Apparently we’re a clickbait site like Buzzfeed now.
Moderating: @Elendil_s_Heir, please no bare links to random articles. Explain why you think people might want to read this, the preview box doesn’t.
You can do this if the preview box explains itself and I think in Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share, but it is really frowned upon in Politics & Elections & Great Debates.
@Dewey_Finn, flagging it would be an appropriate reply or asking why the link is useful to the thread. The snark only makes things worse. No warning of course to either of you.
I just don’t get it. This is a thread about the King and his reign. That is an article about the recent royal visit to Washington. I provided the headline, which tells you exactly what the article is about. Must I, every time, add, “I think you’ll find this interesting because XYZ”?
A short summary would be nice so we can decide if we want to delve further. That’s what most other people do commonly.
I would have liked a brief summary of the content. Like, "he broke protocol by doing X, and that’s interesting because .. " or " and that signifies… "
In general, i prefer not to have to click links to follow a thread.
In MPSIMS, often the headline is the content, e.g., “massive earthquake in Turkey, 7 known to be dead”. In p&e, that’s less often true.
Yeah, a cut and paste of the first paragraph is usually enough.
I have never heard of that being an SDMB expectation in all my time here. I was given to understand, some months ago, that a headline would suffice. Perhaps, in a year or so, I’ll be asked to write a brief essay, as well. Yeesh.
For the benefit of the teeming millions…
(There were only 2 examples in the article, so it stretches the meaning of “several”. I shall alert the internet that a headline is misleading!)
Much more important than breaking protocol re the “kiss on the lips” and bowing at the 9/11 memorial was the way that Charles subtly but unmistakably rebuked Trump over (lack of) support for Ukraine and NATO and abuse of executive power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/world/europe/king-charles-visit-trump-messages.html
As a teen-ager, living in Australia, I completely missed the joke in most of Monty Python. I thought it was surreal. Years later someone explained that it was satirical. I didn’t have enough common ground to understand the humour, and enough common culture to understand the point.
Anyway, as a mid-pacific Australian, I didn’t hear anything insulting in that speech. When visiting the USA, Charles is required to advance the UK position, and I didn’t see any conflict between that and the official UK government position. Expressed politely, diplomatically, and with good humour.
His Majesty has been pooped on by a seagull.
You come at the king, you best not miss.
I laughed for real.
I expect that’s the most expensive suit that seagull will ever ruin.
Apparently Chuck has something in common with the late Rodney Dangerfield – he gets no respect, at least not from these guys! (That one looks very satisfied with himself, as if he was the one who did it.)
He should feel glad he’s not Cyndi Lauper.
“Gulls Just Wanna Have Fun”?
Interesting to see who made the cut, and who didn’t.
BBC: Harry visits King with Meghan and children for first time in four years
It’s a good thing, given that Harry (and William) don’t know how long their father will be alive.
CNN: Buckingham Palace is a must-see for tourists. So why don’t the royals - including the King - want to live there?