April 29, 2011 2:54 am at 2:54 am #596521
I find it somewhat interesting.April 29, 2011 3:48 am at 3:48 am #762667
The Rabbi RocksMember
it starts 5:00 american time, 11:00 england timeApril 29, 2011 4:42 am at 4:42 am #762668
who cares? the royal family are the biggest bozos in the world. They don’t do anything (all the real power in England from what I understand comes from their prime minister and parliament) and they live off the taxpayers who pay them to sit around in palaces and have parties. Maybe the british taxpayers who stand for this garbage are the only ones in the world who are stupider than the royal family. Better they should get rid of the royal family and give their money to struggling yungerleit in England and America.April 29, 2011 5:11 am at 5:11 am #762669
My mother is obsessed with it. Zero interest for me. I was invited but I turned it down (Prince Charles scares me) :pApril 29, 2011 5:31 am at 5:31 am #762670
I hear that the princess-to-be is Jewish. True or false?April 29, 2011 5:31 am at 5:31 am #762671
I find royalty fascinating.
While I agree that the British Royalty isn’t what it used to be both from a power point of view and behaviour (the Queen herself is very much a lady) it is fascinating. Hopefully the younger generation will brush up its act.
No, they don’t live off taxpayers. Yes, taxpayers do pay towards them. The British are proud of their royalty.
As for your [rather idiotic] last sentence, the money is more likely to go to struggling football players.April 29, 2011 6:16 am at 6:16 am #762672
yeshivabochur123, Better they should get rid of the royal family and give their money to struggling yungerleit in England and America.
Cute idea! The royal family must increase revenue/tourism, etc., otherwise they would have been eliminated long ago. There must be advantages to the country.
Anyhow Im in awe of how they UNINVITED the Syrian ambassador!!! Pretty interesting. I wonder who will be there from other Arab countries.April 29, 2011 9:18 am at 9:18 am #762673
truth be toldMember
You repeated some very valid points. The last one, which dosen’t fit, does not dismiss any of the previous ones you repeated.
Better they should get rid of the royal family and give their money to struggling yungerleit in England and America.April 29, 2011 11:01 am at 11:01 am #762674
Can someone try to explain what heter Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks, Kt, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth has to now be in the Collegiate Church of St Peter at Westminster, otherwise known as Westminster Abbey, as a galach with his cross is repeatedly intoning yushke’s name in this Church service?April 29, 2011 11:45 am at 11:45 am #762675
There will be a minyan for mincha after the chupa at the palace, before the seuda.April 29, 2011 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm #762676
I’ll check it out on youtube over the weekend. What’s always fascinated me about the Windsors is how, if they hadn’t happened by a total accident of birth to be born into this lineage, they’d be the most common of commoners. None of them are particularly intellectual, and other then the late Princess Margaret (Elizabeth’s sister), not much in the personality department either. And the looks in the family only come from those who married in (Diana and Kate especially). But there is something fascinating about the concept. In fact, one of the reasons we in our generation often have difficulty relating to the mushals (sic) about kings is because to us, royality is somewhat of a joke.April 29, 2011 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm #762677
awob, In fact, one of the reasons we in our generation often have difficulty relating to the mushals (sic) about kings is because to us, royality is somewhat of a joke.
This couple seems to be uniquely mature, graceful and sensitive. It will be interesting to see if their marriage will stand the test of time. Lots of divorces in the Royal Family in recent years! Will theirs be different? I think possibly.April 29, 2011 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #762678
The chief rabbi being frum would have asked a shaileh whether to accept or decline a Royal invitation.
It is highly fascinating whenever the royal guards with all their splendor and traditions do any ceremony, especially one as fancy as this. I also love the Changing of the Guards and also for the Queen’s birthday they do this whole fancy marching and dancing with full military bands etc. There are plenty of clips online to view. Do a search on Buckingham Palace.April 29, 2011 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #762680
Rabbi Avi Shafran properly declined a Presidential invitation to attend Church at the National Cathedral.April 29, 2011 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #762681
The Chief Rabbi of England is a government position and his salary and authority are paid for by the taxpayers of England.
He is likely obligated to go.April 29, 2011 2:31 pm at 2:31 pm #762682
Do a search on Buckingham Palace.
I have serious doubts that the guards would let just anyone in to search the palace.April 29, 2011 2:32 pm at 2:32 pm #762683
He was under no legal obligation to attend. (And if he had been, that would not be a mitigating factor, unless — perhaps — it would have cost him his life.)April 29, 2011 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #762684
I should have been clearer
There are situations where you are forced to go, and there are others where you are expected to attend.
Expected to attend is not the same as force, but it doesnt mean you can get out of it so easilyApril 29, 2011 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #762685
I would think that Lord Rabbi Sacks is more than qualified to pasken such a shaila — or would likely have asked the question in 1999 when the Earl of Wessex got married.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #762686
I hear that the princess-to-be is Jewish. True or false?
False. She was christened at the age of six months on June 20, 1982 at St Andrew’s Bradfield.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #762687
i dont know if she is Jewish or not.
but the fact that she was chrissened doesnt prove anything.April 29, 2011 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #762688
but the fact that she was chrissened doesnt prove anything.
Granted, it doesn’t definitively *prove* anything. But I would say that the fact that her parents had her christened is far greater evidence of her being Christian than the rumor the questioner had of her being Jewish.
Her parents were also married in a church 21 years ago. Her ancestors include the Rev. Thomas Davis, a hymn writer for the CoE. Again, not definite proof, but I’d say it’s a pretty strong indicator that she’s not Jewish.
