By any fair test, Harry and Meghan are conservative. I can't honestly imagine them mounting the barricades, hoisting the red flag and shouting 'no king but Jesus', can you?
They'd tinker at the margins of liberalism, while rejecting substantial economic change. In other words, conservative.
By any fair test, Harry and Meghan are conservative. I can't honestly imagine them mounting the barricades, hoisting the red flag and shouting 'no king but Jesus', can you?
They'd tinker at the margins of liberalism, while rejecting substantial economic change. In other words, conservative.
Sounds like MM would be an ideal VP pick for Biden then!
If, by any fluke of fate, MM were to make it to the Whi[t]e House, where would that leave Harry Mountbatten-Windsor?
The usual job of the presidential spouse is to look fetchingly ornamental at public events, behave suavely while hosting state dinners, redecorate the White House, and plug some non-controversial public issue (e.g childhood nutrition, literacy, don't do [ certain kinds of ] drugs, etc.) This seems like a job Harry Mountbatten-Windsor has been training for his whole life.
Hmmm. With that scenario, our very first First Gentleman would be a British royal. The Founders would be spinning in their graves...or trash a pub, as they did once in real life the night before a big vote!
Bill Clinton would be jealous. At his best, he would've been a great First Gentleman, and have all kinds of fun. Then again, probably best forgotten, given that he's *rumored* in the media to have a connection with a certain Hollywood mogul's #MeToo scandal. I really, really hope he has no connection.
Anyway, would Harry have to get US citizenship? Would he have to forswear any allegiance to his grandma? Would a foreign national--a royal--be allowed to live and work in the White House, given state secrets and security and such?
Anyway, would Harry have to get US citizenship? Would he have to forswear any allegiance to his grandma? Would a foreign national--a royal--be allowed to live and work in the White House, given state secrets and security and such?
The First Spouse isn't actually a constitutional position. There are no requirements for it, and there doesn't actually have to be one. As such, there are no impediments to a foreigner being married to the President, beyond the challenge of getting "person married to a foreigner" elected by the US public.
ETA: In general, being married to a foreigner makes getting security clearances "interesting". But being elected President seems to trump that - I can't imagine the big T qualifying for a security clearance on his own merits.
So in this hypothetical, I think:
1. No, Harry wouldn't have to become American, although as the spouse of a US citizen he is able to apply for a green card, and for naturalization after 2 years.
2. If Harry took up US citizenship, one assumes the normal requirements would apply, which would include forswearing allegiance to Granny and disclaiming his titles (he's stopped using HRH, but "Duke of Sussex" would have to go as well.)
3. Sure. You don't imagine that the teenage children of Presidents get access to all the state secrets, do you?
I imagine The Duke of Sussex is present in the US on an A-1 (diplomatic) visa. I think it unlikely he would consider acquiring permanent residency or citizenship.
And whilst The Duchess seems like a nice enough person, a moderately talented actor, and a well-known international celebrity, I think the US can find better-qualified candidates for the presidency. (And then I look at the current incumbent, and I laugh.)
Anyway, would Harry have to get US citizenship? Would he have to forswear any allegiance to his grandma? Would a foreign national--a royal--be allowed to live and work in the White House, given state secrets and security and such?
The First Spouse isn't actually a constitutional position. There are no requirements for it, and there doesn't actually have to be one. As such, there are no impediments to a foreigner being married to the President, beyond the challenge of getting "person married to a foreigner" elected by the US public.
Would that being married to a foreigner, albeit one who has become an American citizen, had kept the current incumbent from getting elected.
The Duchess seems like a nice enough person, a moderately talented actor
Actress.
I know Miss Amanda will find it distressing, but few if any in the theatrical (legitimate, film or television) world use the term actress any more, I’m afraid.
I loathe the Royals. Who gives a stuff about them. All I want the one Royal of any consequence to do is sit down, shut up and sign here. Speculation about royal sprogs in politics shits me up the wall.
I know Miss Amanda will find it distressing, but few if any in the theatrical (legitimate, film or television) world use the term actress any more, I’m afraid.
They would in Miss Amanda's presence if they knew what was good for them.
You don't imagine that the teenage children of Presidents get access to all the state secrets, do you?
I wonder.
The Duchess seems like a nice enough person, a moderately talented actor
Actress.
Very few publications use the term "actress" these days, and a good thing, too; it's sexist and out of date. They're all actors now, and still no better than they should be.
I can understand why someone might not get the point about the problems with terms like "actress".
I am at a loss however to understand why someone would go out of their way to "correct" 'actor' to 'actress' however, as if they're somehow offended by the lack of sexism.
