Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #596521

    Ofcourse
    Member

    I find it somewhat interesting.

    #762667

    it starts 5:00 american time, 11:00 england time

    #762668

    yeshivabochur123
    Participant

    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.

    #762669

    LemonySnicket
    Participant

    My mother is obsessed with it. Zero interest for me. I was invited but I turned it down (Prince Charles scares me) :p

    #762670

    BasYisroel94
    Participant

    I hear that the princess-to-be is Jewish. True or false?

    #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.

    #762672

    Ofcourse
    Member

    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.

    #762673

    yeshivabochur123

    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.

    #762674

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    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?

    #762675

    cherrybim
    Participant

    There will be a minyan for mincha after the chupa at the palace, before the seuda.

    #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.

    #762677

    Ofcourse
    Member

    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.

    #762678

    Shticky Guy
    Participant

    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.

    #762680

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    Rabbi Avi Shafran properly declined a Presidential invitation to attend Church at the National Cathedral.

    #762681

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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.

    #762682

    Do a search on Buckingham Palace.

    I have serious doubts that the guards would let just anyone in to search the palace.

    #762683

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    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.)

    #762684

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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 easily

    #762685

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762686

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762687

    i dont know if she is Jewish or not.

    but the fact that she was chrissened doesnt prove anything.

    #762688

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762689

    true

    #762690

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Correction: Her parents were married in 1980, not 21 years ago.

    The Wolf

    #762691

    adorable
    Participant

    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…

    #762692

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    Don’t blind yourself to her. They said the same regarding Diana when she got married, and before her philandering.

    #762693

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    has a certain chain…

    Oooooh…. MUST. RESIST. PUN. OPPORTUNITY.

    The Wolf

    #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!

    #762695

    am yisrael chai
    Participant

    Diana also did a lot of chesed

    #762696

    she did a lot of charity

    #762697

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762698

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    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.

    #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?

    #762700

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    Henry VIII? Wasn’t he the guy who had 2 of his Queens’ beheaded for adultery?

    #762701

    he had VI wives

    II were beheaded

    #762702

    GumBall
    Member

    WAT IS THIS WHOLE THING?? I DONT GET IT. CUD SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT 2 ME??

    #762703

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Mnemonic for the six wives of Henry VIII:

    Divorced, beheaded, died,

    Divorced, beheaded, survived.

    The Wolf

    #762704

    Sacrilege
    Member

    “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.

    #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?

    #762706

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    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.

    #762707

    bpt
    Participant

    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).

    #762708

    Sacrilege
    Member

    Its a good thing you live in America in the 21st Century. It sounds like you have a problem with Monarchy.

    #762709

    Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria, was noted for his kind feelings toward Jews.

    #762710

    TikkunHatzot
    Member

    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.

    #762711

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762712

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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 Wolf

    #762713

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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)

    #762714

    Clairvoyant
    Member

    ZD: Where does your information that his abdication was anything other than voluntary come from?

    #762715

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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 have

    #762716

    Yes, Edward the Eighth was certainly a piece of work.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 54 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.