One analogy I heard, was that Catholic was the previous centuries’ communist…
Communists were reviled in the 1900’s in the USA and the west as being tools of Russia (and China) more than believers in the rights of the workers to own the means of production etc etc.To a good extent, rightly so, as the local party line seemed to parrot how great the Socialist Paradise was depsite its glaring shortcomings…
Similarly, Catholics after Henry VIII for several centuries were seen as fifth columnists in England, promoting the interests of Spain and France, whoever tended to “host” the pope; also aggravated by regular wars with those papist countries.
Private gossip in upper-class circles said she had worked in high-end brothels in Shanghai and had supposedly learned secret techniques that compensated for his [supposed] sexual inadequencies.
Once you get past the idea that they are reptilian aliens who eat human babies, the rest comes pretty easy.
Get over it, is my advice. That was an extension of the conversation that was occurring.
Somebody is bound to be offended by nearly anything online- worry about the fact helps nobody.
Instead, focusing your anger on something actually useful and relevant might be a more effective way to be the change you seek.
Thanks for the advice, but, erm, fuck that. Casually racist comments wouldn’t be tolerated, so I don’t see why this should be either. It will never stop if it’s allowed to be ignored.
In terms of ‘public orgies’ it is not unreasonable to assume that a gay one would be slightly more offensive to more people. Politically incorrect or not that’s just a fact. Part of equality means accepting being made fun of like everybody else…
I agree that, having wait so long to ascend the British throne, Charles is very unlikely to immediately forsake it.
For an interesting fictional look at what the reign of King Charles III might hold, check out the British political thriller To Play The King (but be sure to watch House of Cards beforehand; it sets the stage and is quite good in its own right). The monarch, played by Michael Kitchen (better known for Foyle’s War) is never named but is clearly patterned after the current Prince of Wales.
IIRC various Popes had excommunicated Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I, and actively tried to subvert Elizabeth’s reign, incl. sanctioning assassination. There were, for many years after the break with Rome, what seemed to be very good reasons for keeping Catholics from the line of succession.
I have seen this complaint in this thread at least twice now. What is the problem with the king, or king to be, talking about his feelings on architecture? Out of all the things he could be sticking his nose in, it seems like this is a non issue.
That was the issue with Edward. The monarch is the head of the CoE and divorce is a big-ass no-no with CoE. At least it was back then. Edward could not be King and head of the CoE if he was married to a divorced woman.
It’s not just architecture, and it’s not just his feelings. He uses his not-inconsiderable influence to push people in the directions he personally approves of, or push them away from positions he doesn’t approve of. The monarchy is not a soapbox for personal opinions.
Anyway, the greater sin is his pushing of homeopathy.
It has to work, otherwise Charles could not take the throne. In fact, that is a partial starting point of the mess that was Charles’ marriage to Diana stems from. Charles and Camilla met and dated when they were young, but the royals thought she was unsuitable and she was Catholic to boot. Charles got sent overseas without expressing his feelings (or maybe still unsure of them) and Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Charles was reportedly fairly cut up about the whole thing, and some years later they resumed a relationship, in spite of their relative marital situations.
Camilla was confined into the CoE sometime prior to her marriage to Charles, as had to happen.