It seems that most of the world is still angry at Charles for Dissing Diana.I remember being in Jemptland (northern Sweden) at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding.
The entire province was deserted. I walked to an amusement park and one car passed by. The park was open; nobody was there but employees watching the wedding.
It was quite extreme.
My understanding was that Edward VIII was forced out due to the suspicion that he was a Nazi Sympathizer. Marrying Wallis was just a cover for pushing him out.The entire group of Royals would have been different if Edward VIII haven’t stepped down to marry American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. I imagine those folks are “Royally” cheesed off.
It was an arranged marriage, and to be honest very normal back then for the higher up.I’m a history buff, and my DNA is about 90% English, but I’m not that interested. I do appreciate the tradition, though.
I never got the adoration of Diana. I don’t particularly care for Charles, either. I’m glad he’s stepped away from politics, though. The monarch should.
IMHO, Diana and Charles never truly loved each other, they were forced to marry. They both cheated, to be honest.
While she was born into nobility, many still saw her as a regular person. I mean, she was a school teacher or daycare teacher when she met Charles. She also tried to not be so "snobbish" as typical royalty.I never got the adoration of Diana.
Diana was pretty far down on the list as far as being nobility but she was born into a wealthy family however she grew up unspoiled by any of that and was a pretty normal person which is why everyone loved her. She was also very active in investigating the plight of ordinary people both inside and outside of the UK which won her world wide acclaim and respect. The difference between her and the current crop of Royals such as Prince Harry and his self-important wife is simply unfathomable.While she was born into nobility, many still saw her as a regular person. I mean, she was a school teacher or daycare teacher when she met Charles. She also tried to not be so "snobbish" as typical royalty.
I am not sure that vacant castles, or any vacant property is a solution to homelessness whatsoever, or even has any correlation. Maybe marching against drug dealers would have significantly more impact against homelessness.The 'Royal Family' owns luxury properties all over the UK (and possibly elsewhere) and most of them are not inhabited most of the time. With all the homelessness in the world you'd think there would be 'protesters' constantly marching against such extreme opulence......especially for people who don't actually work for a living.
The Governor General is all but a rubber stamp in Canada.I won't watch the coronation live or anything, but I think they might as well keep the monarchy going now.
Canada still has a governor general who is the King's representative here, and whose purpose is;
The governor general acts within the principles of parliamentary democracy and responsible government as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power.
I don't think its a bad thing anyways, to have an impartial final signature on what legislation the government of the time is passing, to make sure it follows the constitution. I don't think that power has been needed often in the constitutional monarchies that are left, but it puts a bit of limit on what governments propose I think.