. And it can be from any royal family, not just the British one.

It’s an easy and understandable mistake to make. Only this past week has the title been ‘corrected’ to me within the last day or so (and never before). I adjusted accordingly (but sometimes habits take time to adjust).

My frame of reference has always been the legal Treaty from 1849 (that I read way way way before; that’s where the title came from for me and many others familiar with the Kohinoor controversy).

The legal Treaty’s title is relevant because it’s not referring to a specific person (I.e. Victoria) but referring to the monarchy, position and royal family lineage that’s the same as QEII (that’s how she was in possession of the Kohinoor; through that same legal Treaty from 1849).

Also, if we are getting all pedantic, I’d like to point out that the document is not merely “historical”, it’s also a legal Treaty. It comes under the jurisdiction of a higher authority because it’s a Justice issue and living diplomatic matter.

My frame of reference has always been the legal Treaty from 1849

your frame of reference for QEII is an historical document 170 years old? Come off it. You have only ever only thought of her in connection with it? Pigs may whistle, but they’ve gey poor mouths for it.

and it is an historical document. It’s not pedantic to say that. Cos it’s a document and it’s old. I never qualified that by saying “merely”. That’s your invention.

this is probably in poor taste given the recent events, but I loved Sue Townsend’s book, The Queen and ! When following the election of a republicans , they were all placed in council housing In the Midlands. Was very funny, but I always thought their lives would be fundamentally happier….

@TrashyPanda You’re acting as if I said Queen of Another Place Entirely.

The meaning is clear who it is talking about (if the meaning was unclear then I’d understand the relentless pedantry). In law, the meaning is what matters because it’s clearly identifiable - and matches too because the Kohinoor was also in the late QEII’s possession.

Anyway, sounds like you know very little about the significance of that legal Treaty.
Wrong is wrong; it doesn’t stop being wrong just because you label it ‘historical’.

It was in 1849, but do you think God would forget something like that?
An 11 year old child separated from his Queen Mother and then forced to sign away his Kingdom, alongside the Kohinoor diamond that his father, the late Maharajah, held dear and sacred?

The late QEII benefited from that contested legal Treaty 1849. She knew where and how her most famous Crown Jewel came into her possession. During her 70 years reign did she ever atone, express regret or apologise?

Nope.

Significant because the Maharajah’s royal family line mysteriously died in the early part of her 70 year reign. That Maharajah has gone down as ‘The Greatest Leader of All Times’ (even beating Winston Churchill in a 2020 history poll) suggesting the Maharajah remains as one of God’s favourites.

As I said, the Kohinoor is a major Justice issue. This one is for God’s courthouse, not you or I.

I assume you’ve heard of the curse of the Kohinoor diamond?

*10 or 11 year old

That would be so very unlikely - it would only be a meter of time before politics affected who would become the elected head of state.

The meaning is clear who it is talking about (if the meaning was unclear then I’d understand the relentless pedantry)

it’s ignorant, insulting and incorrect.

your pedantry, repeated insistence that you think of the late QEII only in terms of an historical document which refers to the Queen of England does you no favours, because it is frankly unbelievable
this isn’t a court of law, this is a discussion board.

This one is for God’s courthouse, not you or I
I have not offered any opinion on the matter, nor do I intend to. So don’t try to imply I have said anything other than to comment on your describing the Late QEII as Queen of England.

@TrashyPanda Intent matters; there was no intent to insult. If the exact title was incorrect then it’s charitable to recognise that people make innocent mistakes. No one is saying she was the Queen of a place she wasn’t associated with (that would be ‘insulting, ignorant and incorrect’).

It’s an understandable and easy mistake to make (many people and even tourists referred to her in terms of ‘Queen of England’). Completely innocent.

There are by far more ‘insulting, ignorant and incorrect’ things in the world than making an easy mistake on a title. Get some perspective.

The exact title correction has never really come up until the past few days.

Chill out. I’ve corrected how to title her, so I’m not going to respond to this pedantry any further.

Have bigger fish to fry…

Your pedantry in insisting you are not wrong when you clearly are is remarkable.

It’s not “an easy mistake” at all.

the Union of the Crowns was in 1603. Over 4 centuries for people to get the hang of things.

Omg. I told you I’d corrected it.

Look. If you want to go on a crusade correcting peoples’ usage of the title, then there are numerous news outlets you can write to…

www.news24.com/citypress/news/the-queen-of-england-sadness-glee-and-controversy-20220911

sportsbrief.com/facts/23546-how-queen-england-set-enugu-stadium-alight-watching-igbakwu-dance-visit-nigeria/

And also social media like Twitter.

Go forth and spread the word…

(As it stands, Google understands who a search for the ‘Queen of England’ means).

I’m not going to respond to this pedantry any further.

wow, your resolution didn’t last long, did it?

repeatedly maintaining that you thought of QEII only by the designation given to her great great grandmother in a single historical document is disingenuous pedantry at its finest.

@TrashyPanda

I’m allowed to change my mind. On second thoughts this is fascinating. Want to carry on?

So, you say the title changed in 1603. Why then did the British Governor General Lord Dalhousie use the title ‘Queen of England’ in an important legal Treaty in 1849?

So, you say the title changed in 1603

the Union of the Crowns was in 1603. this is a fact and cannot be disputed. How strange to suggest otherwise. It is an important event in British history.

why would I know anything about the 1843 document? It has precisely nothing to do with the official title of QEII, and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. 1843 was in the reign of her great great grandmother

I was with you till you supported the sexual assault of groomed, poor teenagers by rich white men.

Her late Majesty was fluent in French.

Why?
Have you looked at how Ireland do it?

Or do we just keep hoping we get someone decent depending on who is born next? We could easily have had Andrew you know.

Strange indeed. So, in 1603 the title ‘Queen of England’ changed with the Union of the Crowns.

But there’s proof the title was still being used 246 years later as evidenced in the Last Treaty of Lahore 1849, which was drawn up by the British Governor General, Lord Dalhousie (also an Earl). If a serving aristocrat mixed up the the titles then what chances do everyone else have?

On the topic of titles. Did you know the title of Prince of Wales was designed to be an insult to the people of Wales?

Interesting article following the continued use of the title…