To put it another way, objecting to the term 'actress' is easy to explain and for others to understand. Objecting to its non-use, not so much.
Of course they are happy to be called Actress when accepting awards.
There is also a possibly apocryphal story of a male actor who had affairs with female actors . A newspaper called them actors and he took a paper to court because he claimed it made him sound gay, when he wasn’t
I suspect it was not said seriously, just a weak joke.
Oh, stop it! Stop it! The Lord created us male and female, and there's no reason under the sun why we can't use gender-specific words to refer to persons of different genders who happen to pursue the same profession. There's nothing sexist about it.
Yeah, I think you'll find that whatever us old folk say about it, the youngsters have different ideas. Unless we want to be written off as even more irrelevant and embarrassing, we have to get hip to the lingo, daddy-o.
I expect people who want to retain such terms as 'actress' would object to Ms and insist on knowing someone's marital status - but only if they're female.
Amanda if you're serious, you could start a thread on this say "Gender-specific terms of address; are they outdated?" or similar. But not in a Hell thread about T.
Yeah, I'm not going to belabor the point or continue the tangent. Let's bring it back on topic by saying that regardless of who else runs for the office, I'd rather vote for the Person in the Moon than see the fartletter-in-chief reelected.
If, by any fluke of fate, MM were to make it to the Whi[t]e House, where would that leave Harry Mountbatten-Windsor?
The usual job of the presidential spouse is to look fetchingly ornamental at public events, behave suavely while hosting state dinners, redecorate the White House, and plug some non-controversial public issue (e.g childhood nutrition, literacy, don't do [ certain kinds of ] drugs, etc.) This seems like a job Harry Mountbatten-Windsor has been training for his whole life.
I'm not an apologist for royalty by any means (or ex-royalty), but I think it's only fair to point out that it's unlikely Harry was particularly worried about hosting state dinners, or looking 'fetchingly ornamental' while he was fighting for his country in Afghanistan. Mind you, that might've seemed like wee buns compared to the angst of the last few years!
I have a feeling someone as handsome as Harry is going to look "fetchingly ornamental" for many years to come. But then Miss Amanda is partial to redheads.
I loathe the Royals. Who gives a stuff about them. All I want the one Royal of any consequence to do is sit down, shut up and sign here. Speculation about royal sprogs in politics shits me up the wall.
Who gives a stuff about them[?] You, apparently, because few get as exercised - pro or con - about them as do you. If they are as irrelevant as you claim, you wouldn't get half as twisted in a knot as you do.
I can't find it just now, but I think I saw a news report (here in Ukland) about one of The Mad God-King's *Christian* supporters - Jerry Falwell - having to resign after publishing (!) photos of himself with his trousers unzipped (!), alongside the pregnant wife of someone on his (Falwell's) staff...(!)
[projectile vomit emoji]
ISTM that The Mad God-King's supporters are just as bonkers as He Himself is. Please God, November will see the whole boiling of them consigned to the Dustbin of History.
Good, but what on earth does (quoting from the Beeb article) "The college has a strict code of conduct for how students must behave at the university, including barring premarital sex and the consumption of media either on or off campus" mean?
Christian colleges with very conservative ideas about social behavior ban all sorts of things on and/or off campus. Not sure what's common these days. But back in the 70s/80s, Oral Roberts University had later curfews for male students, with the idea that the male students would be more apt to be (safely) on campus if the female students were there.
:eyeroll:
So it's possible some schools might try to control/ban social media usage by students.
Christian colleges with very conservative ideas about social behavior ban all sorts of things on and/or off campus. Not sure what's common these days. But back in the 70s/80s, Oral Roberts University had later curfews for male students, with the idea that the male students would be more apt to be (safely) on campus if the female students were there.
:eyeroll:
So it's possible some schools might try to control/ban social media usage by students.
It's also possible -- barely -- that the idea behind this was that the young gentlemen would be escorting the young ladies back to the entry-ways to their residences, and hence would need extra time to get back to their own domiciles.
I take the point about colleges trying to control students' use of social media, but how on earth could this be done?
Presumably, the students are threatened with Hellfire and Damnation, but can the colleges afford the large staff of Thought Police they would surely need to check what the students are up to?
Maybe. IIRC, the version I said was publicly said, but I don't remember whether by Oral Roberts or whom. I think OR was a guest on Phil Donahue's TV show, and he may have mentioned it. IIRC, the difference between curfews was substantial, so unless the young gentlemen were required to *crawl* back to their own dorms after safely escorting their dates, that version doesn't hold up. However, the reason you gave may well have been used.
Christian colleges with very conservative ideas about social behavior ban all sorts of things on and/or off campus. Not sure what's common these days.