If the person who brought it up has any proof, I would suggest s/he bring it. The burden of proof is on them to prove that she is Jewish, not on me to prove that she’s not.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 3:20 pm at 3:20 pm #762689
trueApril 29, 2011 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #762690
Correction: Her parents were married in 1980, not 21 years ago.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #762691
I am absolutely obsessed with the wedding. I would not be shocked if she was Jewish- I think she is stunning and has a certain chain…April 29, 2011 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #762692
Don’t blind yourself to her. They said the same regarding Diana when she got married, and before her philandering.April 29, 2011 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #762693
has a certain chain…
Oooooh…. MUST. RESIST. PUN. OPPORTUNITY.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm #762694
Clairvoyant, her husband philandered first. To be honest, being married to that dolt who’s next in line to the throne is a good excuse. But in reality, Diana was young and naive, and really didn’t understand what she was getting herself into. It appears that Kate has a number of advantages over her, especially maturity and a better spouse!April 29, 2011 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm #762695
am yisrael chaiParticipant
Diana also did a lot of chesedApril 29, 2011 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #762696
she did a lot of charityApril 29, 2011 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #762697
To be honest, being married to that dolt who’s next in line to the throne is a good excuse.
No it’s not. And the fact that he cheated as well is not an excuse either.
Diana also did a lot of chesed
Absolutely true, but I don’t know that one excuses the other.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #762698
A Woman: That is neither an excuse nor mitigates her crime. Under the laws of England at the time, she committed a capital offense (as she was the consort of the Crown Prince of England) and was liable to be hung. (Incidentally, what she did would be chayiv misa under our laws too.)
Additionally, Charles was no worse a spouse when he got married than William is today. If I recall some stories of William of the last number of years, he may have an even more iniquitous reputation than his father had at the time of his marriage.April 29, 2011 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #762699
OK, I ws being flippant, since those goyim all seem to take the idea of marriage very lightly. Almost every British king has had a mistress (or two). Anyone ever hear of Henry VIII, just for starters?April 29, 2011 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #762700
Henry VIII? Wasn’t he the guy who had 2 of his Queens’ beheaded for adultery?April 29, 2011 5:45 pm at 5:45 pm #762701
he had VI wives
II were beheadedApril 29, 2011 5:57 pm at 5:57 pm #762702
WAT IS THIS WHOLE THING?? I DONT GET IT. CUD SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT 2 ME??April 29, 2011 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #762703
Mnemonic for the six wives of Henry VIII:
Divorced, beheaded, died,
Divorced, beheaded, survived.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #762704
“if they hadn’t happened by a total accident of birth to be born into this lineage, they’d be the most common of commoners”
…and if you wouldnt have been born a Jew, you would be a non-Jew. Whats your point? You dont get to choose to whom you are born (dont even start w Medrashim)
Just because you are born a Royal that doesnt automatically make you good looking, smart and nice. It makes you Royal. Period.April 29, 2011 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #762705
My point is that the Windsors do not seem to possess any particular merit, other than their family tree. If they hadn’t been part of that lineage, I doubt anyone would have ever heard of any of them, except perhaps Princess Anne because she particpated in an Olympics. However, as Royals, they are the world’s ultimate celebrities. Otherwise, why would anyone have even paid attention to this wedding?April 29, 2011 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #762706
As far as I am concerned, they own the country.
William the conqueror conquered it, which makes it his. He allowed his soldiers, and some other people to live there, and allowed his officers to own land.
I don’t know enough history to know how it got to the current kings, but it was probably some sort of inheritances and conquerings.April 29, 2011 6:27 pm at 6:27 pm #762707
My office is all abuzz about this.
What I found funny is that the vows omitted the word “to obey” (each other), yet left in “for richer or for poorer”.
Should ‘lil Willy’s $$ take a nose dive, Ms Princess will drop him faster than you can say momma (or in their case, Mum).April 29, 2011 6:30 pm at 6:30 pm #762708
Its a good thing you live in America in the 21st Century. It sounds like you have a problem with Monarchy.April 29, 2011 6:40 pm at 6:40 pm #762709
Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria, was noted for his kind feelings toward Jews.April 29, 2011 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #762710
Isn’t kind of awkward for Americans to be fascinated by the British Royalty?
I mean after that whole Revolutionary War & trying to break free from British rule & everything…sorry, just trying to figure out the logic in why it’s such a big deal to care.April 29, 2011 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #762711
I mean after that whole Revolutionary War & trying to break free from British rule & everything…sorry, just trying to figure out the logic in why it’s such a big deal to care.
Perhaps we find it fascinating precisely because we DON’T have it here in the US.
The WolfApril 29, 2011 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #762712
What I found funny is that the vows omitted the word “to obey” (each other), yet left in “for richer or for poorer”.
That’s nothing new or unusual. Most women leave out “obey” nowadays.
Should ‘lil Willy’s $$ take a nose dive, Ms Princess will drop him faster than you can say momma (or in their case, Mum).
Source? Seriously, how do you know this? Or do you think that that applies to everyone who marries a rich person?
The WolfApril 29, 2011 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #762713
Edward VIII (the king who abdicated) was a Nazi Sympathizer and had Hitler been able to conquer England, he would have been put back on the thrown.
He was removed from kingship because of this (Not because of Wallis Warfield Simpson – that was just an excuse)April 29, 2011 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #762714
ZD: Where does your information that his abdication was anything other than voluntary come from?April 29, 2011 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #762715
The Parents of Queen Elizabeth George VI and Elizabeth (Her mother)
Stayed in London during the Battle of Britain (London) along with Churchill and likely saved England.
They did not escape to the country side as they could haveApril 29, 2011 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #762716
Yes, Edward the Eighth was certainly a piece of work.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.