It's very common for Christian colleges to micromanage their students. It should be noted that Fallwell's no drinking, no kissing, no gays, early curfew college is hilariously misnamed Liberty University.
I take the point about colleges trying to control students' use of social media, but how on earth could this be done?
Presumably, the students are threatened with Hellfire and Damnation, but can the colleges afford the large staff of Thought Police they would surely need to check what the students are up to?
Are the students using an Internet connection provided by the college?
Good, but what on earth does (quoting from the Beeb article) "The college has a strict code of conduct for how students must behave at the university, including barring premarital sex and the consumption of media either on or off campus" mean?
I think it’s a mistake, and that it should read “The college has a strict code of conduct for how students must behave at the university, including barring premarital sex and the consumption of alcohol either on or off campus.” That’s what’s been reported in other, um, media outlets.
Christian colleges with very conservative ideas about social behavior ban all sorts of things on and/or off campus.
Although I know a certain young man who attended a local college that calls itself Christian, and worked as a campus police officer to earn himself some money. The stories he tells about student behavior . . . oy veh!!
I can understand why someone might not get the point about the problems with terms like "actress".
I am at a loss however to understand why someone would go out of their way to "correct" 'actor' to 'actress' however, as if they're somehow offended by the lack of sexism.
To put it another way, objecting to the term 'actress' is easy to explain and for others to understand. Objecting to its non-use, not so much.
I loathe the Royals. Who gives a stuff about them. All I want the one Royal of any consequence to do is sit down, shut up and sign here. Speculation about royal sprogs in politics shits me up the wall.
Who gives a stuff about them[?] You, apparently, because few get as exercised - pro or con - about them as do you. If they are as irrelevant as you claim, you wouldn't get half as twisted in a knot as you do.
Of course they are irrelevant!!! This speculation only plays into the hands of the evil and twisted Australian Republican Movement. We have a perfectly good head of state. We get the Poms to pay for her, and they want to look a gifthorse in the mouth! Fools! Ideologues! Do you know how much cheaper it is to have an almost powerless GG who not many people can name? They want to change that? Madness.
That's why I get excited about the Royals. I want to have a fight with the Aussie Republicans.
I have a feeling someone as handsome as Harry is going to look "fetchingly ornamental" for many years to come. But then Miss Amanda is partial to redheads.
His Dad was pretty gorgeous too - or so thought Lady D.
His Dad was pretty gorgeous too - or so thought Lady D.
On that I can't agree. I think he improved with age, but as a boy, youth and young adult I always thought he was most unattractive. Of course, I was not on the short list for spouse.
And Charles, too, IIRC, considering he wanted to be with Camilla. At Charles & Diana's wedding, Prince Philip was the only member of the upper royals who looked happy. The queen looked somewhere between dour and angry--though Shipmate Uncle Pete (:votive:), who held her in high regard, said something to the effect that it was just the royal way she carried herself.
However, there's a whole line of resulting people.
Back to The Mad God-King - @Pigwidgeon could almost be referring to him...in which case, she perhaps had a lucky escape...
Nah. Nothing about the Great Orange One's real bank accounts looks attractive. Why do you think he's been so desperate to keep his tax returns under wraps? I mean, it's not like his base would be put off by tax-dodging. They might, however, be put off by discovering that he's not the billionaire he claims to be.
Comments
Quite, but with MM being American, not even British Upper Class, and brownish, there were no holds barred.
They'd tinker at the margins of liberalism, while rejecting substantial economic change. In other words, conservative.
Sounds like MM would be an ideal VP pick for Biden then!
I didn’t know Mickey Mouse was running
The usual job of the presidential spouse is to look fetchingly ornamental at public events, behave suavely while hosting state dinners, redecorate the White House, and plug some non-controversial public issue (e.g childhood nutrition, literacy, don't do [ certain kinds of ] drugs, etc.) This seems like a job Harry Mountbatten-Windsor has been training for his whole life.
Hmmm. With that scenario, our very first First Gentleman would be a British royal. The Founders would be spinning in their graves...or trash a pub, as they did once in real life the night before a big vote!
Bill Clinton would be jealous. At his best, he would've been a great First Gentleman, and have all kinds of fun. Then again, probably best forgotten, given that he's *rumored* in the media to have a connection with a certain Hollywood mogul's #MeToo scandal. I really, really hope he has no connection.
Anyway, would Harry have to get US citizenship? Would he have to forswear any allegiance to his grandma? Would a foreign national--a royal--be allowed to live and work in the White House, given state secrets and security and such?
These are the days of our lives...
{Cue music from the DOTL soap opera.}
The First Spouse isn't actually a constitutional position. There are no requirements for it, and there doesn't actually have to be one. As such, there are no impediments to a foreigner being married to the President, beyond the challenge of getting "person married to a foreigner" elected by the US public.
ETA: In general, being married to a foreigner makes getting security clearances "interesting". But being elected President seems to trump that - I can't imagine the big T qualifying for a security clearance on his own merits.
So in this hypothetical, I think:
1. No, Harry wouldn't have to become American, although as the spouse of a US citizen he is able to apply for a green card, and for naturalization after 2 years.
2. If Harry took up US citizenship, one assumes the normal requirements would apply, which would include forswearing allegiance to Granny and disclaiming his titles (he's stopped using HRH, but "Duke of Sussex" would have to go as well.)
3. Sure. You don't imagine that the teenage children of Presidents get access to all the state secrets, do you?
I imagine The Duke of Sussex is present in the US on an A-1 (diplomatic) visa. I think it unlikely he would consider acquiring permanent residency or citizenship.
And whilst The Duchess seems like a nice enough person, a moderately talented actor, and a well-known international celebrity, I think the US can find better-qualified candidates for the presidency. (And then I look at the current incumbent, and I laugh.)
I wonder.
Actress.
I know Miss Amanda will find it distressing, but few if any in the theatrical (legitimate, film or television) world use the term actress any more, I’m afraid.
They would in Miss Amanda's presence if they knew what was good for them.
I am at a loss however to understand why someone would go out of their way to "correct" 'actor' to 'actress' however, as if they're somehow offended by the lack of sexism.
To put it another way, objecting to the term 'actress' is easy to explain and for others to understand. Objecting to its non-use, not so much.
There is also a possibly apocryphal story of a male actor who had affairs with female actors . A newspaper called them actors and he took a paper to court because he claimed it made him sound gay, when he wasn’t
Oh, stop it! Stop it! The Lord created us male and female, and there's no reason under the sun why we can't use gender-specific words to refer to persons of different genders who happen to pursue the same profession. There's nothing sexist about it.
Amanda if you're serious, you could start a thread on this say "Gender-specific terms of address; are they outdated?" or similar. But not in a Hell thread about T.
I'm not an apologist for royalty by any means (or ex-royalty), but I think it's only fair to point out that it's unlikely Harry was particularly worried about hosting state dinners, or looking 'fetchingly ornamental' while he was fighting for his country in Afghanistan. Mind you, that might've seemed like wee buns compared to the angst of the last few years!
Who gives a stuff about them[?] You, apparently, because few get as exercised - pro or con - about them as do you. If they are as irrelevant as you claim, you wouldn't get half as twisted in a knot as you do.
[projectile vomit emoji]
ISTM that The Mad God-King's supporters are just as bonkers as He Himself is. Please God, November will see the whole boiling of them consigned to the Dustbin of History.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53703294
Good, but what on earth does (quoting from the Beeb article) "The college has a strict code of conduct for how students must behave at the university, including barring premarital sex and the consumption of media either on or off campus" mean?
:eyeroll:
So it's possible some schools might try to control/ban social media usage by students.
It's also possible -- barely -- that the idea behind this was that the young gentlemen would be escorting the young ladies back to the entry-ways to their residences, and hence would need extra time to get back to their own domiciles.
I take the point about colleges trying to control students' use of social media, but how on earth could this be done?
Presumably, the students are threatened with Hellfire and Damnation, but can the colleges afford the large staff of Thought Police they would surely need to check what the students are up to?
It's very common for Christian colleges to micromanage their students. It should be noted that Fallwell's no drinking, no kissing, no gays, early curfew college is hilariously misnamed Liberty University.
Are the students using an Internet connection provided by the college?
Its in character, surely.
Of course they are irrelevant!!! This speculation only plays into the hands of the evil and twisted Australian Republican Movement. We have a perfectly good head of state. We get the Poms to pay for her, and they want to look a gifthorse in the mouth! Fools! Ideologues! Do you know how much cheaper it is to have an almost powerless GG who not many people can name? They want to change that? Madness.
That's why I get excited about the Royals. I want to have a fight with the Aussie Republicans.
His Dad was pretty gorgeous too - or so thought Lady D.
Back to The Mad God-King - @Pigwidgeon could almost be referring to him...in which case, she perhaps had a lucky escape...
However, there's a whole line of resulting people.
Nah. Nothing about the Great Orange One's real bank accounts looks attractive. Why do you think he's been so desperate to keep his tax returns under wraps? I mean, it's not like his base would be put off by tax-dodging. They might, however, be put off by discovering that he's not the billionaire he claims to be.